Miriam Szőcs Intrigue or insanity?
The case of
1. Franz Xaver Messerschmidt,
Self-Portrait, Serious, c. 1780,
alabaster, diameter 8 cm.
Szépművészeti Múzeum (Museum
of Fine Arts), Budapest, inv. no.
8524
Franz Xaver Messerschmidt
The year 1774 was a turning point in the career of the
eminent Austrian sculptor Franz Xaver
Messerschmidt (1736–83) (fig. 1).1 His patron and
friend as well as professor in the Department of
Sculpture at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna,
Jacob Christoph Schletterer (1699–1774), died that
year. Since 1769 Messerschmidt had been assistant
professor, and he had received a commitment in a
mandate from the Academy that he would be
nominated professor of the department after
Schletterer.2 Although it seemed certain that
Messerschmidt was to be named Schletterer’s
successor, the professorship was given to someone
else. According to the Academy’s justifications, the
artist’s mental illness would have prevented him
from performing his academic duties.3
Messerschmidt greatly resented this decision and,
offended as he was, he withdrew first to his native town, Wiesensteig, and later to
Pozsony (Pressburg in German, now Bratislava, Slovakia). Here he initially lived
with his brother Johann Adam, but soon bought a house on his own.4 Pozsony at
that time, as the capital of Hungary, was the second most important centre of the
Habsburg Empire, yet still far from the fame and luxury that Vienna signified. It is
not surprising that Messerschmidt, a sculptor who had worked previously for the
imperial court, made a great stir in the city. This particular interest in him was
increased by the fame of his unique series of Character Heads (fig. 2). The heads,
in spite of their name, do not show characters but rather embody various, often
extreme grimaces.5 Many who visited Pozsony went to see Messerschmidt’s
workshop in order to inspect these strange heads. Coming from as far away as
Vienna, visitors often described their visits to see these works and their meetings
with the artist in their journals or memoirs.6
These descriptions seem to confirm the hypothesis that Messerschmidt did
indeed suffer from some sort of mental illness. Almost everybody who paid a visit
to the artist’s house at Pozsony noted that Messerschmidt was able to see spirits,
and allegedly even talk to them.7 They often reported him as being in a bad mood,
on which occasions he refused to show any of his work to them.8 He developed
55  |  Szőcs: Intrigue or insanity? The case of Franz Xaver Messerschmidt doi:10.3828/sj.2011.4
56  |  Sculpture Journal 20.1 [2011]

2. Matthias Rudolph Toma,
Messerschmidt’s ‘Character
Heads’, 1839, lithograph on paper,
44.5 * 29 cm, signed bottom right
‘CK’ (ligated), the numbers of the
heads are inscribed with pen on
the lithograph. Szépművészeti
Múzeum (Museum of Fine Arts),
Budapest, inv. no. 68418
strange habits that gave rise to anecdotes about him; almost every writer included
odd stories.9 On the basis of these testimonies, and because of the eccentric series
of heads, unique as they are in the history of sculpture, art historians of the
twentieth century have taken it for granted that this oeuvre could emerge only
from the hands of an artist suffering from some mental illness. It was
Messerschmidt’s first modern biographer, Albert Ilg, who proposed that his work
should be analysed by a psychologist.10 In 1932 the art historian and clinical
psychoanalyst Ernst Kris carried out a psychoanalytic study of Messerschmidt,
who by that time had been dead for more than a century and a half.11 In order to
establish his diagnosis of the sculptor, Kris relied mainly on the writings of
Messerschmidt’s contemporary, Friedrich Nicolai (1733–1811).
Nicolai was a writer of the German Enlightenment, who went to see
Messerschmidt in Pozsony in 1781; in the journals of his travels, published in 1785,
he describes at length his talks with the sculptor.12 According to Kris, Nicolai was
far more interested in the artist’s illness than in his art. Hence he found Nicolai’s
descriptions a good starting point for his own psychoanalytical enquiries,13 and
uncovered a number of details that pointed to a mental illness. In this vein he
quoted Nicolai’s report that Messerschmidt had been tortured, especially at night,
by spirits, and that the spirit of proportion had become jealous of him, because
Messerschmidt had almost reached perfection in this field, and so the spirit made
his body ache. Being aware of certain connections between the body and the face,
the artist ‘would pinch himself, he made faces in front of the looking-glass and
believed he was experiencing the most remarkable effects of his mastery over the
spirits’.14
The Character Heads emerged out of this experience and these grimaces  
(figs. 3–5). After analysing Nicolai’s description and studying the Character Heads
themselves, Kris diagnosed the artist’s illness as paranoid schizophrenia.15 Nicolai
reported that Messerschmidt believed himself to have overcome the influence of
the spirits by making the series of heads; in this creative process Kris saw a sort of
self-healing mechanism.16
Nicolai mentioned another detail of Messerschmidt’s life: that he remained
sexually inactive. Kris confronted this information with the formal attributes of
the Character Heads, and concluded that they are a manifestation of the artist’s
repressed sexuality. Another paragraph from Nicolai’s writings could also have a
sexual interpretation; he quotes Messerschmidt as saying ‘man must simply pull
in the red of the lips entirely because no animal shows it [. . .] He said animals had
great advantages over men; they could recognise and feel many things in nature
that remain concealed to men.’17 According to the psychoanalyst-art historian, lips
pulled in as described in this quote and as seen in some of the Character Heads
undoubtedly point to the negation of sexuality.18 Kris was quite confident in
diagnosing the sculptor’s illness, and in order to substantiate his claims he listed
several other arguments. However, Robert and Margot Wittkower have pointed
out that many of Kris’s claims were exaggerated or obvious misinterpretations.19
For example, Nicolai reported that Messerschmidt’s house was on land that
belonged to Count Pálffy’s palace, and that he claimed several privileges. Kris,
however, not only failed to quote this passage from Nicolai but also wrote that
57  |  Szőcs: Intrigue or insanity? The case of Franz Xaver Messerschmidt
3. Franz Xaver Messerschmidt,
Quiet Peaceful Sleep, 1777–81, tin
cast, h: 43 cm. Szépművészeti
Múzeum (Museum of Fine Arts),
Budapest, inv. no. 53.656
4. Franz Xaver Messerschmidt, The
Yawner, 1771–81, tin cast, h: 43 cm.
Szépművészeti Múzeum (Museum
of Fine Arts), Budapest, inv. no.
53.655
Messerschmidt lived on the periphery of the town, near the Jewish cemetery,
‘which neighbourhood was generally regarded as dreadful’.20
Kris’s writings on Messerschmidt made such a large impact that in the
secondary literature of the following decades Messerschmidt’s insanity was
presented almost as a matter of fact. It was mostly the diagnosis of this illness
that raised the interest of scholars. The clinical physician Otto Glandien classified
it as paranoia;21 Behr, Grohmann and Hagedorn, however, formulated the
hypothesis that Messerschmidt might have suffered from lead poisoning, which
affects the nervous system.22 Most recently, Marie-Claude Lambotte returned to
Kris’s diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, observing in addition the signs of
narcissistic pathology in the repeated reproduction of self-portraits by the artist.23
This fitted perfectly well with the reports that Messerschmidt had often
complained about the offences and injuries he had received during his years in
Vienna, and about the underhand machinations against him. Nicolai also
reported that Messerschmidt told him long and detailed stories about the
injustices and insults of which he had been the target while working at the
Academy of Fine Arts.24 In a letter to his brother Messerschmidt had complained,
even two years after he left Vienna, that his enemies there had been persecuting
58  |  Sculpture Journal 20.1 [2011]

5. Franz Xaver Messerschmidt,
Childish Weeping, 1771–81, tin-lead
cast, h: 44 cm. Szépművészeti
Múzeum (Museum of Fine Arts),
Budapest, inv. no. 51.936
him for eight long years.25 In these outbursts it was
easy to recognize the paranoid behaviour of
Messerschmidt, who had been already labelled
mentally ill.
It is only in recent years that scholars have started
to take notice of the fact that, behind the paranoia,
there might have been some actual events that
caused Messerschmidt to leave Vienna, a move that
he was not at all happy to make. Michael Krapf
observed that Messerschmidt’s most important
patrons and commissioners died at more or less the
same time, within a period of a few years.26 This was
the time when Messerschmidt’s commissions started
to decrease significantly, and it coincided with the
time from which, as we shall see, Chancellor Kaunitz’s
letter of recommendation regarding the
professorship of the Academy dated the onset of
Messerschmidt’s mysterious illness. In 1770 Martin
van Meytens, the director of the Academy of Fine
Arts, died. He had been the favourite court painter of
the Empress Maria Theresa, and had supported
Messerschmidt from the beginning of his time in
Vienna. Similarly, Prince Joseph Wenceslas of
Liechtenstein, who gave Messerschmidt his first
imperial commission, the portraits of the imperial
couple for the Armoury, died in 1772. In the same year
the prince’s niece, Maria Theresa Felicitas, Duchess of
Savoy-Carignan, also died. She had commissioned
Messerschmidt for the decorations of her palace in Vienna, and ordered a life-size
marble group of the Virgin Mary and Saint John the Evangelist from the sculptor,
to be placed in the Holy Cross Chapel in the Stephansdom (today in the so-called
Lower Sacristy).27
Most recently, Maraike Bückling formulated the hypothesis that in the
background to Messerschmidt’s leaving the Viennese Academy of Fine Arts there
must have been some intrigue. Bückling also argued that in this new context it
would be worth taking seriously the conspiracies and machinations against the
sculptor that Messerschmidt so frequently complained about.28
In order to understand the artistic life of contemporary Vienna, we have to
reach back at least to the year 1766. The Academy of Fine Arts, founded in 1692,
had made a name for itself by the second half of the eighteenth century.29 The
State Chancellor, Wenzel, Prince von Kaunitz (1711–1794, fig. 6), was passionate
about French art and a collector of French engravings. He managed imperial
politics and state administration with a firm hand,30 and wanted an active role in
directing culture, and so participated in the founding of a new art academy, the
Imperial and Royal Engraving Academy. In 1766 Kaunitz gave his support for the
founding of this new academy to the young Austrian painter and engraver, Jakob
59  |  Szőcs: Intrigue or insanity? The case of Franz Xaver Messerschmidt

6. Jakob Matthias Schmutzer,
Wenzel Anton, Prince von Kaunitz,
1786, engraving after a bronze
relief by Johann Baptist
Hagenauer, 48 * 46 cm. Hungarian
National Museum, Budapest, inv.
no. 2050
Matthias Schmutzer (1733–1811), who had just
returned from France.31 Kaunitz became the patron of
the Academy, and one of his sons, Joseph Graf von
Kaunitz, its director. They choose one of the leaders
of the Austrian Enlightenment, the writer and
journalist Joseph von Sonnenfels (1733–1817), as
secretary.32 The heavily subsidized Academy soon
became the rival of the old Academy of Fine Arts.33
Kaunitz’s idea was the total reorganization of art
training, but his plans came to a standstill while the
director of the Academy of Fine Arts remained the
universally loved and renowned Martin van Meytens.
Meytens died in 1770, after which nothing could stop
Kaunitz from carrying out his plans on a grand scale.
In 1772 he felt that the time was right and united the
two rivals, the old and the new Academies. As a result
of this unification he installed at the top of the new
institution all the former directors of the Engraving
34
Academy. The patron of the new Academy was the Chancellor, Prince von
Kaunitz, the director of the Academic Board his son, Joseph von Kaunitz, the
former director of the Engraving Academy, and the secretary Joseph von
Sonnenfels. In this way the Engraving Academy successfully incorporated its older
and more renowned rival.35
At the same time Kaunitz concentrated his energies on reorganizing the
Hofbauamt, the Court Construction Office: he placed at the top of the institution
as its director his elder son, Ernst Christoph, Graf Kaunitz. This time Kaunitz met
no opposition from groups of artists. Meytens, once the most influential figure in
Vienna’s artistic life, had been dead for two years. Only the Chief Imperial
Architect, Nicolaus Pacassi (1716–90), tried to resist Kaunitz, but without success.
In 1772 he resigned his post, and wrote his objections in a Promemoria.36 Thus
Kaunitz managed to bring under his own authority the hitherto independent
Academy of Fine Arts and the institution responsible for imperial architecture. In
doing so the Chancellor had achieved his main goal: control of the entire artistic
life of Vienna.
After the reorganizations a new generation of artists became the leaders of
Viennese art. In addition to Jakob Schmutzer, the director of the Engraving
Academy, the leading figure in architecture was Johann Ferdinand Hetzendorf von
Hohenberg (1732–1816), while Johann Friedrich Wilhelm Beyer (1725–96)37 became
the imperial court sculptor, and in 1773 received the commission to execute the
sculpture in the park of the Imperial Palace at Schönbrunn. In this task he
involved several other sculptors, and gave the most important commission to
Johann Baptist Hagenauer (1732–1810), a sculptor from Salzburg. Despite the fact
that the decoration of the park counted as one of the greater sculptural
undertakings of the era, none of the most eminent Viennese sculptors were
invited to participate. Thus Balthasar Ferdinand Moll (1717–85) was left out, just as
was Jakob Gabriel Müller, also known as Mollinarolo (1717–80). Only the elderly
60  |  Sculpture Journal 20.1 [2011]
Schletterer, Messerschmidt’s teacher, was asked to carve a single sculpture. Nor
was Messerschmidt considered.38
In the early 1770s Messerschmidt’s commissions became less and less
frequent. Further evidence of his less favourable economic condition is offered by
the fact that in March 1774 he sold the house in Vienna that he had bought four
years earlier.39 It seems, however, that at the same time he tried to counteract his
fading popularity with his former patrons. When he gained admission to the
Academy of Fine Arts in 1769, he also applied for entry to the Engraving Academy,
at that time its rival institution.40 In March 1774 he put himself to the test by
exhibiting his work at the Academy with the works of his rival Beyer, who was
becoming more and more influential in art circles.41 This did not bring the success
that Messerschmidt had hoped for.
On 19 May 1774 Schletterer, Messerschmidt’s former teacher, the head of the
sculpture department, died.42 In accordance with a regulation issued by the
Academy in 1769, Messerschmidt should have been automatically elected to the
post.43 This, however, did not happen. On 8 May 1774, even before Schletterer’s
death, Messerschmidt’s three other sculptor-colleagues handed in their
applications for the soon-to-be-vacant position of professor. The earliest evidence
of this can be found in a document written prior to Kaunitz’s letter of
recommendation. This document was compiled by the Academy on 8 May, in
response to the applications for the professorship:
Beyer turned directly to Her Majesty and made known the title of his
petition. He has, of course, as many talents as the others, if not more; but in
view of his known moral traits he will never obtain the love or trust of the
students or other fellow artists. He already has, as far as I know, an annual
salary of 1200 florins from the court, and should offer something to others
too.
The sculptor Müller is the best among the rest here, but a man of little
modesty, who has probably seen nothing outside Vienna. Messerschmidt
will try to prove the validity of the decree that he received from Count Losi,
when he was still the professor’s deputy. I do not believe, however, that the
man is completely well again mentally. However, he is most pitiful, and it
would be desirable that the best should happen to him in terms of his
livelihood.
Count von Kaunitz, our Director, in his note considers Hagenauer to be
the best in the present case, whose fine stock of models and plasters after
the Antique would also be an advantage to the Academy: he is a humble
man and has studied in Bologna, Florence and Rome, receiving various
prizes in competitions.44
We learn from this document who the three people with aspirations to
Schletterer’s professorship were: Beyer, the chief sculptor of the works at
Schönbrunn; Johann Baptist Hagenauer, the second most employed sculptor at
Schönbrunn; and Jakob Gabriel Müller. The document also informs us that
Chancellor Kaunitz’s son, Count Joseph Kaunitz, the head of the Academy, wanted
to elect Hagenauer. The next document is dated 20 October 1774 and casts an even
more strange light on events: here the Academy lists Kaunitz’s protégé,

61  |  Szőcs: Intrigue or insanity? The case of Franz Xaver Messerschmidt

Hagenauer, as its first candidate, Müller in second place and Beyer in third. In
addition, there is the following remark regarding Messerschmidt:
This election of a Professor of Sculpture, graciously left to the Academy’s
ultimate decision, fell on three subjects with the same number of eleven
votes, but with the difference being that, under the same, Hochenauer is
proposed in first place, Müller in second place, and Beyer in third place. On
this occasion, however, the Academic Council considers it to be its duty, in
view of Messerschmidt, to make his respectful presentation.
Since the year 1769, through the attached decree, this artist has had a
candidature, giving him a preferential right, on the vacancy of the Chair,
which he, as things stand at present, would not refuse, unless his doubtful
health made him incapable of it.45
It seems that the Academy was not squeamish when it came to finding a way of
getting rid of Messerschmidt. On 5 December 1774, and only after releasing these
two documents, Kaunitz published his letter of recommendation, which makes it
clear that the final decision had been taken. It states that the professorship would
be given to Hagenauer, while Messerschmidt would be retired with a pension, due
to his illness. But the situation was far from clear, and this was reflected in the fact
that Kaunitz had to explain himself. It seems that Messerschmidt had
automatically obtained the post that was due to him by law, together with the
accompanying salary:
The only circumstance that at the time of this election I should like to  
point out with due respect, is that the local sculptor Franz Messerschmidt
already received, in the year 1769 from the Academy Board, the candidature
decree – attached to the present Council Protocol – for the Professorship of
Sculpture, and thus a right to enter directly into that office and to the
salary received by the late Schletterer.
But afterwards, with tightly constructed rhetoric, came Chancellor Kaunitz’s
detailed explanations:
But in respect of this man, a major concern is that for a period of three
years – whether because of his state of despair or owing to a natural
disposition – some disturbances in his mind have been perceptible, which,
even if they have since been allayed, thus permitting him to work as before,
still arise from time to time in the form of a state-of-mind that is not
completely sane.
Although I regret the circumstances of this otherwise talented man, and
wish that they might improve through a more fortunate situation,
nevertheless I can never recommend to Your Majesty that a man be
suggested as a teacher of academic youth, who would have to suffer from
him on each occasion the accusations of a mad and somewhat unclear
mind, [a man] who regards all other professors and directors as his
enemies, and even now has silly ideas in his mind, and so can never be
completely calm.46
In the light of the documents quoted here, Messerschmidt’s complaints do not
seem to lack foundation. The intrigues and his colleagues’ attempts to get his
place had started before Schletterer’s death. That this was obviously a legally

62  |  Sculpture Journal 20.1 [2011]


7. Anonymous author,
Merkwürdige Lebensgeschichte des
Franz Xaver Messerschmidt, 1808,
illustrated by M. Z. L. Schmid.
Szépművészeti Múzeum (Museum
of Fine Arts), Budapest
difficult move is reflected in the fact that the final decision on the election for the
professorial post was made only in December 1774, six months after Schletterer’s
death. Messerschmidt’s biographer, Pötzl-Malikova, argues against the intrigues
in her latest publication, saying that there is no written evidence for them.47 But it
is in the nature of intrigues not to leave written evidence behind. The documents
quoted above nevertheless outline quite clearly a process that reached its peak in
Chancellor Kaunitz’s letter of recommendation.
Friedrich Nicolai was rather biased against the artist, whom he regarded as not
being really of sound mind, but even Nicolai remarked that Academies were
hotbeds of intrigue and altercation, and that this was especially true of Vienna
from time immemorial.48 There is another well-known story of the period: it was
Joseph von Sonnenfels, another representative of the Viennese Enlightenment,
who interfered and prevented Lessing from being invited to Vienna; the same
Sonnenfels who was the secretary of the Academy of Fine Arts.49
In 1777 Jakob Schmutzer, the former director of the Engraving Academy, wrote
in one of his letters complaining that the achievements of Messerschmidt ‘had
been blurred by those who regarded themselves as his friends and he himself was
tripped up by the envy of all those who bore a grudge against him’.50 Hans
Rudolph Füessli, the brother of the more famous painter Henry Fuseli, then
working in England, had been Messerschmidt’s fellow
student at the Academy, and recalled him in 1802 in
the following words:
There arose [. . .] at the Academy frequent
cabals against him and his enemies could
intrigue against him with all the more
assurance since his open character and his
choleric temperament always left him
exposed to their advantage. After Mejten’s
decease he had no longer any friend at the
Academy – and the frequent unpleasantnesses
thrust at him from all sides finally induced
him to leave Vienna and move to Pressburg.51
Messerschmidt was by far the most eminent sculptor
in contemporary Vienna. If his sculptor-rivals wanted
the position that was due to him by law, they could
only use this mysterious illness in order to prove his
incapacity for the post. By that time those patrons
whose authority could have saved the artist were
mostly dead. Chancellor Kaunitz had previously
feared Meytens’ resistance,52 and postponed for year
after year the total reform of the Academies. In these
circumstances he must have been a helpful ally in
dismissing Meytens’ protégé. According to the
document dated 8 May 1774, quoted above, Count
Joseph Kaunitz had chosen Hagenauer. There is no
doubt that behind the son’s choice was his father the
63  |  Szőcs: Intrigue or insanity? The case of Franz Xaver Messerschmidt
Chancellor’s wish. Kaunitz’s aim was to create and support a new generation of
artists, and Messerschmidt, Meytens’ former protégé, hardly fitted into this
group.
Messerschmidt’s mental illness was regarded as a fact, and his rivals
conveniently used it against him. But beside these allegations we do not have to
hand anything definite about its beginning, only the later, retrospective analyses.
Any direct written evidence, contemporary to the events, is lacking.
The first source to announce his illness comes from Messerschmidt himself: a
letter written to his brother in 1770. Yet in this Messerschmidt only refers to
having been ill, and he uses the word Krankheit, which may indicate a bodily
illness rather than a mental one.53 Despite the brevity of this communication both
the onset of Messerschmidt’s mental disorders and the starting of the Character
Heads are traditionally dated to this time. Explicit mental illness, however, is
mentioned only much later, in the quoted documents of the Academy in 1774.
Chancellor Kaunitz in his letter of recommendation to the Empress Maria
Theresa, written in 1774, makes a retrospective reference to the start of
Messerschmidt’s illness: ‘this man, either owing to his poverty or to a natural
disposition, has for three years suffered from some confusion in his head’.54
From Messerschmidt’s later years in Pozsony we find an abundance of reports
that could be the origin of people’s labelling Messerschmidt as suffering from
some mental disorder. But we should keep in mind a very important fact: the
chief sources for the odd stories about Messerschmidt were the anecdotes told
about him, whose content and bearing on reality are impossible to verify or refute
today. Only ten years after his death we find several anecdotal stories mixed with
his biographical data in the small booklet that was published on the occasion of
the exhibition of the Character Heads (fig. 7).55
Nicolai’s reports are the most detailed of the contemporary accounts, but their
biased nature has been pointed out by Ulrich Pfarr, and more recently by Michael
Yonan.56 It seems that the Enlightenment writer wanted to demonstrate the
noxious effect of the magical beliefs and rites widespread in the time. In order to
do this, he used Messerschmidt’s figure as a ‘seer’. Yet Nicolai’s accounts are
unreliable on many points. We know that he collected much of his data only after
Messerschmidt’s death, and he interwove this information into the narrative of
his visit. Among other things, Nicolai mentioned that Messerschmidt’s house was
very spartan, with only a few objects in it: there was a bed, a pipe, a water jug, a
sketch of an Egyptian figure ‘without arm’, which lent itself to conjecture, and an
art historical treatise on correct proportions.57 But an inventory of
Messerschmidt’s house, compiled a week after his death, gives a totally different
impression. It describes a wealthy interior, even in the least-furnished room, in
which Nicolai had most likely been received, and lists among other things a sofa
and a set of armchairs, a collection of pipes, a flute with a music stand, a travel
chest, a collection of arms and armour, and the Character Heads and other
sculpture.58 Messerschmidt bought his house in Pozsony at the end of 1780, and
Nicolai paid him a visit in June 1781.59 It is possible that Messerschmidt had just
moved into his new house and that his interiors were not yet completed; but if
this was the case, and if he did not disclose to Nicolai the circumstance of his

64  |  Sculpture Journal 20.1 [2011]


8. Franz Xaver Messerschmidt,
Martin Georg Kovachich, 1782, tin
cast, h: 41 cm. Szépművészeti
Múzeum (Museum of Fine Arts),
Budapest, inv. no. 8336
9. Franz Xaver Messerschmidt,
Joseph Kiss, c. 1780, alabaster,
diameter 13 cm. Szépművészeti
Múzeum (Museum of Fine Arts),
Budapest, inv. no. 8528
having just moved in, one starts to seriously doubt
Nicolai’s claims that Messerschmidt took him into his
confidence and revealed his most intimate thoughts
to him – an aspect of their conversations that Nicolai
often emphasized.
There are, however, not only such pieces of
information, which are difficult to substantiate, but
also several facts that strongly contradict the
hypothesis of a serious mental illness. After his
unceremonious removal from the Academy,
Messerschmidt settled, as we have seen, at Pozsony.
Here he received important commissions from such
highly prestigious clients as the governor of the
Habsburg family, Prince Albert of Saxony, Duke of
Teschen, and his wife Archduchess Maria Cristina of
Austria, daughter of the Empress Maria Theresa. He
made portraits for Hungarian aristocrats such as
Count Batthyányis, and such leading intellectuals of
the Enlightenment as the historian Martin Georg
Kovachich (1743–1821) (fig. 8) and the engineer Joseph
Kiss (1748–1813) (fig. 9).60 It is hard to imagine that the most eminent families of
the Austro-Hungarian nobility and other famous cultural representatives would
have commissioned works from an artist with troubled mental health, and even
less that they would have entrusted their money to him.
In addition we should bear in mind that Messerschmidt made most of the 54
Character Heads that we know of today during those six years in Pozsony. Just
before arriving, in a letter written to his brother in 1777, Messerschmidt
mentioned 12 heads. It is legitimate to suppose that the rest of the series was
completed in Pozsony.61 It is hard to imagine an artist suffering from serious
psychological disorders creating in such a short
period of time work in such quantity and of such
high quality. Another fact that makes the hypothesis
of insanity questionable is that Messerschmidt
looked after all his business affairs himself, both in
Vienna and in Pozsony. He bought a house in Vienna
in 1770, during the time of the supposed start of his
illness. He sold his house in 1774, and bought another
in Pozsony in 1780. It seems that his alleged illness
did not prevent him from making these far from
simple transactions.62
All these observations clearly suggest that mental
illness did not necessarily play a significant part in
Messerschmidt’s oeuvre. His difficult character and
the loss of his patrons could have led him to the
point where he could no longer find a place in
Viennese artistic circles. This, and the continuous
65  |  Szőcs: Intrigue or insanity? The case of Franz Xaver Messerschmidt
attacks from his rivals, could well have provoked from the artist such irritable
behaviour that his enemies could easily picture it as mental illness – quite
successfully, as we have seen.

Translated by Ildikó Csepregi

Appendix

Doc. 1
Draft resolution of the Academy of Fine Art, 8 May 1774 – Vienna, Allgemeines
Verwaltungsarchiv, Studienhofkommission 1791, Akademie der bildenden
Künste, Nachlaß Heider, 6, fol. 26–28. Published by M. Pötzl-Malikova, Franz
Xaver Messerschmidt, Vienna and Munich, 1982, doc. XIV

Die Profeßorstelle in der Bildhauerey ist nun auch erledigt.

Beyer hat sich gleich an Ihro Majt. gewendet, und die Bezeichnung seiner
Bittschrift ausgewirkt. Er hat freylich so viel und noch mehr Geschicklichkeit, als
die übrigen hier; allein nach seinen bekanten moralischen Eigenschaften, wird er
bey den Lernenden, und andern Kunstgenoßen nielmals eine Liebe, oder Zutrauen
sich erwerben. Er hat bereits, so viel mir bekant, jährliche 1200 fl. Gehalt vom
Hofe, und soll auch andern was gönnen.
Der Bildhauer Müller ist unter den übrigen hier der Beste, aber ein Mann von
weniger Bescheidenheit, und der außer Wien vermuthlich nichts gesehn hat.
Messerschmid wird suchen, das Decret, welches er als Profeßors Adjunct noch
von dem Herrn Grafen Losi erhalten hat, gelten zu machen. Ich glaube aber nicht,
daß der Mann im Gehirn schon wieder vollkommen geheilt sey. Indeßen ist er
deshalben bedauernswürdig, und es wäre zu wünschen, daß zu seinem Unterhalte
ihm was zum Besten geschehen könnte.
Herr Graf von Kaunitz, unser Praeses, hält in seinem Billet den Hagenauer im
gegenwärtigen Falle für den Besten, als deßen schöner Vorrath von Modellen, und
Gips-abgüßen nach Antiken der Akademie dadurch auch zum Vortheile kämen: er
ist ein bescheidener Mann, und der zu Bologna, Florenz und Rom studiert, auch
daselbst verschiedene Wett-preise erhalten hat.
Es erinnert aber der Herr Graf dabey, daß zu warten sey, ob nicht andere
fremde Bildhauer von vorzüglicher Geschicklichkeit sich um die hiesigen
Profeßorsstelle melden werden.

Doc. 2

Protocol of the Academy of Fine Art, 20 October 1774 – Vienna, Archiv der
Akademie der bildenden Künste, Protokolle, Jahr 1774, fol. 16v. Published by
M. Pötzl-Malikova, Franz Xaver Messerschmidt, Vienna and Munich, 1982,
doc. XVI

Die in eben dieser hohen Entschlüssung der Akademie gnädig überlassenen Wahl
eines Professors der Bildhauerey ist auf drey Subjekte mit einer gleichen Anzahl
von 11 Stimen, jedoch mit diesem Unterscheide ausgefallen, daß nach demselben

66  |  Sculpture Journal 20.1 [2011]

Hochenauer am ersten, Müller am zweyten und Beyer am dritten Orte
unterthänigst vorgeschlagen wird. Bei welcher Gelegenheit jedoch der
akademische Rath es für seine Pflicht ansieht, in Ansehen Messerschmidts seine
ehrerbietigste Vorstellung zu machen.
Dieser Künstler hat bereits seit dem 1769 Jahre durch beykomendes Dekret
eine Anwartschaft, die ihm bey gegenwärtiger Eröffnung der Professur ein
vorzügliches Recht dazu ertheilt, dessen er nachdem diesseitigen unterthänigsten
Ermessen nicht wohl entsetzet werden könte, es wäre dan, daß seine zweydeutige
Gesundheit ihn derselben unfähig machte.
Diese zweydeutige Gesundheit selbst aber ist ein Folge des Elendes und der
betrübten Umstände, worinnen er sich aus Mangel des Unterhalts befunden hat.
Die anwesenden Künstler könnten ihm dessen ungeachtet das Zeugnis einer
vorzüglichen Geschicklichkeit nicht versagen, vielleicht auch würde seine
zuweilen irrescheinende Vernunft durch eine glückliche Lage vollkomen
hergestellt werden.
Sollte jedoch irgend ein Bedenken obwalten, ihn zu der Professur selbst
gelangen zu lassen, so empfiehlt der akademische Rath demselben denoch dem
mächtigen Schutze des hohen Protektorats, ob dasselbe vielleicht gnädig bewogen
werden dürfte, für diesen unglücklichen und geschickten Mann bey Ihro Majestät
einzuschreiten, damit ihm ein kleiner Gehalt von etwa 200 Gulden mit dem Titel
eines Hofstatuarius huldvoll ertheilt, auch an das kaiserl. königl. Hofbauamt, und
wo sonst die Hofarbeiten bestimt werden, der Auftrag erlassen würde, demselben
vor anderen Beschäftigung zuzutheilen.
Es hat endlich auch Herr Beyer das angeschlossene Promemoria überreicht,
worum selber um die Verleihung der erledigten Professorsstelle unter dem Titel
eines Direktors dieser Klasse, . . . ansuchet . . . 
Wien, den 20. Oktober 1774.
[Supplement]:
Ihro Majt. haben auf meinen Vorschlag den Hagenauer zum Professor ernannt
und für den Messerschmidt 200 fl. Pension allergnädigst bewilligt.
Kaunitz Rittberg

Doc. 3
Letter of recommendation of the State Chancellor, Wenzel, Prince von Kaunitz
to Empress Maria Theresa, 5 of December 1774 – Vienna, Archiv der Akademie
der bildenden Künste, Verwaltungsakten 1774, fol. 52r –54v. Published by M.
Pötzl-Malikova, Franz Xaver Messerschmidt, Vienna and Munich, 1982, doc.
XVIII

Allergnädigste Kaiserin, Apostolische Königin, und Frau!

Um die durch des Jakob Schlötterers Ableiben im letzten Frühjahr erledigte
Professorsstelle der Bildhauerey bey der hiesigen Akademie der bildenden Künste
mit einem vorzüglich tüchtigen Subjecto wieder zu besetzen, habe ich die
Akademische Wahl einer solchen wohlbedächtlich länger anstehn laßen, damit
auch allenfalls Fremde in der Bildhauerkunst besonders geschikte Meister Zeit
haben, sich um die gedachte Professorsstelle zu melden.

67  |  Szőcs: Intrigue or insanity? The case of Franz Xaver Messerschmidt

 Es hat sich aber bisher außer dem zur Verfertigung einiger Statuen für den
Schönbrunner Hofgarten anher gekommenen, vormaligen Salzburgischen Hof-
Bildhauer Hagenauer, kein anderer fremder Mitwerber hervorgethan,
vermuthlich weil die Professors-Besoldung von 600 fl. nicht zureichend ist, einen
großen Meister anzulocken, daß er sich hier niederzulaßen verlange.
Diesemnach ist in einer der Akademischen Rathsversammlungen, wovon ich
das Protokoll hier in Unterthänigkeit vorlege, vermöge der freyheiten, und
Statuten der Akademie zur Wahl dreyer Subjekte damit ich hernach einen aus
denselben EUER MAJST. unmaßgebigst vorschlagen möge, geschritten worden,
und auf die folgende drey ausgefallen:

1. Jobann Hagenauer.
2. Jacob Müller.
3. Friedrich Wilhelm Bayer.

Jeder dieser Gewählten hatte eine gleiche Anzahl Stimmen; mit dem Unterschied
jedoch, daß sie in den geschriebenen Wahlzetteln ihren Ort nach der
obenstehenden Ordnung erhalten haben. Aus diesem Umstand zeiget sich, daß
der Akademische Rath vorzüglich den Hagenauer verlanget, wobey ich auch
nichts einzuwenden finde, sondern vielmehr meinen Vorschlag mit solcher Wahl
vereinige.
lm gegenwärtigen Falle ist es nicht sowohl um die Beurtheilung, wer aus den
dreyen mehr Genie, Erfindungsgeist, oder Geschiklichkeit in der Arbeit besitze,  
als um die übrigen zum Lehramte erforderlichen Eigenschaften zu thun, indem
ein Profeßor nebst hinlänglicher Einsicht, und theoretischer Kentniß der Kunst,
auch eine feste Hand in der Ausübung, und vor allem in dem Unterricht seiner
Schüler eine gute Art, Bescheidenheit, Geduld und das Zutrauen der Lehrlinge
haben muß: diese letzteren Eigenschaften sind weniger in der Person des  
MüIIers, oder Bayers, beyder sonst geschikter Männer, als in dem Hagenauer, zu
hoffen; wie denn überhaupt die Wahl eines Fremden, welcher in der unter den
hiesigen Kunstmeistern herrschenden Uneinigkeit, Neid und Unbeträglichkeit
nicht verflochten, oder damit befangen ist, gemeiniglich wenigere Bedenken
unterligt.
Außer dem zeiget sich aus den hier gehorsamst mit beygebogenen
Bittschriften der drey Vorgenannten Subjekte, daß Hagenauer, nach in der
hiesigen Akademie gelegtem Grunde seiner Kunst, sich zu Erlangung mehrerer
Vollkommenheit nach ltalien begeben, daselbst unter ansehnlichen Meistern
studirt, zu Bologna drey Male, zu Florenz, und zu Rom einmal in den
Akademischen Wettstreiten den Ersten Preis erhalten habe, auch zu einem
Mitgliede der Bildhauer-Akademie zu Bologna aufgenommen worden sey. So
besitzet er nicht weniger eine ziemlich zahlreiche Sammelung von Abgüßen aus
Gips sowohl Antiker, als neuerer Statuen, Büsten und anderer Werke der Kunst,
wovon er den Gebrauch der Akademie angeboten hat.
Der einzige Umstand, den ich bey dieser Wahl in Unterthänigkeit zu erinnern
habe, ist, daß der hiesige Bildhauer Franz Messerschmidt schon im Jahre 1769 von
der damaligen Akademie-Direktion das dem gegenwärtigen Raths-Protokoll
beyliegende Antwartschafts-Dekret, auf die Professors-stelle der Bildhauerey, und

68  |  Sculpture Journal 20.1 [2011]

 also ein Recht zu einem unmittelbaren Eintrit in das Amt, und die Besoldung des
verstorbenen Schletterers erhalten hat.
Es ist aber in Ansehung dieser Mannes das wichtige Bedenken, daß er seit drey
Jahren, es sey wegen seines Nothstandes, oder aus einer natürlichen Disposition
einige Verwürrung im Kopfe hat wahrnehmen laßen, welche, ob sie schon sich
seitdem gelegt hat, und ihm wieder, wie vorher, zu arbeiten erlaubet, dennoch
von Zeit zu Zeit sich in einer noch nicht vollkommen gesunden Einbildung äußert.
Ich bedauere zwar die Umstände dieses sonst geschikten Mannes, und
wünsche daß sie durch eine glücklichere Lage sich bessern mögen; kan jedoch
EUER MAJST. niemals einrathen, einen Mann für die Akademische Jugend zum
Lehrer vorzuschlagen, der von derselben bey jeder Veranlaßung den Vorwurf
eines einmal verrükten, und noch nicht ganz heitern Kopfes zu leiden hätte; der
alle übrigen Professores und Direktores für seine Feinde hält, noch immer
seltsame Grillen in der Einbildung hat, und also niemals vollkommen ruhig seyn
kann.
Die Akademie hat mit diesem ihrer Mitglieder Mitleiden, als welchem die
vorbemerkte Ursache, eben da er seine Umstände durch die Einrükung in das
Profeßorsamt verbessern könnte, im Wege steht. Sie bittet daher nach Inhalt des
Protokolls EUER MAJST. allerunterthänigst, sich seines unglüklichen Schiksals in
Gnaden zu erbarmen, und ihm Messerschmidt eine Pension von ein Paar Hundert
Gulden großmüthigst zu ertheilen, auch demselben zu seiner Beschäftigung
einige Arbeit von dem Hofbauamt verschaffen zu laßen, als zu derer Exequirung
er auch dermalen geschikter, als zum Lehramte ist. Mit welcher Fürbitte auch ich
die Meinige in tiefester Ehrfurcht vereinige.
Wien den 5. Decembris 1774
Kaunitz Rittberg
placet [Maria Theresia]
[on the outside of the document]:
Vortrag ad Augma. Womit auf die Conferirung der ledig gewordenen Professors-
Stelle der Bildbauerey an den Salzburgischen Hofbildhauer Johann Hagenauer
und auf die Verleihung einer Pension von 200 fl. für den Messerschmidt Ihro
Majt. eingerathen wird.

The author would like to express her
gratitude to Ágnes Bálint for her
assistance during the research for
this article.
1  For the most recent biography of
the artist, see M. Pötzl-Malikova, ‘The
life and work of Franz Xaver
Messerschmidt’, in M. Pötzl-Malikova
and G. Scherf (eds), Franz Xaver
Messerschmidt 1736–1783: From
Neoclassicism to Expressionism (exh.
cat.), Neue Galerie, New York, 2010,
pp. 17–29.
2  M. Pötzl-Malikova, Franz Xaver
Messerschmidt, Vienna and Munich,
1982, docs. XIV, XVI, XVII.
3  Pötzl-Malikova, as at note 2,
doc. XVII.
4  Pötzl-Malikova, as at note 2,
pp. 57–67; M. Krapf, ‘Franz Xaver
Messerschmidt’s life and work: the
career of a difficult one’, in M. Krapf
(ed.), Franz Xaver Messerschmidt
1736–1783 (exh. cat.), Österreichische
Galerie Belvedere, Vienna, 2003
(English edition), pp. 29–32; H.
Höcherl, ‘The “Hogarth of Sculpture”:
the life and work of the sculptor
Franz Xaver Messerschmidt’, in M.
Bückling (ed.), The Fantastic Heads of
Franz Xaver Messerschmidt (exh. cat.),
Liebieghaus, Frankfurt am Main,
2006, pp. 20–22.
5  For the latest summary on the
Character Heads, see M. Bückling,
‘The Character Heads – forms, names
and numbers’, in M. Bückling (ed.),
The Fantastic Heads of Franz Xaver
Messerschmidt (exh. cat.),
Liebieghaus, Frankfurt am Main,
2006, pp. 76–87.
6  Pötzl-Malikova, as at note 2, p. 59.
7  J. Friedel, Briefe aus Wien, ver-
schniedenen Inhalts an einen Freund
in Berlin, Leipzig and Berlin, 1783, 47.
Brief, pp. 469–71; H. S. Hüsgen (1783)
in J. G. Meusel (ed.), Miscellaneen
artistischen Inhalts, Erfurt, 1779–89,
vol. 3, Booklet 13, p. 43; F. Nicolai,
Beschreibung einer Reise durch
Deutschland und durch die Schweiz
im Jahre 1781, vol. VI., Berlin and
Stettin, 1785, pp. 401–20, published in
Pötzl-Malikova, as at note 2, doc. XLIV,
pp. 146–48; in English, see M.
Bückling (ed.), The Fantastic Heads of
Franz Xaver Messerschmidt (exh. cat.),
Liebieghaus, Frankfurt am Main,
2006, pp. 319–21.
8  Hüsgen, as at note 7, p. 43.
9  Ch. L. Seipp, Reisen von Preßburg
durch Mähren, beyde Schleisen und
Ungarn nach Siebenbürgen und von
dort zurück nach Preßburg, Frankfurt
und Leipzig, 1793, published in Pötzl-
Malikova, as at note 2, doc. XLV; K. J.
Schröer, Franz Xaver Messerschmidt,
Österreichische Blätter für Literatur
und Kunst, Vienna, 1853, vol. 1, p. 218,
vol. 2, p. 230, vol. 3, p. 242, vol. 4,
p. 256; F. Pulszky, Meine Zeit, mein
Leben, vol. 1, Preßburg and Leipzig,
1880, pp. 108–10.
10  A. Ilg, Franz Xaver
Messerschmidt’s Leben und Werke,
Leipzig and Prague, 1885, p. 56.
11  E. Kris, ‘Die Characterköpfe
Franz Messerschmidt: Versuch einer
historischen und psychologischen
Deutung’, Jahrbuch der kunsthis-
torischen Sammlungen in Wien, (new
ser.) 4, 1932, pp. 169–228; E. Kris, ‘Un
sculpteur psychotique du

69  |  Szőcs: Intrigue or insanity? The case of Franz Xaver Messerschmidt

dix-huitième siècle’, in Psychanalyse
de l’art, Paris, 1978 [in English: E. Kris,
‘A psychotic sculptor of the eight-
eenth century’, in Psychoanalytic
Explorations in Art, New York,
8th edn, 1988, pp. 128–50].
12  Nicolai, as at note 7, published
in Pötzl-Malikova, as at note 2,
doc. XLIV, pp. 146–48; in English, see
Bückling, as at note 7, pp. 319–21.
13  Kris (1932), as at note 11, p. 177;
Kris (1978), as at note 11, p. 16.
14  Nicolai, as at note 7; in English,
see Bückling, as at note 7, p. 320.
15  Kris (1932), as at note 11, p. 213;
Kris (1978), as at note 11, p. 168.
16  Kris (1932), as at note 11, p. 221;
Kris (1978), as at note 11, p. 176.
17  Nicolai, as at note 7; in English,
see Bückling, as at note 7, p. 321.
18  Kris (1932), as at note 11, p. 216;
Kris (1978), as at note 11, p. 170.
19  R. and M. Wittkower, Born
under Saturn: The Character and
Conduct of Artists: A Documented
History from Antiquity to the French
Revolution, London, 1963, pp. 124–32.
20  See Kris (1932), as at note 11,
p. 176; Wittkower, as at note 19, p. 126.
21  O. Glandien, Franz Xaver
Messerschmidt (1736–1783):
Ausdrucksstudien und
Charakterköpfe, Cologne, 1981,
pp. 81–90.
22  H. Behr, G. H. Grohmann and
O. Hagedorn, Charakter-Köpfe: Der
Fall F.X. Messerschmidt:Wie verrückt
darf Kunst sein?, Weinheim and Basel,
1983, p. 66.
23  M. C. Lambotte, ‘Franz Xaver
Messerschmidt’s “Character Heads”.
The conflicting nature of the mirror
relation’, in Pötzl-Malikova and
Scherf, as at note 1, pp. 56–63.
24  Nicolai, as at note 7; in English,
see Bückling, as at note 7, p. 314.
25  Pötzl-Malikova, as at note 2,
doc. XXVI, p. 134.
26  M. Krapf, ‘Patrons and friends,
with special regard to the role of the
“Magnetizer” F. A. Mesmer’, in Krapf,
as at note 4, pp. 49–53.
27  Pötzl-Malikova, as at note 2,
cats. 2–5, 18 and 32.
28  M. Bückling, ‘Franz Xaver
Messerschmidt: madness, intrigue
and genius’ in Bückling, as at note 4,
pp. 30–35.
29  C. Lützow, Geschichte der k. k.
Akademie der bildenden Künste,
Vienna, 1877, pp. 1–2.
30  W. Wagner, Die Geschichte der
Akademie der bildenden Künste in
Wien, Vienna, 1967, pp. 37–38.
31  Lützow, as at note 29, pp. 37 and
52; Wagner, ibid., p. 30.
32  Lützow, ibid., p. 38; Wagner,
ibid., p. 32.
33  Lützow, ibid., p. 50; Wagner,
ibid., p. 37.
34  Lützow, ibid., pp. 51–54; Wagner,
ibid., pp. 37–43.
35  Wagner, ibid., pp. 43–44; Pötzl-
Malikova, as at note 2, p. 41.
36  Ibid., p. 41.
37  Wagner, as at note 30, pp. 43–44;
H. Lorenz, ’Architektur’, in H. Lorenz
(ed.), Geschichte der Bildenden Kunst
in Österreich: Barock, Munich, London
and New York, 1999, vol. 4, pp. 233–34.
38  I. Schemper-Sparholz, ‘Dauer
und Vergänglichkeit: der Bildhauer
70  |  Sculpture Journal 20.1 [2011]
Johann Baptist Hagenauer und die
Wirkungsästhetik der Materialien
Blei, Marmor, Terrakotta, Gips’,
Barockberichte, 44–45, 2006,
pp. 851–57.
39  Pötzl-Malikova, as at note 2,
doc. XV, p. 130.
40  Ibid., p. 43, doc. VII, p. 127.
41  Ibid., p. 48.
42  Pötzl-Malikova, as at note 1,
p. 21; U. Thieme and Felix Becker
(eds), Allgemeines Lexikon der
Bildenden Künstler von der Antike
bis zur Gegenwart, Leipzig, 1907–50,
vol. 30, p. 106 (H. Schwarz).
43  Cf. Pötzl-Malikova, as at note 2,
p. 47, doc. XVI, p. 130, doc. XXVI,
p. 135.
44  Translation from German to
English by Andrew Gane; Pötzl-
Malikova, ibid., doc. XIV, p. 130.
45  Translated by Andrew Gane;
Pötzl-Malikova, ibid., doc. XVI,
pp. 130–31.
46  Translated by Andrew Gane;
Pötzl-Malikova, ibid., doc. XVII, p. 132.
47  M. Pötzl-Malikova,
‘Neuerscheinungen über Franz Xaver
Messerschmidt’, Kunstchronik,
September/October, 2007, p. 431.
48  Nicolai, as at note 7; in English,
see Bückling, as at note 7, p. 314.
49  C. von Wurbach, Biographisches
Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich,
Vienna, 1877, vol. 35, p. 322.
50  Pötzl-Malikova, as at note 2,
doc. XXV, p. 135; quoted in English by
Bückling, as at note 28, p. 33.
51  H. R. Füssli, Annalen der bil-
denden Künste für die österreichis-
chen Staaten, vol. II, Vienna, 1802,
p. 25; quoted in English by Bückling,
as at note 28, p. 34.
52  Wagner, as at note 30, pp. 40–
41; Pötzl-Malikova, as at note 2, p. 41.
53  Pötzl-Malikova, ibid., doc. XI,
p. 128.
54  Pötzl-Malikova, ibid., doc. XVII,
p. 132; quoted in English by
Wittkower, as at note 19, p. 125.
55  Merkwürdige Lebensgeschichte
des Franz Xaver Messerschmidt,
k. k. öffentlichen Lehrer der
Bildhauerkunst, Vienna, 1808,
pp. 2–28.
56  U. Pfarr, Franz Xaver
Messerschmidt: Menschenbild und
Selbstwahrnehmung, Berlin, 2006,
pp. 47–64; M. Yonan, ‘The man
behind the mask? Looking at Franz
Xaver Messerschmidt’, Eighteenth-
Century Studies, 42.3, 2009,
pp. 431–51.
57  Nicolai, as at note 7; in English,
see Bückling, as at note 7, p. 315.
58  M. Pötzl-Malikova, ‘Zwei unbe-
kannte Dokumente zum Leben und
Werk Franz Xaver Messerschmidts’,
Ars, 1–3, 1996, pp. 215–22.
59  See Pötzl-Malikova, as at note 2,
docs. XXXII, XXXIII, p. 138; Pötzl-
Malikova, as at note 1, p. 23.
60  Pötzl-Malikova, as at note 2,
cats. 53, 63–65; Krapf, as at note 4, cat.
63.
61  Pötzl-Malikova, ibid., p. 241.
62  Pötzl-Malikova, ibid., docs. XI,
XII, pp. 128–29.