Prékopa Ágnes (szerk.): Ars Decorativa 31. (Budapest, 2017)

Diána RADVÁNYI: Changes in the Critical Reception of Haban Ceramics: A Brief History of Research with a Discussion of Some Prominent Viewpoints

phered coats of arms and monograms were made have been determined. In the past, when even the origin of the Habans and their ethnicity was not clear, Haban objects tended to be placed in arbitrarily established categories based on observable differences in the stylistic features and motifs. One example of such a categorization (which is today quite amusing) can be found in József Diner’s article of 1891.20 Diner created groups based on the material in the collections of the Budapest Museum of Applied Arts, the University of Technology, and Ottó Herman, ‘an honoured representative of Parliament’. In Diner’s mind, the examples of ‘essentially Haban majolica’ that were ‘from the years 1660 to 1820’ were, for example, similar to the ‘hexagonal bottle with the inscription

4. jug. Faience, post-Haban workshop, late 18th century, Upper Hungary. Museum of Applied Arts, Budapest, inv. no.: 2723

MICHEL HABEL from the 1680s in the collection of the University of Technology’,21 (Fig. 3) which displays ‘on the fifth side an entirely violet-coloured, towerless, Anabaptist church.’22

In Diner’s classification system there was ‘Slovak faience’, which was ‘closest to the essentially Haban majolica (...) all with white tin-glaze and the decoration painted in the same four colours as on Haban majolica, except that the colours are always gaudier. The flowers in the decoration are drawn differently.’23 (Fig. 4) He placed a wall fountain (‘kettle, Hungarian made Italian-style majolica’) bearing the date 1609, part of the Museum of Applied Arts’ collection, (Fig. 5) in the category of Transylvanian Hungarian works (‘Transylvani3. Wall fountain, dated 1609. Faience, Haban workshop, probably Strachotin, Bohemia. Museum of Applied Arts, Budapest, inv. no.: 2846

30