Leseprobe

279 FIG. 6 Jacob Hoefnagel (attributed), Gustavus Adolphus in Armour , Stockholm, c. 1624, oil on wood, h. 64 cm, w. 47 cm, Stockholm, Livrustkammaren, inv. no. 24338 (86:15) Battle of Lützen in 1632, both his shirts and his horse were taken to Sweden to be conserved in perpetuity.The elk-skin buff coat and the general’s collar which he had worn in the battle had been captured by the enemy as trophies.11 The recovery of the King’s body from the battlefield and its trans- portation back to Sweden was also part of a strategy aimed at promoting the King’s image. The corpse was embalmed and taken in a magnificent funeral procession with invited guests from Weißenfels via Wittenberg to the coast at Wolgast, thenceforth to be shipped to Sweden.12 When the corpse’s clothing had to be changed during the long journey through Germany, the Queen Dowager Maria Eleonora took the removed garments, including a jacket made of silver brocade and trousers made of black velvet. After the death of the Queen these items were also added to the holdings of the Royal Wardrobe.13 When, in 1634, the time for the funeral in Stockholm had finally come, the Councillors of the Realm preferred to invite fewer guests from abroad than originally planned. According to the Council’s minutes, they did not wish “foreign poten- tates and lords” to see the poverty that prevailed in Sweden.14 That might deflect from their objective of demonstrating, by means of a lavish funeral, that Sweden remained a major power even after the death of the King. This can be seen as a kind of reverse image-building strategy, with efforts being made to avoid showing something that could have a negative influence on how the country was perceived.15 In summary, we can therefore conclude that the Swedish King pursued various strategies for shaping and promoting his image. At first, Gustavus Adolphus—like his predecessors in the House of Vasa—purchased impressive objects and garments for the important royal ceremonies, which provided excellent opportunities for displaying his power and prestige. Later, the war provided an important arena for image-building, which was reflected in the changed forms of representation in the visual arts and not least in the looting of cultural assets. During his lifetime, the King him- self initiated the commemoration of his deeds. After his death at Lützen in 1632, posterity took over the shaping of his memory. 1 See FOGELMARCK 1988, 31. 2 See EKSTRAND 1991, 22–26; RANGSTRÖM 2002, 70f. 3 See RANGSTRÖM 2010, 154–158. 4 Ibid., 160–164. 5 On Hainhofer see the essay by Theda Jürjens in this volume, 359–363. 6 See DAHLBERG 2001, 136f.; see also the essay by Marius Winzeler in this volume, 445–459. 7 On Hoefnagel see the essay by Thea Vignau-Wilberg in this volume, 337–343. 8 See ELLENIUS 1982, 91–97. 9 See SUNDIN/TEGENBORG-FALKDALEN 2003, 13. 10 Svenska riksrådets protokoll 3, 1633 (Stockholm 1885), 13 november, 237. 11 BURSELL 2005, 22. The tunic was held in the Heeresgeschichtliches Museum (Museum of Military History) in Vienna until being returned to Sweden in 1920; see also the essay by Sofia Nestor in this volume, 489–495. The collar is part of the collection of the Thüringer Landesmuseum Heidecksburg, inv. no. TLMH Ossbahr 0086. 12 See GRUNDBERG 2005, 150. 13 See EKSTRAND 1997, 247, 262. 14 Svenska riksrådets protokoll 4, 1634 (Stockholm 1886), 7. 15 See GRUNDBERG 2005, 154.