Staging Oriental Delegations at the Habsburg Imperial Court in Prague (1600-1610)

1. NARRATING A MISSION: THE FIRST PERSIAN EMBASSY TO RUDOLPH II’S COURT (1599-1601)

Prague, an imperial residential city after 1583 (Fig. 1), experienced the occasional adventi ceremonial of foreign embassies that visited the imperial court of Rudolph II of Habsburg. Two unusual and certainly unexpected embassies which attempted to change international policy towards the Islamic world arrived in Prague in 1600 and 1604, to coordinate military actions against the Ottomans by the emperor and other Christian rulers in Europe. Although the missions were unsuccessful, as they occurred just at the time of a change in the military situation that led to a peace treaty with the Ottomans in 1606, they offered Central European citizens an encounter with foreign religious culture in addition to the usual festive procession of an ambassador’s welcome.

In September 1600, a courier reached Prague that an official embassy from the Persian Shah ‘Abbas I was approaching Prague from northern Germany. The embassy, under the ‘joint’²⁰ The embassy was affected by constant quarrelling between the two over the leadership and actual right to the status of the main ambassador. The authors of the first studies on political and cultural contacts between Persia and Prague were Karel Stloukal and Otto Kurz: Stloukal, 1928; Kurz, 1966. leadership of Hussein Ali Beg and Anthony Shirley, (Fig. 2) arrived in Prague on 10 October of the same year and continued via southern Germany and Mantua to Rome, and then via southern France to Madrid, Spain. Another Persian embassy with the same purpose reached Prague in the summer of 1604, led by Mehti Kuli Beg and Zeynal Khan Shamlou (discussed below) (Figs. 3 and 4).

The third-and the last-Persian embassy arrived do Prahy at the end of April 1609.²¹ Cavalli, 1904, pp. 267-278, no. 495 (May 4) and no. 507 (May 18). This third embassy, aiming to draw the Habsburgs to reopen the war with the Ottomans, was deemed to fail, as at the same time an Ottoman embassy was on its way to Prague to finalise the details of the Zsitvatorok peace treaty, concluded in 1606. This was echoed in the unusual prolongation of their reception by Rudoph II. We will not discuss this embassy in detail. These adventi were a unique opportunity for the court and citizens of Prague to see exotic visitors from the Orient, representatives of a distant culture and religion. Extant descriptions and numerous mentions confirm the extensive staging involved in the ceremony, which included colourful festive processions with carriages and horses, banners, music, and noise, and the unusual dress of the visitors.²² Le Strange, 1926, p. 265. Local residents gathered in large crowds. By the nature of the visitors’ origin and the high ceremonial honours being bestowed on them, these adventi must have carried the notion of a spectacle far beyond the norm.

A number of official and unofficial sources see these embassies as exclusive diplomatic events at the highest level, which was reflected in the welcomes.²³ Here we list only the most important sources for the two Persian embassies; specific sources are listed in due places. Klarwill, 1926, pp. 230-231, no. 217 (first embassy), p. 247, no. 237 (second embassy); Babinger, 1932, pp. 3-30, no. 922; Duodo, 1897, pp. 425-431, no. 922; Kristen, 1944. Most of the sources, however, report on political matters and pay less attention to the actual events and their staging, and even less to the description of the places the processions passed. In the case of the first embassy, however, we are blessed with a narrative travelogue, the Relationes by Uluġ Beg (also as Uruch Beg Bayat, 1560-1605),²⁴ Juan de Persia, 1604. alias Juan de PersiaJuan de Persia (1604) Relationes de Don Juan de Persia. Valladolid: Juan de Bostillo. Biblioteca Nacional de España, R/2730. Available at: http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000078066&page=1 [accessed 10 Juni 2020]., the delegation secretary and later Catholic convert (printed in 1604 in Valladolid, with the imprimatur of the Jesuit college there).²⁵ Mitchell, 2007; Castro Royo, 2018; Gil Fernández, 2003. His Relationes, presumably originally a translation of his travel diary from Persian, are now regarded as having been compiled partly from contemporary Western cosmographic sources interpolated in the text. We can confirm this as we identified sections of the text taken over from these sources in the part describing the journey through Central Europe.²⁶ In the part with travels through Germany excerpts from Botero (1595 lib. I, p. 36r-37v). Compare with Le Strange, 1926, pp. 272-273. We plead for further thorough and critical re-examination of the authenticity of the information in this source, especially the geographic, social, and historical elements;²⁷ Castro Royo, 2018; Mitchell, 2007. Mineralogical observations were probably taken from Georgius Agricola. Another source to consider is Petrus Appianus Cosmographicus. for our focus (i.e., the use of architecture, staging, and the reception of festive welcomes), Juan’s descriptions of places in Germany and Bohemia are relevant. They often describe details of welcome that his editor, Trinitarian friar Alonso Rémon, could hardly have learned from his sources. We were also able to corroborate Juan’s statements with other contemporary reports.²⁸ Klarwill, 1926; Duodo, 1897, pp. 425-431, no. 922.

The first Persian embassy (1599-1601) that arrived in Prague travelled a difficult journey from Isfahan via the Caspian Sea, through Moscow, then by sea from Archangelsk in northern Russia, around Scandinavia,²⁹ Le Strange, 1926, chapter 4 and 5, pp. 263-271 and 272-278. Babinger (1932, p. 11) gives 25-30 members of the Persian embassy, among them Anthony Shirley, Husain Ali Beg, 4 secretaries/scribes (one of them Ali Beg‘s nephew Ali Quli Beg, first [?] secretary Uluġ Beg, later Don Juan of Persia), and 15 servants (sources on the welcome are listed on p. 18); 40-50 persons are given in Mitchell (2007). Klarwill (1926, pp. 230-231) gives 30 persons, but states that 16 members had already died on the way. to disembark finally in Emden, Frisia, Germany. They visited numerous towns along the way, among them Samara, Nizhnyj Novgorod, and Moscow.³⁰ Le Strange, 1926. For the Russian part of the journey, see also Juan de Persia (1898). Juan of Persia’s report of the journey rarely refers to the architecture of the towns they visited beyond some generic observations, often borrowed from the editor’s sources.³¹ This seems to be the case of the description of churches in Moscow or those of German towns “known for neatness and beauty of their houses and streets,” both remarks clearly added by Rémon. Le Strange, 1926, p. 272. Sometimes he mentions residences,³² Eg. description of Moscow residence, Le Strange, 1926, pp. 251-257. fortifications, and fortresses or makes a specific remark on architecture that impressed him or added value to their mission.³³ “The roofs of all the houses here are covered with lead (sic [maybe slate?]), a matter which at a distance gives them a very pleasing appearance, for in the daytime when the sun is shining, they all seem as though roofed with silver,” Le Strange, 1926, p. 265, or Charles bridge, p. 277. Although the architectural setting and impression is not Juan’s interest, his account of welcomes, receptions, and residences, compared with other sources and the architecture itself give a relatively good image of where the welcome took place and how it was staged.

The first town in Germany where they were received was Emden (Fig. 5), which Juan describes as an important river port two days away from the sea.³⁴ Le Strange, 1926, p. 266. From here, an envoy was dispatched to Prague to inform the emperor of the embassy’s arrival. The embassy was welcomed by the town burgrave and lodged in a large hostel (Gasthause) “with a hundred beds.” This may have been the former Franciscan cloister, turned into a hospital during the Reformation, which was centrally located, next to the town hall, and close to the inner port. The next morning the burgrave conducted them to Prince Eno III in his castle in the southwest corner of the town, a self-contained and fortified unit with a courtyard; they gave him Persian cloth and a headdress, but no letter of credence. They returned the following day to dine with the prince, when a 6-hour feast with abundant drinking was organised in their honour, and a day later they went to see the treasury and armoury. This visit was typical of the kind of honour offered to them along the way. Juan was not impressed by Eno’s treasures. They were clearly not up to his expectations, which was no wonder; from what we know about the situation conflict was on-going between the town and its lord that must have left the prince’s resources exhausted.³⁵ Le Strange, 1926, p. 266. The actual entry to the residence was also hardly representative. Five years earlier, during an uprising, the Emden burghers had pulled down the fortifications of the residence, which was then moved to Aurich. The embassy did not know that they visited the town on the brink of another conflict between the prince and the town, which started the same year and ended two years later with the heavy defeat of the prince’s forces. Juan apparently does not distinguish between the town and its lord, in his (or his editor’s) view, a town was always attached to the residence, but, in this case, they were conflicting entities.

The embassy must have passed through the centre of town repeatedly on the way to the castle. From their lodging behind the town hall, they went over a bridge and through a gate (the Starhuis), along a large street (Grotte Strate), then turned right along the canal facing the fortified mint building and went across another bridge to the front of the palace. These public spaces and landmarks, signs of economic and commercial prowess, were part of the symbolic topography of the town, which at the time was fighting for its independence from the lord. Reflecting this struggle, the impressive town hall just next to their lodgings must have been remarkable, recently built based on the Antwerp model and already a landmark at the time,³⁶ Brandt et al., 1994, pp. 271-336. but Juan does not even mention it.³⁷ He never makes any reference to town halls in his report, and apparently did not know the concept (nor apparently did his editor). He notes, however, a huge granary (which may have been the town hall, only he did not understand its civic purpose), but Juan does not give information on its location: “a storage-house for wheat, so huge, with so many separate granaries, and these so full of corn, that we were assured there was a supply here to last ninety years”. We were not able to locate this “granary” nor on Hohenberg’s or Merian’s view of the town or castle see Le Strange, 1926, p. 267. On the importance of town halls, e.g., Schwerhoff, 2009, pp. 215-228. From the greeting by the burgrave and the lodging it is clear that the town was involved in the welcome and entertainment of the embassy, which is confirmed by a mention in the town chronicle that the embassy was “gar höfflich und herrlich tractiert,”³⁸ Babinger, 1932, p. 8. respectfully and magnificently received.³⁹ It may, in fact, have played an even more active role. The emperor later reproached Prince Eno III for letting the embassy on imperial soil without consulting him beforehand - Babinger, 1932, p. 8 - but given the relationship between the town and the prince, he may not have even been aware of it at first.

On 14 September, the embassy arrived at “the great city of Kassel” (Fig. 6), the capital of the landgraviate of Hesse. Juan notices what made Kassel different from other towns along their way; it was a recently rebuilt Renaissance town with a new residence and strong fortification, broad streets and grand open spaces (Fig. 7).⁴⁰ Le Strange, 1926, pp. 268-270. For the residence and fortification works, Heppe, 1995, pp. 28-41. The landgrave’s palace, with Renaissance fortifications, stood on an exposed site on a hill above the Fulda River.⁴¹ Heppe, 1995, pp. 35, pl. 12 (vedutta by Wilhelm Dillich). The embassy had to pass through the city from the north or east and almost certainly entered the fortified palace complex through the gate from the north, as can be seen on the engraving by Willhelm Dillich.⁴² W. Dillich, Ritterspiele, sheet 17, repr. in Heppe, 1995, p. 36, pl. 23. The palace complex comprised an imposing high Renaissance three-story building with four wings, an inner arcade and courtyard, and a riding enclosure (Rennbahn) for festivities, tournaments, and exercise.⁴³ Heppe, 1995, pp. 28-41. The most representative and sumptuously decorated halls and chambers were located on the first and second floors.⁴⁴ Heppe, 1995, pp. 103-113.

Landgrave Moritz the Learned sent his chamberlain with three coaches to bring the embassy to the palace and met them according to their importance and rank. He seems to have grasped the meaning of the embassy and followed the protocol for royal or imperial visitors by lodging them in the castle in decorated rooms, sending a high court official to meet them, and organising entertainment for them. The overall setting of the adventus, as well as the programme for the following days, was appropriately chosen. For ten days they were entertained by the landgrave; he showed them parts of his palace, organised a special viewing of the alabaster chamber,⁴⁵ On the alabaster hall, Heppe, 1995, pp. 83-89. the cabinet of precious stones with coral walls,⁴⁶ This cannot be located in the castle, and maybe a mistake in translation, as one representative hall and part of the residence was called Rottenstein (Rodenstein), red stone, cf. Heppe, 1995, p. 111. the armoury, the stables, and demonstrated the new cannons for the town defence. At the ceremonial dinner table in the dining hall,⁴⁷ Dining halls were located on the 1st floor, Heppe, 1995, p. 27, pl. 5. he presented them with fruit, knives, and “salt,” all made of marzipan, which they mistook for their real material; this way the visitors amused the whole party. The landgrave even organised a night spectacle with a jousting tournament performed by his son and other noble sons with torches, using the castle’s Renaissance facade with windows and gables as a backdrop.⁴⁸ Copper engraving of Ritterspiele by W. Dillich, 1598, shows the courtyard being used for a similar event. Heppe, 1995, p. 30. pl. 8. Whilst showing a treasury was part of the highest honour paid to an embassy, chivalric jousting was not part of the protocol. Moreover, it seems an anachronistic form of entertainment around 1600: performed at night by young boys, students of the knight’s academy founded by Moritz, this show can be understood as a symbolic reference to the legacy of the landgrave’s court, wrapped in an unusual and spectacular form of entertainment.

Treating his Oriental visitors well was a complex matter in which architecture played a role not only as a setting, but also as a tool. The landgrave’s dignity was demonstrated - among other things ‒ by the beauty and rarity of the treasure chambers he showed the visitors: the alabaster chamber and precious stone room, unusually decorated rooms that earned him awe and praise.⁴⁹ Roosen, 1980, p. 468: “The great variety of elements‒music, rich clothing, high personages, rare and expensive gifts‒all were put together to show the importance of the occasion: an excellent example of situational communication.” Showing rare, “wondrous,” spaces marked by unusual forms, remarkable objects and animals added value to the usual practise of a ruler’s presentation of power through the diplomatic protocol. Similar to the highly regulated ceremonial appearances, touring and viewing the residence and its curiosities, the treasury, armoury, and stables required adequate praise from the visitors.

The attention given to the residential city of Kassel contrasts with Juan’s disinterest in the towns the embassy passed on the way. For example, the description of the passage from Saxony to Prague is so erroneous that the embassy’s route has been unclear until now; fortunately, we found local Bohemian sources, one chronicle entry and payment confirmation, to clarify it. It led from Naumburg, Erfurt, and Leipzig over the Saxon-Czech border to the royal towns of Louny and Slaný, both Utraquist-Lutheranised towns north of Prague. No welcome is mentioned for either Louny or Slaný. In Louny, the embassy only stopped for lunch (10 July 1600), but still left a memory in a local source (Fig. 8). The town chronicle by Pavel Mikšovic notes not only the presence of the Persian embassy in the town, and, surprisingly, also its political purpose. What the chronicler found most interesting to note was the length and hardship of their journey, something he must have heard from them.⁵⁰ Státní oblastní archiv v Litoměřicích, Státní okresní archiv Louny, inv. no. 2671, sign. I Ch 1, Kronika Pavla Mikšovice 1490-1632 (Chronicle by Pavel Mikšovic 1490-1632), fol. 207r. In the afternoon of the same day the embassy continued to Slaný (Fig. 9),⁵¹ Another account Ritter Johann von Bodenhausen gives a note that 7. 10. 1600 was the embasssy in Slauen ‒ Slaný ‒ Schlan, 4 meilen von Prag. Babinger, 1932, pp. 17-18. about 30 km southeast of Louny, where it spent three full days waiting for the Prague welcome be prepared, but Juan gives no account of it.⁵² Le Strange, 1926, p. 272. The account is completely unreliable here. Juan probably did not remember this part or the editors could not join it with anything they knew. In fact, he gives the names of places in the south Austrian Tirol instead of Bohemia, possibly because no geography sources were available to the editor Ramón. Babinger (1932, pp. 17-18) suggests (correctly) the road via Most, Slaný, and Louny. They missed Ústí (Aussig, wrongly Le Strange, 1926, p. 271, no mention is made of them in local sources. The error may have been added by the editor to make some sense of the passage. Entering the town from the Louny vorstadt, the embassy had to pass through the main square with the town hall to be lodged in the Modletický house⁵³ The account states 27 kopa of Meissen gross. spent on their accommodation and food, SOkA Kladno, Archiv města Slaný, 23. 11. 1600, Kvitance (confirmation) by Burgrave Jiří Vojna to Vilém Modletický for 17 kopa Meissen groschen that he got for food given to the Persian embassy. This amount was beyond the 10 kopa he had already received from the chief magistrate, Zbynek Halas. situated on the main street facing the Prague gate and the front facade of the church of St. Gothard.

2. THE PERSIAN EMBASSY AT THE IMPERIAL COURT: ADVENTUS AND RECEPTION

On 10 October 1600 the embassy continued to Prague and was met at the summer palace in Stella outside the western fortifications of Prague.⁵⁴ Le Strange, 1926, pp. 275-278; Klarwill, 1926, pp. 230-231, no. 217 of 12. 10. 1600, gives 11. 10. 1600 instead of 10. 10. 1600. Venetian ambassador P. Duodo gives 20. 10. 1600, Duodo, 1897, pp. 425-431, no. 922. He also gives the place of welcome and intimate details on the negotiation of the embassy at the court. As Juan writes, there they were met by 300 riders and two captains, the Grand Chamberlain [Hofmeister] of the Bohemian Chancellery Vojtěch Popel of Lobkowicz, and lord chancellor Schönberg. The procession was additionally composed of dapifers and servants of the court as well as ambassadors of the various kings and princes accredited at the court in fifteen to thirty coaches, each drawn by six horses.⁵⁵ Klarwill, 1926, pp. 230-231, no. 217; Duodo, 1897, pp. 425-431, no. 922. Juan exaggerates the number of people present at the entry to 10 000 persons, but underestimates the number of coaches (gives 6, other sources 15 or 30). Le Strange, 1926, pp. 275-278.

The meeting place, hunting lodge [lustschloss] Stella, was an interesting choice of place, well equipped for welcoming people of status. It was used as an entry point again in the case of the second Persian embassy in 1604Juan de Persia (1604) Relationes de Don Juan de Persia. Valladolid: Juan de Bostillo. Biblioteca Nacional de España, R/2730. Available at: http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000078066&page=1 [accessed 10 Juni 2020]., for which there is much less source information. Standing on a plateau above Prague in the imperial game preserve, the building was a bizzarre Renaissance-Mannerist structure designed by Archduke Ferdinand, the uncle of Rudolph II, on the plan of a 6-pointed star (Fig. 10). The white, undecorated facade and strange geometric design of the plan contrasted with a richly decorated stuccoed interior (although the embassy could not understand its Antique-inspired mythological iconography as it required a reasonable knowledge of alchemy),⁵⁶ Recently on Stella, Dobalová et al., 2014. which made it an impressive, rare building. As the record for the second embassy of Zeynal Khan Shamlu shows, Stella was more often used as a stop for diplomatic missions and a short-term accommodation before an entry.⁵⁷ Kristen, 1944, p. 295. Other reasons for the choice of Stella as a meeting point (which required turning off the main road) may have included the fact that the palace and preserve were imperial possessions and manifested the emperor’s noble interest in hunting. Stella was certainly a notable monument that formed a suitable backdrop for the start of the procession, but one further practical reason may have been even more important-the large passageway in front of the palace was a suitable space for ordering the festive procession, while the guests could relax inside (Fig. 11). It was certainly designed to impress visitors, as both an architectural curiosity and monument representing the host, his ancestors, and their noble interests such as alchemy and hunting.

From Stella the train descended to the city’s Strahovská gate, where the it entered the Lesser Town of Prague, a passage lined with guards and onlookers. What Juan did not distinguish clearly in his report was the fact that the welcome was a joint event of the court and the city. Per analogiam with the entry of the Turkish embassy in 1609 (see below), we can assume that the welcome was staged by the military representatives of all three Prague towns (Old Town, New Town and Lesser Town), court officials and servants, and completed by the foreign embassies residing at the court. As noted by the Venetian ambassador, Emperor Rudolph II watched the spectacle from the windows of his palace, most likely from the summer rooms on the south side of the palace. These were quite far away, so he could only get an overall impression, not details.⁵⁸ Duodo, 1897, pp. 425-431, no. 922. The importance of the Persian embassy outweighed that of other foreign representatives at the imperial court. In line with the diplomatic protocol of the time, the formal welcome of the Persians by the highest officials of the court and a parade of the guards, was much more pompous and rigid than the entry of the French embassy three months earlier, which had been met by only the ambassadors of other kingdoms present in Prague.⁵⁹ Fučíková, Janáček and Chadraba, 1989, p. 43 (P. Bergeron). Original manuscript today in Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, no. 5562. In terms of the protocol and impression on the viewers, the Persian visit had a different impact.

The embassy entered the city through Strahov gate and continued on Úvoz street (Fig. 12), with the Strahov Premonstratian cloister and Hradchin with the imperial castle and palaces on the left and Petřín hill on the right (Fig. 13). They had a great view of the four Prague towns from above, as well as the cathedral, river, and stone bridge. Within the large built-up area they saw the medieval fortifications around each of the Prague towns, the gates on the bridge, tall Gothic churches and towers, and large open squares as well as large empty plots of land in the New Town. It may not have been as impressive as the marvelous contemporary rebuilding of Isfahan by Abbas I-with a royal palace, three mosques, and a 60-arch bridge-but compared to what the embassy had seen so far, Prague was an impressive city. Juan mentioned his frequent visits to the city and praised it as well-built, making note of the magnificent bridge.⁶⁰ Le Strange, 1926, p. 277.

The embassy was lodged in Lesser Town, a prominent part of Prague downhill from the castle, in the guesthouse At the Wild Man (U divého muže), located on the northern Lesser Town square where Thunovská Street crossed[better below] led up to castle. Unlike other cases, the visitors were not lodged inside the castle residence, as there was no capacity for adequate accommodation. This house was representative enough to be impressive; Juan calls it a palace. In spite of being called tavern [Würtshaus] in the Kvartierbuch,⁶¹ Klarwill, 1926, pp. 230-231, no. 217. To the guesthouse U divého muže (Zum Wildeman) - Quartierbuch, Národní knihovna České republiky, manuscript no. XXIII D 57 (1608), p. 273a, no. 137. Owner Carl Przehorzowsky; Zum Wildeman; [Nota:] Würtshaus (tavern): Nota. Dieweil der jetzige besitzer gar ein geringe würtschaft zu treiben vermag, so mag im fal der not hofgesind eingelosiert werden. The price of the house in 1581 was 3300 Schok Meißner Groschen. After 1594 Anna Kechlová, married as Přehořovská from Kvasejovice held the building. She had the house reconstructed and bought a back house situated on Zámecká (castle, today Thunovska) street from Ludvík Hytter, the locksmith, for 540 Schok Meißner Groschen. In 1623 Veronika Přehořovská married Častolarová from Dlouhá ves, sold the house to Baltasar Marradas for 600 Schok Meißner Groschen. Typescript. [SÚRPMO]. Vilímková, Milada, Pavlík, Miloslav, Stavebně-historický průzkum, Čp. 1/III, Praha, Malá Strana, 1968, pp. 2-6. by the time the Persian embassy arrived in Prague it was a luxury accommodation, a representative house owned by the ennobled Přehořovský family of Kvasejovice. It had two facades, one on the square, and a second on Sněmovní street, the street leading to the Castle. The back facade is visible on the sheet with the Passau troops‘ invasion of 1611 (Fig. 14). The Kvartierbuch mentions it as prominent lodging for the court, for which the location was ideal - from the house there was direct access to the castle (either via Thunovská street and stairs or by coach via Úvoz Street).⁶² With the second facade it faced the street-turning-staircase leading up to the gate of the Castle. This was symbolic rather than useful, as this way was steep and not suitable for coaches. Coaches had to go through Úvoz and enter the Castle from the Western front. The embassy’s lodging was on the corner of the square through which any Castle official would pass on his way to work. The square, a representative urban space comfortably located on the passage to the castle, featured a Renaissance town hall, a Gothic parish church, and houses of prominent burgher and noble families as well as commercial stalls and symbols of urban justice - pillory and gallows. Just opposite the house stood one of the ancient Bohemian rotunda-shaped churches and there was an Augustinian monastery nearby. This was a colourful mixture of various buildings, styles, and structures, a thriving lively place at the interface between commoners and nobles, who started to establish themselves around the square⁶³ Doktorová, 2018, pp. 231-232. around this time. At the end of their first week in Prague, the delegation was finally invited to an official audience at the castle (Fig. 15). Unlike Isfahan or Kassel, Prague Castle was not a unified architectural complex, but a cluster of structures from different times of which only a minor part actually belonged to the ruler.⁶⁴ Among others, the castle was the seat of the archbishop, two chapters, and the estates’ chancellery. Morávek and Wirth, 1947, pp. 8-15, esp. 12-13. Various buildings had adjacent shanties of servants, making it a pastiche of structures, plots, and styles. It looked more like a fortified town on the hill above the city, consisting of newly built representative structures on the west, the half-built cathedral, a chapter house, a Benedictine monastery, the old royal palace, two independent noble residences, functional (kitchens, etc.) and fortification structures, and several private houses for servants and guards. When the embassy arrived, the western part was in the midst of a substantial rebuilding phase in an attempt to give it a more unified look like a Renaissance residence. New palace structures had just been built, creating a separate imperial precinct on the west. By the time the embassy arrived, Rudolph II had built his summer rooms in the southern residential wing, then being decorated. By 1595, a long two-storey wing, the Middle Corridor (Gangbau), which housed his famous collections,⁶⁵ Morávek and Wirth, 1947, pp. 12-13. and northern halls (New, and Spanish Hall) already closed the quadrangle on the east and north, but the decoration of the interior was still underway. The structure of the future Matthias’ gate may have just been started to make representative access to the New Palace.

Coaches took the embassy the official way to the New Palace through the future court of honour and gate. This might not have been quite finished, and there was probably no interior decoration.⁶⁶ Morávek and Wirth (1947, p. 13) know of architectural perspective and mythological paintings by Vredeman de Vries painted before 1606. Juan praises the residence as a “sumptuous and beautiful building,” which suggests that the main structure was already finished. We presume, however, that temporary solutions were found to decorate the rooms appropriately, although we have no sources about the refurbishment of the rooms, nor does Juan mention anything about it. Parallels with Vienna suggest that the walls were probably covered with tapestries,⁶⁷ Karner, 2009, p. 62. but to what extent the decoration was finished remains an open question. Possible deficiencies in furnishings were surely made up for by other festive arrangements involving the military guards and official welcome. Colourful and elaborately dressed imperial guards, harcieri (Juan notes their colourful uniforms), met the embassy at the gate. Then the embassy climbed the new staircase (on the western wing of the complex) at the entrance to the imperial rooms. Per analogiam with the audience of the French embassy,⁶⁸ Fučíková, Janáček and Chadraba, 1989, pp. 50-51. the meeting took place in rooms on the first floor of the New Palace summer rooms. The embassy entered the official rooms, consisting of two antechambers and the main audience hall, where the emperor awaited them.⁶⁹ This is remarkably close to the situation in Vienna Karner (2009, pp. 59-64, esp. 63) (ante-chambers), with the exception of Viennese Rittersaal that has no match in Prague. Juan and other sources⁷⁰ Duodo, 1897, pp. 425-431, no. 922; Le Strange, 1926, p. 276. noted the inconsistencies in the diplomatic protocol of welcome-Rudolph was standing, not sitting, did not offer his hand to be kissed, and came forward towards the ambassador to take the letter of the shah, somewhat diminishing the solemnity of the event.

Later, the ambassadors visited Prague Castle several times by special invitation and were conducted on a typical tour-de-honour intended for guests of the highest rank. We can follow them more precisely through the castle; they visited the armoury, the cabinet of curiosities (i.e., Rudolph II’s famous kunstkammer), the imperial wardrobe, the stables, and the lions’ enclosure. The embassy was impressed, according to Juan, and praised the “wondrous things,” objects and rare animals, they had seen, probably of particular interest to them because, like European nobility, horses and weapons interested elite Persians (Shah Abbas I had a famous breed of fast horses). Similarly, the visit to the imperial wardrobe, beyond being part of a customary symbolic display, was also welcomed because both sides were interested in precious textiles. In the light of what is known about Rudolph II’s unwillingness to show his collections, however, the fact that the Persians visited the kunstkammer stands out as rather unusual - at least in the context of “normal” diplomatic protocol - for Rudolph II let in very few visitors. Showing the kunstkammer in itself amounted to the greatest honour, although this may have not been clear to the Persian ambassadors. The embassy stayed in Prague for three months, until 5 February 1601,⁷¹ The success of the embassy was undermined by discord between the Persians and Shirley and considerable suspicion on the part of both the emperor and other ambassadors at the court. The political outcome was thus unsure from the arrival and the negotiation was full of distrust, although at the end the embassy achieved some promise of commitment from Rudolph II. Babinger, 1932, part I., pp. 19-20; cf. Duodo, 1897, pp. 425-431, nos. 922, 925, 927, 930, 934, 937, 939, 940, 952. and left with considerable money and valuable gifts, silver dishes and tankards.⁷² Not everything was managed in time. Rudolf commissioned gold chains for them, only too late (paid 4. 2. 1601), Haupt, 2008, p. 259, no. 1617. On April 7, 1601, a Venetian envoy from Rome reported that the Persian embassy had arrived in that city.⁷³ The embassy was accompanied by the chamberlain to Beroun and continued via Rokycany, Plzeň, Kladruby, and Munich, Augsburg. They then stayed in Munich at the court of Wilhelm of Wittelsbach, where they were shown the treasury, pavillion, and a fountain with figures. Juan de Persia, 1604, p. 330; Le Strange, 1926, p. 280.

3. CREATING A MEMORY OF AN EMBASSY: THE SECOND PERSIAN EMBASSY (1604-1605)

Lacking a narrative description like that of Juan of PersiaJuan de Persia (1604) Relationes de Don Juan de Persia. Valladolid: Juan de Bostillo. Biblioteca Nacional de España, R/2730. Available at: http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000078066&page=1 [accessed 10 Juni 2020]., the second Persian embassy to Prague in 1604-1605, led by Zeynal Khan Shamlou and Mehti Kuli Beg, is less known. Their Adventus was probably similar to the first, involving a festive procession with carriages and guards from the Stella summer palace. It probably followed the same route along Úvoz down to Minor Town Square. Where the Persians lodged is unknown, although a substantial pool of sources, including visual ones, gives good insight into their year-long stay in Prague. Thanks to the embassy’s longer stay, the embassy left behind diverse historical sources and a stronger mark on Prague social life.

This embassy was organised in a more complicated way that the previous one; it consisted of two ambassadors who met in Prague, one of whom had travelled in secret via Venice and the other through Moscow.⁷⁴ The date is given in the diaries of Kryštof Popel of Lobkowicz and Adam The younger of Wallenstein as 1604, 15. 12. Tůmová, 2013; Koldinská and Mat’a, 1997. Important reports on their activities come the from papal nuntius, Johann Stephan Ferreri, Fugger Newsletters, and the Venetian ambassador Francesco Soranzo, in addition to records of court expenditures, private diaries, and image prints.⁷⁵ Kristen, 1944, pp. 225 no. 72, ‒ footnote 72‒, 288-289, 292-293, 295-296; no. 91, date 19 July 1604; mentions the first embassy as well; Klarwill, 1926, p. 247, no. 237. Ferreri records the adventus of Zeynal Khan Shamlu, who was accommodated for one day in the Stella Summer Palace awaiting his official entry to Prague on 15 July 1604.⁷⁶ Kristen, 1944, p. 295, no. 91. On the arrival also a note in the private diary of Kryštof Popel the younger of Lobkowicz, see Tůmová, Svět Kryštofa Popela mladšího z Lobkowicz (edition part): p. 235, 1604, 14. 7. and 15. 7. He and his five companions (including an Italian interpreter) were welcomed “in the most honourable way” by “whole court, imperial guards of the harcieri of His Majesty, and cavalry and infantry of the city.”⁷⁷ Kristen, 1944, p. 295, no. 91: “…fu incontrato da tutta la corte et guardia delli arcieri di S.M.tà et da molta cavalleria et infanteria della città”. The corps of each Prague town was led separately by a commander and all were sumptuously dressed, wearing gold chains, and with plumes of feathers on their helmets, accompanied by fanfares of trumpets, clarions and drums.⁷⁸ From a copy of the letter by Duke of Lucerne to the Duke of Sabaudia, in Kristen (1944, p. 295-296, no. 91): “Praga ha sei(!) città et in ogniuna vi he un capo per la fanteria et uno per quelli da cavallo: tutti comparvero a trope il meglio vestiti che poterero: la loro pompa fu penachi, catene di oro, et quantità di trombete et clerini bonissimi accompagniati da timpani” (footnote 91c. 3, orig. in Archivo di Stato di Torino, Lettere ministri, Austria, mazzo 7). The person who came to meet him was the high chancellor of the Bohemian Kingdom, Zdeněk Popel of Lobkowicz, who rode in the procession on his right side, and Adam of Wallenstein,⁷⁹ Kristen, 1944, p. 296, no. 91. Kristen gives him as imperial councillor and chamberlain in footnote 5. Later, he is recorded as Highest Equerry (Stahlmeister) in the imperial Hofstaaten. Unlike the other dignitaries, he was attached to the imperial chancellery, not the Bohemian one. who followed them. They rode horses, although other means of transport were also sent to meet the embassy, and, according to Ferrerri,⁸⁰ Kristen, 1944, p. 295, no. 91. the ambassador, was to choose which he preferred. He chose to ride and was followed by his retinue in carriages. The overall number of riders Ferreri estimates as less than one thousand(!), added to several infantrymen and such large crowds that had gathered on the streets that it was hard to pass.⁸¹ Kristen, 1944, p. 296, no. 91: “…vi fu tanto concorso di popolo che a pena si poteva passer per le strade.” Adam the Younger of Wallenstein gives several hundred riders, Koldinská and Mat’a, 1997, p. 87, 1604, 15. 7. The procession apparently went the same way as the first embassy, from Stella Palace to a house (apparently in the Lesser Town of Prague again), where the small group of six was accommodated. When the second member of the embassy, Mahdi Kuli Beg, arrived in Prague on 15 December 1604, he was welcomed with the same pomp and official presence.⁸² Koldinská and Mat’a, 1997, p. 95, 1604, 15. 12 ; Tůmová, 2013, 1604, 15. 12.

As early as 20 July 1604, Rudolph II’s official reception of the Persian ambassador took place. Adam the Younger of Wallenstein brought the ambassador to the castle in an official imperial carriage.⁸³ Koldinská and Mat’a, 1997, p. 87, 1604, 20. 7. The date is confirmed in Klarwill, 1926, p. 247, no. 237. The gifts presented to the emperor on this occasion (if not earlier) included a beautiful silk carpet, velvet, other fabrics, brocade, silk, and arms, listed by the Venetian ambassador Soranzo in his report a day earlier.⁸⁴ July 19, 1604 Francesco Soranzo, Venetian ambassador to Prague to Doge Vincenzo Grimani lists gifts to Rudolph II.: V 297 (no. 91, footnote 10). “… bel tapeto di seto…”, refers according to Otto Kurz to Viennese Hunting carpet, cf. Kurz, 1966, pp. 464-465 and 483, footnotes 23 a 24; Voltelini, 1898, p. XLIX, regest no. 16487.

Ferreri mentions a great interest in the ambassador from the members of the court and praises his great qualities, military experience, entertaining and pleasant manners, prudence, and honourable dress.⁸⁵ Kristen, 1944, p. 296, no. 91. He must have been an enchanting personality, as, in addition to the nuntius’s description, two private sources, the diaries of the Czech noblemen Adam the Younger of Wallenstein and Kryštof Popel the Younger of Lobkowicz, confirmhis popularity with Rudolph II’s courtiers. They tell of the ambassador taking part in court entertainments such as dinners, ⁸⁶ Diaries of Adam the Younger of Wallenstein and Kryštof Popel the Younger of Lobkowicz recorded no less than six dinners, where the ambassador was present:
1604, 25. 7. (at the lord of Fürstenberg), Koldinská and Mat’a, 1997, p. 87.
1604, 8. 8. (at Adam the Younger of Wallenstein, he taught him fencing), Koldinská and Mat’a, 1997, p. 88, confirmed in Tůmová, 2013, p. 246. 1604, 8. 8. Neděle persyan v p[ana] Ad[ama] z Wald[ssteyna]. 1604, 19. 8. (dined with Venetian ambassador), Tůmová, 2013, p. 246.
1604, 27. 9. (at Vratislav of Donín), Tůmová, 2013, p. 252.
1604, 5. 10. (at Vratislav of Donín), Tůmová, 2013, p. 254.
1604, 7. 10. (I had lunch at the highest chancellor´s Zdeněk Vojtěch Popel z Lobkowicz, we were many, Lord Persian, Lord Vchynský, the provost, biberunt egregie et triumphauerunt). Tůmová, 2013, p. 254. dancing,⁸⁷ Dancing: 1604, 10. 10 Koldinská and Mat’a, 1997, p. 91. (I dined with the Persian, (there were) count Fridrich z Fürstenberka, all highest officials and many others, as well as Frawenzummer, we danced, the Persian too, until midnight.) Tůmová, 2013, p. 254. shooting, and hunting,⁸⁸ Hunting a bear, both Persians present, Koldinská and Mat’a, 1997, p. 102, 1605, 2. 2. and even alcohol drinking.⁸⁹ Tůmová, 2013, p. 254, 1604, 7. 10. Tracing him around Prague, he frequently visited the palaces of nobles, socialised with courtiers, and went riding to the near Prague for entertainment. On 8 February 1604, the ambassador even held his own banquet for the court.⁹⁰ Klarwill, 1926, p. 247, no. 237.

Visual sources also confirm the Persian ambassadors’ remarkable integration into the Prague court life. A print by Aegidius Sadeler shows the Persian ambassadors as a distinct group surrounded by nobles amidst crowds of the court elite in the Wladislaw Hall, a famous late Gothic hall in Prague Castle that functioned as the court’s promenade at this time (Fig. 16), where luxurious goods were sold.⁹¹ Limouze, 1990, pp. 170, 235-236, 468; Deluga, 2008; Volrábová and Kubíková, 2011, pp. 54-55, cat. no. I/367. The print was dedicated to Kryštof Popel the Younger of Lobkowicz, a member of the emperor’s secret council, who recorded meeting them in his diary and was apparently in repeated contact with them.

This hall was designed by the architect Benedikt Ried as part of the reconstruction of Prague Castle during the reign of Wladislaw of Jagiello from 1490 to 1502, and thanks to its dimensions (62 meters long, 16 meters wide, and 13 meters high) and notable rounded ribbed vault, it is one of the most remarkable Central European Late Gothic spaces. Tournaments, banquets, and Land Diet assemblies took place here and during the reign of Rudolph II the space served as a meeting place for courtiers, nobles, and noble visitors to Prague and as an area where court artists and craftsmen offered their products for sale. Sadeler’s image depicts the interior of the hall, seen from west to east, with a careful representation of the architecture and its details. Stalls offering prints, goldsmiths’ products, clocks, books, and other goods are shown at all the inter-window pillars and along the eastern wall of the hall. In the interior of the hall a large company of promenading and talking people is shown (absolutely dominated by males; only one woman is shown!). On the left is a group of Persians clad in long cloaks with turbans on their heads and at the head of the group, both Persian ambassadors can be identified individually ‒ Mehti Kuli Beg on the left and Zeynal Khan Shamlou on the right. During their stay in Prague they were actively involved in the social life of court society, which ‒ as the French visitors to Prague reported ‒ met only in the Vladislav Hall.⁹² In 1597, Jacques Esprinchard, French traveler and humanist, wrote down “There is a beautiful and large hall in the Castle where everyone can walk freely …” and six years later, French diplomat Pierre Bergeron noted that there was a spacious hall in the Castle that was freely accessible and where “Around 9 am and 10 am … there are many estates in that hall and there are countless shoppers.” Fučíková, Janáček and Chadraba, 1989, p. 32 and pp. 82-83. See also Fučíková, 2018.

At the bottom of the sheet there is a long Latin text of dedication, stating that this sheet is dedicated to a member of the secret council at the court of Emperor Rudolph II, the Supreme Chamberlain of the Kingdom of Bohemia Christopher (Kryštof) Popel of Lobkowicz,⁹³ In practice, this meant that Lobkovic was the commissioner of the work and, of course, paid for it to be created. a man who was experienced at the highest levels of politics at the imperial court as well as the Bohemian Land offices. His diary also reveals that he had repeated contact with Persian diplomats in 1604.⁹⁴ Tůmová, 2013: records of 1604. It might be that the lonely figure of a fat man standing in front of ambassadors and looking at the viewer represents Lobkowicz himself.⁹⁵ Fučíková, 2018, p. 60. We know that he was also one of the most important patrons of the arts and met leading artists at the court: Bartholomew Spranger and Hans von Aachen, who created several of their works directly for him. As early as 1602, Aegidius Sadeler made a graphic sheet with his representative portrait to highlight his role as imperial chamberlain.⁹⁶ Kubíková, 2016. Thus, it is no wonder that Lobkovic also turned to Sadeler for a print with a view of the Vladislav Hall.

We know that the Persian delegation left Prague after 15 months, in October 1605,⁹⁷ 20. October 1605, National Archive, Archive Stará manipulace, Sign. G/4/3, fol. 1-3. This is a reminder of the President and the councillors of the Bohemian Chamberconcerning the return of the Persian embassy of forty people through Litoměřice, where they are to embark and continue on their way to the sea; the relevant regulation also went to Litoměřice. but Sadeler’s view of the Vladislav Hall dates to 1607. So the question is why are the members of the Persian embassy captured in this image? It may have been lengthy work on the production of a printing plate, which was undoubtedly demanding in terms of precision to capture the many details on a large sheet (57 × 61.5 cm) or that the Persian delegation’s visit was an extraordinary event and thus the memory was worth keeping captured in an image. There seems to be yet another reason for showing the presence of the Persians among the court at leisure in the hall. Christopher Popel of Lobkowitz, to whom the print is dedicated, is identified here with the new title of secret imperial councillor, which he received in August 1604.⁹⁸ Tůmová, Svět Kryštofa Popela mladšího z Lobkowicz (text part), pp. 64-65 (edition part), p. 244. We know that he was proud of this promotion. When he closed his private diary at the end of 1604 he even signed it with his full name and all his titles:

The commission of this print, then, should be read as a kind of celebration of Lobkowicz’s promotion. At the same time, it is reminiscent of architectural prints with eulogia, known, for example, from sheets with depictions of monuments in Rome ‒ Aegidius Sadeler not only knew of these, but he made an edition of one series.¹⁰⁰ Aegidius Sadeler, Vestigi della antichità di Roma, Tivoli, Pozzvolo et altri luochi. 1606. This is evidenced in particular by formulations of the dedication inscription, which celebrates the antiquity, beauty, and monumentality of the building. It says, among other things, “… the hall, after the manner of the basilica, which adds beauty and utility to the Emperor’s house [was built] by King Wladislaw’s generosity around 1493, is attached to the new royal residence of Prague… there are doors to the wings that lead once both to the Senate and the Land Records Archive, elsewhere to the [highest] court and the royal bedrooms.” Thus, the splendid architecture of the hall celebrates the imperial house, and at the same time is connected with spaces that are related to Lobkovic’s offices and functions ‒ the Senate, the archive, the judicial court, and the ruler’s rooms. Lobkovic thus had the Vladislav Hall and its surroundings represented as a world of which he is a part, and the Persian delegation as well. The Persian mission and the architecture of the Vladislav Hall became part of the spectacular and original representation of Christopher Popel of Lobkowicz.

Given the interest that the Persian delegations aroused in Prague, it is not surprising that the three Persian ambassadors from the delegations that arrived in Prague between 1600 and 1604 were portrayed by court artists. A large number of high-quality graphic portraits were created in the environment of the Prague court of Rudolph II, depicting the monarch himself, aristocrats and courtiers from his surroundings, as well as other people. The greatest contribution to the creation of this ensemble came from a member of the family of the Dutch art family, Aegidius Sadeler (1570-1629), working in the imperial service as a court “kupferstecher” (copper engraver). It is unclear who initiated the creation of Sadeler’s print portraits of the ambassadors, whose inscriptions identify individual personalities and their status. The prints bear Sadeler’s signature, as well as his own title: S. Cae. Mtis. Sculptor, with the addition ad vivum delineavit [depicted from reality], which, although it appears on the works of many other artists, here it clearly serves as evidence of Sadeler directly portraying the sitters, whom he also personally knew. The half-figures of the three ambassadors are set in oval medallions and all are portrayed in festive Persian garments, with turbaned heads and extraordinarily carefully crafted face portraits emphasizing not only dignity but also the wittiness and sharpness of their characters. Sadeler first portrayed Persian Ambassador Hussein Ali Bey in 1601¹⁰¹ Aegidius Sadeler, Hussein Ali Bey, copper engraving on paper, Latin text around: CVCHEIN OLLIBEAG INCLYTVS DOMINVS PERSA SOCIVS LEGATIONIS MAGNI SOPHI REGIS PERSARUM. Signatura: S. Cae. M.tis Sculptor Aegidius Sadeler ad vivum delineavit Pragae 1601, inscription in Persian. (along with an English member of the mission, Robert Shirley), and in 1604-1605 also the Persian ambassadors Zeynal Khan Shamlou¹⁰² Aegidius Sadeler, Zeynal Khan Shamlou, copper engraving on paper, Latin text around: SYNAL CHAEN SERENISSIMVS PRINCEPS IN PERSIA MAGNI SOPHI REGIS PERSARVM AD AVGVSTVM CAESAREM RVDOLPHVM II. LEGATUS. Signatura: S. Caes. M.tis Sculptor Aegidius Sadeler ad vivum delineavit Pragae, inscription in Persian. Museum of Islamic Art, MS.724.2011. and Mehti Kuli Beg (Figs. 2, 3, 4).¹⁰³ Aegidius Sadeler, Mechti Kuli Beg, copper engraving on paper, Latin text around: MECHTI KVLI BEG ENNVG OGLY ILLVSTRIS D. IN PERSIA LEGATUS REGIS PERSAR: AD IMP. ROMAN. Signatura: S. Caes. M.tis Sculptor Aegidius Sadeler ad vivum delineavit Cum. Privil S. Cae. Mtis Pragae 1605, inscription in Persian.

It is noteworthy that the inscriptions on all three portraits are not only in Latin but also in Persian, which shows that they were intended not only for European but also for Persian customers. Supporting evidence comes from the papal nuncio in Prague, Giovanni Ferreri himself, who wrote respectfully of Zeynal Khan Shamlou that he was a bright character, courageous, nobly-behaved, and well-dressed man.¹⁰⁴ Kristen, 1944, p. 296. In fine lo trovano sia huomo di gran qualittà et potenza, che soministra al su rè in queste gurre da sei in sette milla combattenti, è di buona conversatione et honorati costumi pronto et prudente nelle risposte, fa brindes et li riceve, et quando beve per salute di S. Mtá., sta in piedi et si leva di capo il turbante.“ Indeed, Ferreri even noted the ambassador’s understanding of the fine arts when commenting on his interest in the image of Jesus Christ that Zeynal Khan Shamlou saw in the nuncio’s house.¹⁰⁵ Kristen, 1944, p. 338.

Sadeler’s three portraits, however, are not the only pictorial works created on the occasion of visits of the Persian delegations to the Prague court of Rudolph II. In the years 1604 and 1605, two more portrait miniatures were created portraying Zeynal Khan Shamlou (Fig. 17) and Mehti Kuli Beg (Fig. 18). Their author is the little-known Essaye le Gillon.¹⁰⁶ We know that he was mentioned in 1590 in Prague as a court painter with a salary of 9 fl 20 kr. See Staudinger, M. Documenta Rudolphina: http://documenta.rudolphina.org/Regesten/A1590-07-17-00922.xml (27. 1. 2020). He was the author of illustrations of the mushroom atlas written by his uncle Carolus Clusius (Codex Clusius, today University of Leiden). Ubrizsy Savoia (2007, pp. 275-284), where the author mentions the painter’s correspondence with the councillor of Emperor Rudolph II. Johannes Barvitius. About the author also see Dvořáková, 2013, on Gillon p. 157. Both works were kept in private collections and were sold to Christie’s Museum of Islamic Art in Doha, Qatar, in 2010. The miniatures are made on parchment with very delicate handwriting to capture many details. Both men are portrayed similarly to Sadeler’s prints, but the figure of Zeynal Khan Shamlou is reversed sideways. They coincide with Sadeler in some details (Mehti Kuli Beg’s turban, Zeynal Khan Shamlou’s mantle), but since there are several differences, and each work has its own memorial inscription; they are undeniably autonomous portraits, independent of Sadeler’s. A miniature with a portrait of Zeynal Khan Shamlou carries an inscription in Persian:

The portrait of Mehti Kuli Beg is signed and also inscribed: “Esay le Gillon Pittore in Corte Cesarea, mi fece in Praga L‘anno della nostra Saluta 1605 Li 2 di Luglio” (in the upper margin, Esay le Gillon, painter at the imperial court, did this in Prague in the year of our redemption, the 2nd of July) and with an inscription in Persian in the sitter’s hand:

According to the inscriptions written by both Persian ambassadors, it is clear that the portraits were created with their active participation and for the use of Persians themselves. This is confirmed by the differences in the imperial entitulature (on Zeynal Khan Shamlu’s portrait the emperor is mentioned among generic Christian kings, which would have been offensive had he or the court been the commissioner) and the distance in time (at least five months between starting and finishing them). The time difference also reveals a bit about the practice-perhaps a design was given the inscription first as approval and then the portrait was finished. They document the Persians’ genuine interest in European portrait-making skills, if not also in the European naturalistic visual régime characteristic of these miniature portraits.

Finally, in addition to written records and pictorial documents, the friendship albums ‒ Stammbuchs ‒ testify to the general interest in both Persian embassies in Central Europe. Franz Babinger has noted that the head of the first Persian embassy Hussein Ali Beg signed in the album to the Deacon of Naumburg, Augustin Lippach, and described himself as the servant of Shah Abbas the Great.¹⁰⁹ Babinger, 1932, pp. 15-16. The Stammbuch of Regensburg cleric Christoph Donauer (1564-1611),¹¹⁰ Flood, 2011, pp. 450-452. kept 1599-1608, collected entries, portraits, signatures, glued-in prints, emblems, coats of arms and poems of 466 people on its 884 pages.¹¹¹ Donauer’s friendship album is today in a private collection, but its digitalised copy is accessible via Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum. Digitale Bibliothek, https://daten.digitale-sammlungen.de/~db/0008/bsb00081512/images/index.html?seite=00005&l=de [Accessed 20 December 2021]. Both Persian embassies attracted Donauer’s attention: fol. 598-601 have glued-in portraits of Hussein Ali Beg, Antonio Shirley and Zeynal Khan by Aegidius Sadeler. The portraits are not accompanied by any notes, so it is likely that Donauer did not meet the envoys personally. But it suggests that awareness of Persian visitors far exceeded the circle of the imperial court and Prague aristocratic palaces, where exotic visitors moved.

4. IMAGINING THE EMBASSY: THE OTTOMAN EMBASSY AT THE IMPERIAL COURT (1609)

Following the peace of Zsitvatorok between the Habsburgs and the Ottomans in 1606, the Turkish delegation-almost simultaneously as the third legacy of the Persians-reached Prague on 12 October 1609 to complete the negotiation of contentious points of the peace treaty and confirm its effects. The embassy was led by Kadizade Ali Pascha [Qāḍī-zāde ʿAlī Paša]¹¹² Kadizade Ali pasa (Kadızade Ali Paşa), or ʿAlī, Paşa, Qāḍī-zāde, d. 1616, 1605-1609 (a again later) he headed the Buda Pashalik. Among other things, he was present at the conclusion of the peace treaty in Zsitvatorok in 1606, therefore he visited Vienna and Prague in 1609 when negotiating unclear points of the peace treaty, Bayerle, 1980. Effendi, normally a title of an educated man, in this case probably a lawyer, is recorded in Buda, too. and with him was Habel Effendi from Buda. This time the Turkish embassy came from Buda to Vienna, and then via Znojmo and Jihlava to Bohemia, continued via Čáslav and Český Brod towards Prague. The Turkish embassy was met by Adam the Younger of Wallenstein in Jihlava on 7 October 1609. He accompanied them all the way to Prague with breaks for overnight stays in Německý (Havlíčkův Brod), Čáslav, Kolín, and Český Brod.¹¹³ Wallenstein recorded the events in his diary: Koldinská and Mat’a, 1997, pp. 166-168. Here the embassy spent the night, but Wallenstein went on to Prague at night-apparently to announce their arrival-and in the morning returned to Brod. All of them spent 11 October in Brod and arrived in Prague the following day. Wallenstein noted in his diary: (in Prague) “… there was a glorious entry” on 12 October 1609.

The embassy had a different vantage point when reaching Prague: it entered the New Town of Prague from the east through the Horská gate and today’s Hybernská street, passed through the Prašná gate and Celetná street to the Old Town Square, the center of the Old Town of Prague. From there it joined the Coronation Road, and crossed the Prague (today’s Charles) Bridge to the Lesser Town, where it was accommodated. Although the topographical passage was determined by a different entry point to the city, it was arranged to follow the most representative way through the centre of Prague and passed the most important urban buildings (both gates, the Old Town townhall, the Tyne Church). It followed the practice of accommodating the embassy in the Lesser Town, close to the castle, similarly to the Persian embassies earlier.

The embassy’s arrival in Prague and the procession that accompanied them on their way through the city is captured in a small but very detailed graphic print¹¹⁴ Praha, Národní muzeum, H 2-59 257/a-b-c, etching, 8.9 × 20.1 cm, Fučíková et al., 1997, p. 248, no. cat. III/141, VP a Jha, Samuel Suchuduller, Arrival of the Turkish delegation in Prague 1609. Andresen, 1874, p. IV, pp. 234-236; Thieme and Becker, 1838, XXXII, p. 272. by Samuel Suchuduller (Fig. 19).¹¹⁵ There is little information about the artist himself. Samuel Suchuduler created a medal for the enthroning of Petr Wok von Rosenberg in 1592. Vok supported Suchuduler’s studies in Prague with the imperial goldsmith in 1590-1592, after which Suchuduler worked for him in České Budějovice and then settled in Prague. Kleisner and Holečková, 2006, p. 59. A little-known visual source, it is a long, narrow printed strip, the form respecting the aesthetic tradition of 16th-century visual friezes depicting triumphal entries, weddings, funerals, coronation and other processions. There is some disagreement in the literature on the degree of accuracy in these depictions,¹¹⁶ Whilst Kunze (1974, p. 65) argues that despite their “visual extravangance” due to secular rulers imitating medieval religious procession in the late 16th century they gradually become more accurate depictions than earlier Habsburg festive fantasies, Hennings (2013, p. 152) sees them as generic and schematised representations, not objective one. but the opening inscription and names and titles in the upper register of this one give the impression of considerable historical accuracy. Today, it is preserved in a separate piece, but it-probably-was originally made to accompany the printed report on the embassy’s stay at the imperial court by Wilhelm Peter Zimmermann in Augsburg in 1610Zimmermann, W. P. (1610) Contrafettischer Abriß und Fürbildung/ Welcher massen/ des groß Türggen/ an die Römisch Kayserliche Mayestot/ abgeordnete Botschafft/ so in dem abgelauffnen 1609. Jar/ den 12. Monats Tag Octobris/ zu Praag ankommen … und stattlich empfangen worden: Neben kurtzer Beschreibung dessen/ so sich in ihrem anwesen/ biß zu dero abreisen/ mit ihme unnd den seinen verlauffen/ und begeben habe / Zu Augspurg/ durch Wilhelm Peter Zimmerman/ in Kupffer/ und dise Ordnung gebracht. Im Jar 1610. Augsburg: Christoff Mang..¹¹⁷ Zimmermann, 1610, with Mang as publisher. Next to descriptive narrative series of images in which Zimmermann focused on publishing various events of noble festivities, among them the Wedding of Wolfgang Wilhelm, Prince of the Palatine, and the Coronation of Matthias I of Habsburg, Zimmermann also published the report of the Passau soldiers invasion to Prague in 1611, see Horníčková and Šroněk (2016), where he again collaborated with Suchuduler as the print designer. Suchuduller’s depiction of the welcome parade has the form of a narrow strip of paper, on the left side of which there is a text written in capitals indicating the arrival of the Turkish embassy and its entourage:

The strip gives no information on architecture or the route, which we recreated above based on the point of entry to Prague and Prague topography. It gives only the composition of the train, led by the high representatives of the court (surprisingly, mostly from the Bohemian chancellery rather than the imperial one), joined by the military corps of the Prague towns and the Bohemian lands.¹¹⁸ Old Town: Kryštof Albrecht of Roupov, New Town: Vilém of Landštejn, Lesser Town: Ctibor Tiburcius Žďárský of Žďár. Roubík, 1933. The strip must be read from right to left-this makes it possible to follow the arrangement of the procession and especially its hierarchy.

The procession was led by a group of musicians, horse riders with drums and brass instruments, accompanied by musketeers on foot. They were followed by three separate groups of riders representing the three royal cities of Prague, in the order of Old Town, New Town and Lesser Town of Prague. Each of these groups was led by a hetman and one rider marked as “cornet” carrying the standard with the city’s coat-of-arms.¹¹⁹ These parts of the procession are marked with the following inscriptions: 2. “Hauptmon der allstat Prag”, 2. “Cornnet der altstat.”, 2. “Hauptmon der neustat Prag”“, 2. “Cornet der neustadt.”, 3. “Hauptmon der Kleinseiden Prag.” a 3. “Cornet der Kleinseid.” Behind the riders representing the Old Town of Prague is a group of walking men in long coats, some carrying axes. They are undoubtedly the representatives of the butchers’ guild, who, according to the Prague custom of medieval origin, participated in ceremonial processions and were the first among the individual guilds according to the legal regulations.¹²⁰ Archive of the city of Prague, Ms. sign. 993, Primus Liber vetustissimus Privilegiorum, Statutorum et Decretorum Veteris Urbis Pragensis necno[n] gloriose Aureeq[ue] memorie eiusdem perpetuo dignissimus, s. 257. The (incomplete) transcription of the provisions for the order of the guilds is given in Diviš, 1992, p. 16. Modern edition in Pátková Smolová and Pořízka, 2011. It is likely that the other guilds actually participated in welcoming the Turkish embassy, but in Suchuduller’s depiction their presence was only noted by their first representatives, the butchers. The town representatives were followed by Cornet so die Tyrken gebleidet haben and riders leading saddled horses with plaid over their backs marked as “Ir. Ma. leib Klepr,” i.e., imperial horses, and “Obristen Leidenambtr leibross,” horses of the official escort.

Following them, the first Turkish riders are ranked in pairs, some of them leading richly dressed horses, one of them with two large hunting dogs ‒ marked as “Present und leybross” -apparently horses carrying gifts or being gifts themselves. Two figures stand out in the group: a large Turkish rider, a military officer marked as “Caparol,” with a kind of scepter or mace in his hand, and a separate figure of “Tyrkischer Herholt,” i.e., a ceremonialist. He is followed by three pairs of Turkish horsemen and imperial servants on foot, “Ir. May: Lakaien.” Behind them ride the main persons of the procession: the Turkish ambassador “Basscha Die Potfchaft auff Ir. May: pfert.” His full name was Kadizade Ali Pascha, the man who headed the Buda pashalik from 1606 to1609, and was instrumental in concluding the peace treaty between the Habsburg monarchy and the Ottoman Empire in Zsitvatorok in 1606. He is accompanied by the Highest Equerry (Stahlmeister), Adam the Younger of Wallenstein, and a rider identified as: “Her von Fels,” perhaps Commander Linhart Collon of Fels of the Bohemian Estates military corps,¹²¹ Both Linhart Collona of Fels, and Jindřich Matyáš of Thurn were leaders of the Protestant Estates military army gathered (aside from the standard Bohemian Land Corps) in a form of protest against Rudolph II. Their presence is surprising in this context, and can perhaps be understood as a form of manifesting their power. and interpreters. Another important person in the Turkish delegation, called “Tyrkischer Begk,” follows them, again accompanied by an interpreter. The procession was closed by imperial riders and esquires led by Jindřich Matyáš of Thurn, another commander of the Bohemian Lands Military Corps, and a group of Turkish musicians with drums, “Der potschaft trumeter shalmain und trumlschlager,” followed by both Turkish and imperial riders carrying standards (“der tyrken fonnen” and “Ir. May. Hoff. Fonn”).

The procession was therefore ranked in ascending hierarchical order; it begins with the towns’ representatives, and continues through the embassy “menagerie” starting with the cornet leading the Turks, Turkish riders, horses with gifts, a military officer, servants, and the herald to the head of the embassy riding an imperial horse, accompanied by high local officials and interpreters. The train ended with Turkish and imperial riders, standard bearers and musicians.

The audience of the Turkish ambassadors with Emperor Rudolph II took place on 19 October 1609, again with the assistance of Adam the Younger of Wallenstein. He repeatedly recorded various social events that took place in the presence of the Turkish ambassadors:¹²² Koldinská and Mat’a, 1997, pp. 166-168. on October 22: “I had the ambassadors and many other estates with me;” on November 6: “I ate with the ambassador of Turkey,” at other festive dinners on October 31, and November 10. A more official occasion was the donation of gifts on November 29 that Wallenstein recorded as follows: “Today, gifts were given to the Turkish ambassador and his people by His Grace the Emperor.” Besides these social gatherings, Wallenstein recorded a visit by the Turkish ambassadors on 28 October to a “game park,” but it is unclear whether it was the royal game preserve in today’s Stromovka Park, which was close and would have allowed a visit to Ottavio Miseroni’s stone-cutters workshop at the same time. The second possibility was the Stella Game Preserve, located further from Prague, where it was possible to see the famous summer palace. Both preserves, of course, offered the opportunity for hunting. On 29 October, Wallenstein escorted the Turkish ambassadors to the imperial garden located next to Prague Castle behind the Deer Moat and then took them to the stables. The visit to the delegation in Prague ended on December 6, when the Turks left the city, again under Wallenstein’s escort. Wallenstein then handed them over to the Moravian Estates in Jihlava on 10 December.

5. DIFFERENT WAYS OF SEEING AND PRESENTING A FOREIGN EMBASSY

It was the embassies’ welcomes that made the diplomatic event memorable for the urban and courtly audience. The adventi of embassies were multiscenic, multisensual, and multimedia experiences of movement in time, where the visual and aesthetic parts (viewing and hearing the ceremonial) communicated meanings of political as well as social status defined by distant political networks.¹²³ Roosen, 1980, pp. 466-668, 472-473; Krischer, 2009, p. 6; Auer, 2009, pp. 33-34. They were not only remarkable aesthetic, spatial, and visual public spectacles, but also formally structured and contextually readable events. The size and accoutrements of the escort, the order of the procession, and the status of the persons involved showed the importance of the visitors and their country of origin. The context of the urban architecture, the gathering crowds, the dress, decorations, colours, sounds, means of transport, speed, and route emphasised the prestige of the political background of the event: the more overwhelming the impression of the adventus was, the higher level of political importance it revealed. Compared to other urban festivities, whose purpose was to confirm urban order as bona commune or to confirm the town’s relation to its lord, these adventi were joint ventures organised together with the court and with a strong international dimension. As such, they roused interest far beyond the city, even abroad (Zimmermann print with Suchuduler’s strip, entries in the friendship albums). They were reflected in the personal accounts of people from both the town and the court (chronicle of Pavel Mikšovic in Louny and diaries of courtiers), even more when the person had close (politically motivated) contact with the embassy. When the visitor came from an exotic country, such as Persia, the interest in them resulted in numerous forms of memoria, monuments, records, and even portraits of the personages made for the broader market. The Persian ambassadors themselves worked actively to shape their image in the host city by organising their own banquets and ordering European-style portraits.

The adventi were carefully designed to overwhelm by a gay and colourful appearance, the richness of gifts and garments, the diversity, and the Oriental exoticism of the procession of both the actual visitors and the spectators, whilst the ceremony still clearly expressed the social and diplomatic hierarchy. The splendid (expensive, and sometimes exaggerated) form of an embassy’s presentation was meant not only to impress visitors, but also the domestic population. It was designed to convey the message of the exceptionality of the visit and the worthiness of the parties involved. The message the ceremonial staging communicated was directed at different audience groups: courtiers and ambassadors were able to decode the political meanings, rank, and importance of the event, and possibly even roughly guess the outcome of the negotiations, but the event’s success in some extent relied on attracting enough local on-lookers and commoner observers who, for their part, enjoyed the show, reading it in terms of the estates’ social hierarchy and shared pride in their city. They cannot be conceived as a passive audience; their presence as viewers gave legitimacy to the system on both the local and international levels. In Prague, where the embassies were not accommodated in the ruler’s palace or within the Castle, the adventus into the city was separate from the official reception by the emperor (sometimes after a considerable period of time)-which made it the primary social event. The actual reception in the imperial palace was a different matter, managed fully by imperial officials and following court protocol.

The actual adventus, in contrast, was meant to express the joint acceptance of the embassy by the court and city and the procession was designed accordingly, including the urban institutions and counting on commoners to gather to view the procession. Beyond that, there seems to have been no precise regulation of how entries should be staged or handled. The different solutions seem to have been situational, with some features in common; the route varied depending on the point of entry, but the staging involved passing important urban topographic landmarks along the way and offering various perspectives for the spectators. This could work for the visitors, too, to some extent (entering Prague via Úvoz, for example). The persons and ranks involved and the means of transport (coaches or horses) also varied, but members of the imperial court and the Bohemian Chancellery were always present, as were the urban and imperial military corps, all as riders.

A visual account of the Ottoman welcome procession of 1609, issued as a print by Samuel Suchuduler after the record by Zimmermann, offers detailed, but still somewhat generic, information (it does not give the actual names of the Turks or the town officials) about the structure and hierarchy of the procession. We propose that the print was made not only as information about the event, but also to offer a model for welcoming the highest ranks to a residential city, based on a true event. Similarly to the case of the Persian welcome, the designers of the Ottoman embassy’s festive procession made use of combined urban and court elements, different carefully visualised social and diplomatic hierarchies, and the parade of the whole procession through key points in the urban topography of Prague New, Old, and Lesser Towns.

As the sources allow us to compare the welcome of the Persian and Turkish embassies, it is clear-even with a different point of entry into the city-that diplomats were always accompanied by two court officials, town representatives, festively decorated riders, and armed escorts. In the case of the Ottoman embassy, unlike the Persians, carriages are not mentioned but by analogy with royal entries, it seems that the chiefs of the embassy in the welcome processions rode on horseback. In the case of the Persians, it is said that a large number of people were expected in the streets of the city and the same can be predicted for the Turks, when the visual experience of the Other (exotic dress, textile covers on horses, gifts) was strengthened even more by Oriental musicians and drumming. In both cases, these were exotic visits inviting general interest and curiosity-they came from great distances, and their different appearances marked different cultures and beliefs. For the viewers from all strata of society they embodied not only the realm of “Oriental” magnificence and the splendor of non-European imperial courts, but also confirmed Rudolph II’s court as worthy of their visits and Prague’s status as an imperial seat. In the case of the Turks, the fact that they were representatives of the dreaded enemy with whom the monarchy waged long, exhausting, and not always successful wars undoubtedly also played a role in their emotional reception by the audience.¹²⁴ On an image of the Turk as an enemy, and “the Other” in Bohemia, see Rataj, 2002; Šroněk, 2002.

The character of the sources, which focus on political meanings and/or (in the case of visual sources) the spectacular visuality of the persons or the procession itself, does not usually give direct information about the use of the architectural backdrop in these diplomatic events. Based on the routes known, we can reconstruct the passage of a procession through its architectural setting, thus giving a proper context to the event. We have pointed out that the architectural setting played a role; it was carefully chosen for both practical and aesthetic reasons, and for reasons of creating an appropriate environment for the welcome. In one respect, however, architecture was directly involved in the diplomatic protocol. In Juan’s narrative account of the Persian embassy, the visual experience of “wondrous” is an important part of the experience of the visit. If we are to trust his words, (he is a rare source, noting not only the general staging or protocol, but giving an account of interior rooms and exterior landmarks), the narratives of their adventi were conceived so as to help ensure the mission’s diplomatic legacy and the architectural backdrop was subordinated to this task. Juan’s account gives value to architecture along these lines and sees the wondrous or unusually decorated rooms as curiosa that manifest the magnificence of the court and its adequate respect for the mission. Descriptions of architecture thus do not play a prominent role in his narrative; architecture formed an appropriate backdrop for the diplomatic protocol and a stage for ceremonies. The architecture was useful to note where it helped to frame the mission’s exclusivity through carefully selected staging (visiting and admiring wondrous and rare rooms, architecture, and precious objects).

Saying this, Juan’s own experience of Central European courts (or as narrated by him) was highly selective, filtered by the need to justify the embassy’s purpose. Juan focuses only on the reception in residences, rooms, and things that are characteristic of the power and magnificence of the court. Exceptionally, he gives some local highlights, such as the Prague Bridge or fortifications or unusual structures.¹²⁵ Reference to the figural fountain in Munich at the Witelsbach court, Le Strange, 1926, p. 280. In contrast, he pays no attention to most of the towns along the way nor are any municipal buildings or churches mentioned in Juan’s account of the German lands until they reached Rome. Comparing his description of Prague and those of other visitors, such as P. Bergeron (1601) or F. Morryson,¹²⁶ Fučíková, Janáček and Chadraba, 1989, pp. 42-72; Holeton, 2005. Juan turns a blind eye to the aesthetic or functional aspect of buildings, neither is he interested in a town for itself;¹²⁷Ibid. Bergeron and Moryson describe buildings in Prague in detail and note differences among the Christian denominations in Prague, which Juan ignores completely. We are not able to say if it was from his own lack of knowledge or purposeful omission by his editor, Spanish Trinitarian confessor Rémon. Prague was the seat of a Habsburg, i.e., in the Catholic sphere of interest, so spreading the word that the majority of the population was not Catholic at that time might have been regarded as unfitting information in his eyes. his only interest is its function as a foreland to the princely or imperial residence. Juan’s descriptions of the staging and ambients for the embassy represent a “cultural seeing,” which becomes apparent compared to the way the European vedutists (panorama artists) saw towns. Contemporary vedutists often selected a perspective and marked outbuildings that presented a town as a civic and religious community, while Juan evaluates towns as a suitable spatial context for a ruler’s residence. Thus, each kind of seeing is carefully constructed to convey its own idea in an ideal form. Roelandt Savery’s sketches depicting places the embassy visited in Prague offer a different “reality,” favouring a picturesque, although not necessarily more realistic, a vision of what Prague actually looked liked around 1600. With shanties squeezed in between palaces, timber houses, and omnipresent dirt from husbandry and crafts or construction sites, this is far from the pleasing impression Juan’s official descriptions (as well as the vedutas) make. None of these are “authentic” portraits of Prague-rather they are different visions of urban space with different purposes-in which the seeing of architecture has to concur with the intention of the author/artist and serves a given purpose of the work.