Vadas József (szerk.): Ars Decorativa 13. (Budapest, 1993)
SZILÁGYI András: Az Esterházy gyűjtemény Cupidós násfájáról
Krisztina Nyáry; their engagement was in the September of 1618 13 . Inspite of its laconic shortness, the above data provides us with an important information. For the sake of certainty, however, we have to discuss the meaning of the puzzling expression: "Spanish art". The first, inevitable question to be solved is whether the expression refers to a frequently used, typical motif, to a clearly definable type or to a special technique. Upon studying contemporary inventories and researching their vocabulary the answer seems to be "No". If the expression "Spanish art" meant an obvious, common formal characteristic, a special motif or technique, it should be used or mentioned in most of the survived documents and the pieces described as being "Spanish art" should create a coherent, separate group. This is, however, not the case. The other important fact is that among objects of precious metal the expression "Spanish art" refers only to a few, defined type, accessories for gala dresses. Necklaces, rings, brooches and pendants, that is, only four types of jewels are referred to in this way (though not all four with the same frequency). In case of other objects for decoration and everyday use, however, we never see the description "Spanish art" in sources from the first half of the seventeenth century. It is, on the other hand, obvious that this expression had a distinctive role; otherwise it would be unnecessary or meaningless. It seems that in sources from the first half of the seventeenth century "Spanish art" was used as a synonym for "modern", "new" or "fashionable". It can hardly be doubted, then, that the expression referred to rare and new shapes and forms and imported artistic pieces. This is all the more understandable if wee look at Spanish fashion spreading all over contemporary Europe, a well-known phenomena of the age. As to the cited data, it is not self-evident whether it refers only to the necklace or to the whole set, i.e. necklace and pendant together. In our opinion the second presumption is more probable. The first could only be accepted if in contemporary sources the expression referred only or mainly to necklaces. The earliest samples of pendants decorated with Cupid figures were made in the years around 1600; the Spanish origin of the type is more or less accepted in literature. It is possible, then, that the description from 1618 informed us about a jewel set with a Cupid pendant as the dominant element. We also suppose that the pendant is likely to be identical with the piece described in present study. The supposition is not disproved but corroborated by the number and type of the precious stones listed. 14 The way and circumstances of obtaining the jewel mentioned in the cited source is not supported by direct, definite data; nor do we know exactly its original, first owner. However, we have to consider that Count Imre Thurzó visited Germany and the imperial capitol, Prague several times in 1618 and before. 15 It is also noteable that some friends and agents of the Thurzó family were staying in Vienna at that time, with whom the young count maintained a frequent correspondence. It is possible, then, that Imre Thurzó was one of the not too many aristocrats of contemporary Hungary who could obtain a piece that was popular and fashionable at that time. This way he could have been the owner of the Cupid pendant made in "Spanish art" though not necessarily in Spain. We might assume that the jewel described above can be connected to the persons of Imre Thurzó and Krisztina Nyáry; it is possible that this beautiful work of art, known as the Cupid pendant of the Esterházy collection, was brought to Hun-
