Page - 33 - in Jacopo Strada and Cultural Patronage at the Imperial Court - The Antique as Innovation, Volume 1

33The Image—Or from Whom (Not?) to Buy a Second-Hand Car conception is concerned.78 In contrast, the authors of the recent monumen- tal and very useful, though excessively positivist study on the building history of the Vienna Hofburg totally ignore him. Not finding archival data immedi- ately linking Strada to concrete interventions and not understanding Strada’s position at court, their omission demonstrates a serious misapprehension of Strada’s role, of his immediate influence on the development of parts of the Hofburg complex, and on the architecture in the Habsburg lands in general.79 0.9.5 Modern Scholarship: Collecting and Princely Patronage Whereas Strada’s contributions to the Antiquarium and the Neugebäude have been extensively researched, his other activities for his patrons in Munich and Bavaria have received less attention. Hartig’s article on patronage and collecting at the court of Albrecht v has already been mentioned above; it was recapitulated, together with the results of Renate von Busch’s research, in the general introduction of Herbert Brunner’s Kunstschätze der Münchner Residenz of 1977. The antiquarian component of Albrecht’s collections and Strada’s contributions to it have since been discussed more fully in the huge two-volume catalogue of the sculptures in the Antiquarium edited by Ellen Weski and Heike Frosien-Leinz published in 1987 and its introductory essays. In particular Horst Stierhof’s discussion of the building history of the Anti- quarium and Frosien-Leinz’s discussion of its significance in the sixteenth century are relevant for Strada’s role. The book is moreover invaluable for the archival sources published in its appendix and its profuse illustration.80 Strada’s influence on Albrecht’s collection in general is mentioned in Lorenz Seelig’s paper on the Munich Kunstkammer at the 1983 Oxford Symposium The Cabinet of Curiosities and discussed more fully by Mark Meadow in his initial exploration of Hans Jakob Fugger’s importance for the development of the Munich complex of collections and its theoretical basis. The 1583 inventory of the Kunstkammer has recently been published in extenso, and was followed shortly afterwards by two huge volumes of catalogue and commentary, to- gether providing as detailed a reconstruction of the Munich collections as will ever be possible. This adds immensely to our knowledge and understanding of this basically scholarly and scientific, rather than purely artistic institution. In the commentary volumes the material with which Jacopo had provided the 78 Lippmann 2006–2007. Lippmann unfortunately follows Lietzmann in a misreading of the passage in Fugger’s letter, and adds another misreading to it; cf. below, Ch. 8. 79 Karner 2014. See below, Chs. 5.6, 10.7 and 16.1. 80 Weski/Frosien-Leinz 1987, includes pp. 18–22: Horst H. Stierhof, ‘Zur Baugeschichte des Antiquariums’; pp. 32–64: Heike Frosien-Leinz, ‘Zur Bedeutung des Antiquariums im 16. Jahrhundert’ and pp. 452–479: ‘Quellenanhang’.