Firenze University Press www.fupress.com/bsfm-jems Citation: D. Schulz (2020) Speaking Walls: Graffiti from the Ludwigsburg Residential Palace. Jems 9: pp. 109-140. doi: http:// dx.doi.org/10.13128/JEMS-2279- 7149-11192 Copyright: © 2020 D. Schulz. This is an open access, peer- reviewed article published by Firenze University Press (https:// oajournals.fupress.net/index. php/bsfm-jems) and distributed under the terms of the Crea- tive Commons Attribution - Non Commercial - No derivatives 4.0 International License, which per- mits use, distribution and repro- duction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cit- ed as specified by the author or licensor, that is not used for com- mercial purposes and no modifi- cations or adaptations are made. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Infor- mation files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. ISSN 2279-7149 (online) http://www.fupress.com/bsfm-jems 2020 Firenze University Press JEMS - Journal of Early Modern Studies Speaking Walls Graffiti from the Ludwigsburg Residential Palace Daniel Schulz Independent Scholar () Abstract Ludwigsburg Palace, built in 1704-1733 by Duke Eberhard Ludwig of Württemberg, is one of the great baroque residences of Germany. While a lot of palaces were destroyed during World War II, Ludwigsburg was hardly damaged; therefore, its original surfaces are still to be seen. In the eighteenth century, craftsmen used the walls in the shell to leave graffiti, they made jokes about other people, but they also used the walls instead of paper for drawings or calculations. These graffiti are a historical source which illustrates the building of the palace. When the palace was finished, most of these graffiti remained hidden behind paint and tapestries; but people still left their traces: inhabitants, staff, guards, visitors, tourists, travellers, lovers have left their mark on the palace walls, doors or windows. Names, figures, sayings, drawings and cartoons can be found ranging from incised monograms to hooks, over a period from 1704 until today. In addition to this historical source, under the wood floor panels, legacies of the inhabitants like letters, bills, clothing, shoes, ceramics and utensils were found. Thus, the walls and floors of the building become a living history book, a huge stone calendar, which has lasted up to the present and is still ongoing. Keywords: Apotropaic Graffiti, Eighteenth-Century Graffiti, Ludwigsburg Residential Palace, Remembrance Culture, Traces 1. Introduction Ludwigsburg Palace, built from 1704 to 1733 by Duke Eber- hard Ludwig of Württemberg, is one of the few great Baroque residences in Germany that suffered no significant damage in World War II (Schulz 2005, 96-97). The palace complex has undergone many changes due to its constant use, especially in the nineteenth century, when it was the summer residence of Friedrich I, first king of Württemberg. Unimaginable discoveries are possible in the original building fabric, and floors and walls reveal secrets. That is why Ludwigsburg Palace deserves special protection, which I call right of origin. daniel schulz110 Figure 1 – Ludwigsburg Palace, view from South, aerial view by ArchFlyTech/Arbeit Kunst. Courtesy of the Author People – architects, craftsmen, artists, palace staff, guards, visitors, tourists, travellers, lovers – have left their mark on and in the palace. They immortalized themselves on the outside walls, on the inside walls, on doors, windows and paintings. Names, dates, sayings, drawings and caricatures can be found in a range that stretches from engraved monograms to swastikas over a period from 1704 to the present day. In addition, under the flooring, the legacy of the inhabitants and users has been revealed: fragments of letters, bills, clothes, shoes, ceramics and everyday objects. Thus, the walls and floors of the building become a living history book, a huge stone calendar that reaches into our present and is constantly being updated. There are also traces of various decorations of the palace rooms and traces that certain rooms have been used for different purposes. Graffiti, findings of various kinds and other traces, taken together, make history in layers of time, for many layers of memory lie on top of each other and next to each other. The history of the palace is reflected in a constant process of concealing and uncovering because there were many periods of redecoration and restoration. Of course, the graffiti writers on the eighteenth-century building site were aware that their traces would be of limited duration, as the walls would be whitewashed (Fleming 2001, 73ff.), or otherwise covered; often, however, these whitewashed walls became a palimpsest, ready to be written on again. Indeed, in many buildings layers of graffiti from different periods are found. In Ludwigsburg palace, for instance, during the restoration were found some smudged red chalk graffiti under the white paint; soon after the graffiti were made, the wall was whitewashed: on this layer of paint, no other graffiti were made. speaking walls 111 What fascinates us about this monument? Why do we maintain and care for it? The monu- ment allows us to travel the length of time, provided that it remains as an authentic document. The traces range between high and low art. To high art belong, of course, the paintings, frescoes and furniture which decorate the palace, such as, for example, the paintings by Carlo Carlone from Scaria in Valle Intelvi, in Lombardy. As a second layer you find traces of a sup- posed low art, although it is anything but low for the historian. Traces – especially the graffiti, which are treated in detail below – tell three-hundred years of the palace’s everyday history; they not only give information about what people did or thought at what time, but also about how they dealt with the palace as a historical object. 2. Graffiti and Debris Finds as Historical Sources Graffiti, as a more or less spontaneous confrontation of people with their environment, are one of the earliest forms of human expression and communication, telling of ‘lives of forgotten voices from the recent or distant past.’ (Oliver and Neal 2010, 15). You find graffiti everywhere, across time and cultures: on Egyptian temple walls (Preisigke 2018), in Roman Pompeii (Langner 2001; Lohmann 2018), in England’s medieval churches (Pritchard 1967; Champion 2015), in the Renaissance palace of Urbino (Sarti 2009), in post-revolutionary France (Sheon 1976), left in Berlin’s Reichstag by Soviet Soldiers during World War II (Foster 2003), on trees (Oliver and Neal 2010) and in twentieth-century American cities (Baudrillard 1976). Shrill and colourful, they decorate or deface the concrete – it depends on one’s point of view. To leave a sign of your presence can be seen as ‘an archaic trait of human behaviour’ (Kraack 1997, 378), or simply a gesture coming from a certain playful instinct: people who, for whatever reason, were waiting on a certain site, for example, scratched drawings and play panels on steps, pillars and benches only to kill the time. Graffiti can be found from antiquity in various cultural monuments. They also appear in works of fine art, for example as superimposed signatures, as those discussed by Guichard in paintings by Hendrik Avercamp, Pieter Saenredam or Jean-Siméon Chardin (Guichard 2014, 121ff.). Brassaï (1960) was the first to deal seriously with graffiti, photographing them on the street walls of Paris. Graffiti are still appearing every day and the widespread astonishment that they are not a modern invention comes from a perception gap in cultural studies: graffiti have simply not always been noticed. Older graffiti can be defined as historical graffiti. They are to be understood as an independent source genre in their own right, occupying the space between high and low art, traces (or legacies) ranging from documents to scribble and vandalism. Debris – which have been found, or disposed of, below the floors – can be found every- where in buildings. In the case of Ludwigsburg palace, graffiti and debris finds represent unusual testimonials of everyday life and culture, and therefore a multifaceted, although fragmentary, picture of everyday life. The graffito is one of the most immediate works that a human can leave – ‘it is because humans worked, and committed something to stone, or bone, or baked clay tablets, or papyrus, or paper, or recording tape, or a computer’s memory, that their works outlive their working. People pass, their works remain’ (Ricoeur 1988, 120). Doris Jones-Baker discusses graffiti as sources of a special kind, also as the voice of the unprivileged people, ‘belonging to the archae- ology of history’ (1993, 4). Graffiti, she argues, are one source by which to understand history, alongside other more traditional sources, such as those we consider documents. As she states: daniel schulz112 English graffiti, particularly those belonging to the mediaeval and Tudor periods when they were used as a drawing and verbal recording medium by the educated and the literate as well as by the lower orders of society, are an important and often unique source of historical information – yet one still largely overlooked and unused by local historians. (1993, 4) Graffiti are therefore to be considered as sources of an informal story of people who had no op- portunity to portray themselves: they ‘shed light on the lives of people who might not otherwise have been the subject of more conventional narratives’ (Oliver and Neal 2010, 15). Matthew Champion also states that we find in graffiti ‘the voice of those who worked the parish land, who carried the stones to build the church itself, and worshipped in this splendid monument to their betters’ (Champion 2015, xii), as they could not afford artworks and monuments like the rich who had the possibility to be memorialised. In old buildings, finds are of many kinds; among them, the shoe is the object that is most closely associated with its wearer because, over time, it takes on the impression of the body. The debris finds, in particular, show a picture of everyday life, the living and working world in the residence, which cannot emerge from written sources like court diaries or inventories. Their historical and epistemological value is therefore a source of everyday life; together with graffiti, debris finds represent a source which is as historical as that represented by reports or any other kind of written document. By examining them, therefore, we encounter the traces of a micro-history, not a story of little things, but a microscopic examination of essential traces of the past (Ginzburg 1986). Whatever has found its way onto the palace walls or under the palace floors, came there deliberately, and indeed the value of this fragmentary material today lies in its authenticity and immediacy: they are first-hand sources. Graffiti and debris finds must therefore be seen as part of the monument. As Paul Ricoeur argues, ‘any trace left by the past becomes a document for historians as soon as they know how to interrogate its remains, how to question them’ (1988, 117). We find graffiti in many eighteenth-century historical places, but – excepting those we find in prisons – these have not been studied: indeed, I do not know of any other study of graffiti left by eighteenth-century craftsmen and construction workers during the building of a baroque palace such as Ludwigsburg. There is therefore no other material to which to compare Ludwigsburg’s. There are some graffiti in the palace staircase at Seehof near Bamberg (Schulz 2018, 92ff.). Built between 1687 and 1696, Seehof was re-designed from 1746 to 1753. Probably from this time there are graffiti in red chalk and graphite representing cupids and rocaille ornaments; one of the cupids is wearing an Allonge-wig. In the palace of Rastatt you can see a rare example of a wall used as a sketch-book.1 Plasterer Johannes Schütz was working there in 1752 and made a natural-sized red chalk drawing on an unfinished wall to show his draft for a monument to Markgraf Ludwig Wilhelm von Baden-Baden, so called Türkenlouis. The monument was then executed in the choir of the church in Baden-Baden, 20 kilometres away from the graffiti in Rastatt. You find another, but unpublished, example of baroque graffiti in the church of Santa Maria dei Ghirli in the Italian enclave of Campione d’Italia on Lake Lugano. The graffiti probably date from the building’s renovation that took place from 1623 to 1636: they represent cherubs, cupids and caricatures. This is remarkable because it is close to the valley of Intelvi, from which a lot of families who worked at the beginning of the eighteenth century at Ludwigsburg Palace 1 See , accessed 10 January 2020. speaking walls 113 came. Another example are graffiti in the prison of the Bishop’s high school in Freising in Bavar- ia. Students at the Bishop’s high school or the college in Freising made them between 1740 and 1770 (Götz 2018). There are two well researched palaces with graffiti: Castello di Issogne in the lower Aosta Valley, in north-western Italy, where you find graffiti on the late Middle Ages frescoes made by visitors, servants and the lords of the manor themselves, mainly from the sixteenth-and seventeenth centuries (Borettaz 1995); the second is the Palazzo Ducale of Urbino.2 The importance of the Ludwigsburg graffiti is that they give insights into the everyday life of a palace building site in the eighteenth century, being traces of the lives of mostly nameless workers. Only a few people in those times left their name in a graffito, even fewer a date and none his place of origin. ‘Johannes Streitl [?] 1721’, who wrote his name and a date in the old main building’s staircase, could be a local or from far away. His name’s ending indicates he could be a worker from the Austrian Tyrol, as many Protestants from there came as refugees to Württemberg, where reformed religion was practised. But this remains speculation. An apt comparison with Ludwigsburg Palace may be the Palace of Skokloster in Sweden, the only building in Europe with a complete seventeenth-century building site of equal authenticity to Ludwigsburg. The palace started to be built in 1654 for Commander Carl Gustav Wrangel, but was never finished (when the builder died in 1676 the large banqueting hall remained unfinished); but, while in Ludwigsburg we find eighteenth-century graffiti of construction workers, in Skokloster we find a baroque building site with machines, instruments, equipment and frameworks. If there are also graffiti, I was unable to find out. In the nineteenth century there was a renewed interest in graffiti and caricatures, also in children’s and folk art, and primitive artefacts. In 1865, the English antiquarian Thomas Wright stated that ‘graffiti and caricature were the first manifestations of artistic activity, the ur-styles of civilization. … Graffiti was recognized as part of man’s basic creative instinct, his most primary form of art’ (quoted in Sheon 1976, 21ff. ). But the term ‘graffiti’ was first used by archaeologists when, by mid-eighteenth century, they discovered the ruins of Pompeii. I first became aware of the graffiti in Ludwigsburg Palace about fifteen years ago, when I worked there as a museum guide. When I started to document them, there was no gener- al interest in graffiti. I uncovered and catalogued part of the graffiti, and they found their way into my dissertation (Schulz 2018). In Ludwigsburg palace, there is a great diversity of inscriptions, made at different times: we find not only eighteenth-century inscriptions, but also others made by craftsmen and visitors in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In this article, I intend to deal mainly with eighteenth-century graffiti, starting with what I believe is their typology. 3. The Ludwigsburg Graffiti: A Typology The Ludwigsburg graffiti can be typologically distinguished as follows: 1. Inscription Graffiti: names, initials, dates (traces left by people with the aim of perpetuating their own memory: they can be identified by the term culture of remembrance); sayings; invoices, doodles (the use of the wall as a notebook by craftsmen or archivists). 2 The Renaissance graffiti in the Palace of Urbino (Sarti 2009; Sarti et al. 2017) were the subject of an out- standing exhibition and a major conference in 2017. daniel schulz114 2. Figure graffiti: caricatures, human figures, animals. 3. Architectural graffiti: houses, churches, other buildings. 4. Ornamental graffiti: ornaments, motifs and patterns (which are related to the palace’s domestic equipment); construction signs; apotropaic figures. Generally speaking, Kraack and Lingens divide graffiti into three groups. In the first group, they consider simple signs, symbols, letters and numbers that often elude any further in- terpretation – for example monograms or single dates. The second group consists of words, sentences or texts which, they argue, have the same source value as other written traditions and often contain references to events that have not been documented. Thirdly, they consider naive, simple sketches (as well as artistically high-quality drawings) as graphic representations (2001, 30-31). An important feature of the graffiti, which also affects their typology, is their execution; also important are the tools used to make them. In Ludwigsburg you find scratched graffiti on plaster, wood, glass and stone. Graffiti in red chalk, charcoal, chalk and graphite can be found on plaster, wood and stone. In the eighteenth century it was mainly red chalk that was used, while in the nineteenth century it was graphite. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, graffiti. Coal and chalk are likely to suffer from losses over time as these are not durable materials. In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, graffiti are mainly scratched or applied with a pencil or a ballpoint pen. Obviously, sprayed graffiti, the technology that we nowadays mainly think of as graffiti, does not exist in Ludwigsburg Palace at all. 4. Statistical Evaluation of Graffiti in Ludwigsburg Palace Of the 891 recorded graffiti in Ludwigsburg Palace, 387 are dated (figure 2). Only 7.5% of graffiti belong to the eighteenth century; only 5 graffiti come from the reign of the palace builder, Duke Eberhard Ludwig, (1716-1731); and 24 come from the time of Duke Carl Eu- gen, or those governing on his behalf, 1737-1790. 46% of graffiti date back to the nineteenth century: of these, 12 are attributed to the time of King Friedrich, and the widow Queen, Charlotte Mathilde, 1797-1828; 45 graffiti come from the period between 1828 and 1864 and 120 from the period between 1865 and 1918. 46.5% of all dated graffiti were applied in the twentieth century: 46 from 1919 to 1949, 74 from 1950 to 1979 and 61 from 1980 to 2006. If one adds to the dated the undated font graffiti, by analysing their typeface, the following picture emerges: 17% of the typeface graffiti date from the eighteenth century (80 undated, 29 dated), 44% from the nineteenth century (95 undated, 177 dated) and 39% from the twentieth century (67 undated, 179 dated). Another view emerges when looking at graphic graffiti: 59% are from the eighteenth century, 15% are from the nineteenth and 26% from the twentieth century. If one then adds up the graphic and the font graffiti (dated and undated), the result divides almost exactly into thirds: 30% of all graffiti are from the eighteenth century, 35% from the nineteenth century and 35% from the twentieth century. speaking walls 115 Figure 2 – Statistical analysis of graffiti. Graphic by Daniel Schulz. Courtesy of the Author These numbers prove, after all, that graffiti writing was equally practised throughout the cen- turies. However, the number of eighteenth-century graffiti would be much higher if one could examine all wall surfaces. I have only documented graffiti which appear on those walls where all layers of wallpaper or tapestries were removed during restoration. Of course, graffiti were made with different intentions throughout the centuries. In the eighteenth century we find mostly graphic graffiti or sayings and more initials than names; for us, on the whole, the graffiti makers remain anonymous. You find these graffiti by construction workers everywhere in the palace because workers had access to all parts and they did know that whatever they left on the walls would later become invisible, because it would be covered by paint or textile tapestries. Later eighteenth-century graffiti were probably done mainly by soldiers and guards in public areas of the palace like staircases, galleries or on frames of entrance doors. Nor- mally these public places were never left unattended, but most graffiti were made in years when the court was less often in Ludwigsburg, and therefore the surveillance was less strict. Maybe, then, at those times, workers did not have to hide when they chiselled their initials in sandstone. In the nineteenth century people told more about themselves – they left their names, dates and places of origin. There are a lot of graffiti from visitors, tourists and craftsmen – which simply mean to say ‘I was here’. You find graffiti of craftsmen not in public places but in backstairs, places that were used only by them. There are also graffiti from the mid-nineteenth century, made by employees in rooms used as offices for different authorities when the king’s court was no longer in the palace (he and his family preferred Stuttgart and its palaces). Also graffiti from visitors are found only in places open to the public, because no one could enter the state and private apartments of the ruler. daniel schulz116 In the twentieth century we still find graffiti by craftsmen in areas where they alone could enter. A lot of them placed their graffiti next to an elder’s to show the continuity of their craft; sometimes they are arranged in groups of crafts, at other times you find graffiti from the same family. Graffiti by tourists are located in public areas: these are names, jokes, hearts or vows of love and also sexual graffiti; but people also placed graffiti in unattended areas like open ground floor galleries where they were not overseen by the museum’s supervisors. As the monarchy was abolished in 1919, from that date the palace was not used as a royal residence any longer. Throughout all these times, by leaving such traces as names, initials and dates on the Lud- wigsburg Palace walls, people manifested a desire to be remembered. I will start my illustration of those traces by commenting on what I call ‘graffiti of remembrance culture’ from 1716 to 2001. 5. Remembrance Culture: Names, Initials and Dates Figure 3 – Plan of Ludwigsburg Palace, Graphic by Daniel Schulz. Courtesy of the Author Craftsmen, guards and visitors immortalized themselves on the palace walls. Many left only a name, more often their initials, sometimes only an indication of the year (the latter is true especially as far as the eighteenth century is concerned), and also a lot of jokes. In the eighteenth century, in the north-eastern staircase in the Festinbau building, an alphabet was written on the wall; below it, was written ‘der das geschrieben hat ist ein Prafer’.3 Right next to it, somebody has written an incomplete Latin Our Father, ending suddenly with ‘as in heaven as on earth’. The writer may have abandoned the graffito because had been disturbed while writing; in any case, someone showed their devotion by bringing it to an end. In the eighteenth century, in the intermediate floor of the Old Corps de logis, somebody wrote: ‘... [unrecognizable or wiped out] der alte iß ein praffes [braver] Mann er thut wie Wanndputz’4. Around 1730, in room 259 in the New Corps de logis , someone wrote on the wall: ‘Wer in das Zimmer scheist der soll 3 ‘who wrote this is well-behaved’. Unless otherwise stated, translations are mine. 4 ‘the old man is well-behaved, he sticks like wall plaster’, in the sense that he is reliable. speaking walls 117 den Dreck mit der hand zum fenster raus werfen’.5 We can imagine that someone really did this and that, therefore, the building site was stinking. In other words, the writing was maybe a threat by a foreman or overseer. Comparable to this is a graffito in the Palazzo Ducale of Urbino which says: ‘Recordat dello turno’ (‘remember whose turn’) in a room behind the stove for the bath. This was a reminder to a servant not to forget that the bath had to be regularly heated (Sarti 2009, 66). As I already said, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, people were more commu- nicative – they left names, a date, a profession, their origin, sometimes messages. These range from expressions of love to descriptions of the work done in the palace. From certain writings, therefore, we learn who loved whom or who repaired which windows. In the old Corps de logis several members of a family of glaziers left their names next to each other. Only craftsmen came to this place, which was not available to the public, as was the case with the staircase in the bell tower of the order chapel. Staircases and portals are public places that are easily accessible to visitors who, before being admitted, had to wait in the stairwells, the galleries or the guard’s hall. These public places were regu- larly under control during the eighteenth century and up to 1827, when Queen Charlotte Mathilde, who was the last of the royal family permanently living in the Palace, died. Afterwards, fewer guards or servants were necessary, as the palace was only intermittently used by distant family members. On the balustrades of the stairwells in the New Corps de logis (Room 128a, 163a) the following initials followed by a date are inscribed: ‘MK 1737’, ‘HH 1738’ (in the latter, the number ‘1’ is reminiscent of the symbol of an anchor), ‘HSPVW 1738 DEW’, ‘ATBE 1738’, ‘HIRFS 1739’ and ‘BM 1781’. ‘HMK’ has made a more elaborate immortalization with a pretzel (or a heraldic symbol?) engraved over his initials, and he framed the whole. In addition, numerous other incisions can be seen, like ‘HM’ and ‘IFM’ with three crossed swords, an indi- cation that it was probably guards who carved their monograms into the sandstone. The mere initial grants a certain anonymity, and therefore it is aimed at initiates. It is interesting to notice that most dates are from the end of the 1730s; in the years from 1737 to 1744 there was an interim government in Württemberg; therefore, the palace was less used because Stuttgart became the capital again. Probably, therefore, the public areas like the staircase were sometimes less supervised. It may be that the controllers themselves left these graffiti when they were unattended and had nothing to do. Similar monograms, crossed swords and crosses can also be found on the portal of the Old Corps de logis: ‘IHKF 1739’, ‘FKM 1741’, ‘iMTS 1743’, ‘SH 1744 HCS’, ‘HGG 1747’, ‘HFK 1747’, ‘GEORG VSLT ANO 1747’ (next to it a sword or dagger), ‘MK 1751’, ‘HB 1797’. Both sides of the portal have noticeable deep longitudinal grooves in the sandstone, probably left by the guards who whetted their sabres or swords there (Heller 1993, 226-229). Most of these graffiti date from the reign of Duke Carl Eugen (1744-1793), both before and after the court was officially transferred back to Ludwigsburg between 1764 and 1775. But the Duke used the palace before 1764 as well, when he set up a new apartment in 1758. This area of the palace, the first and oldest building, was not used by him, but only by courtiers. In the palace, people who otherwise have not emerged in history have immortalized them- selves. They have created their own monument of culture of remembrance. We do not have a graffito from every one of the 300 years of life of the palace, but traces have been left at least from every century of its history: 1704, 1804, 1904, 2004. Below is a chronological selection from the pages of this historical calendar (figure 4). 5 ‘Whoever shits in the room should throw the dirt out of the window by hand’. daniel schulz118 Figure 4 – Historical Calendar – Graffiti of various centuries from the Ludwigsburg Palace. Photo and collage by Daniel Schulz. Courtesy of the Author speaking walls 119 The saying ‘si tout les vis volet 1716’6 was carved into a windowpane in the guardroom of the Old Corps de logis (figure 4.1). On the west facade of the palace church, under the top cornice and set in a box, there is a large inscription written in red chalk. It probably consists of a first and last name, a place of origin and a saying, probably from a roofer. However, only the first name ‘Johann’ and the date, ‘Ano 1717’, are legible (figure 4.2). The construction of the palace church started in 1715 and, in 1718, after the dome was completed, work in the interior began (Wenger 1998, 19). ‘Johannes Streitl 1721’ can be read in a window embrasure of the outer hall of the old picture gallery in the Old Corps de logis; in turn, ‘HR 1722’ is carved on a stucco vase on the first floor of the staircase (figure 4.3); in the attic is written in chalk ‘MBH 1728’; on a pillar in the Sala Terrana in the New Corps de logis is written ‘Esel [donkey] Matheis 1728’, and in room 249 only the date ‘1731’. Two years before the death of Duke Eberhard Ludwig, the interior design of the New Corps de logis was in full swing. On the balustrade in the stairwell of the Queen in the New Corps de logis you can find the inscriptions ‘H.H. 1738’ and ‘IMTS 1743’; on the portal of the Old Corps de logis ‘MK 1751’ (we are now in the reign of Duke Carl Eugen, 1744-1793); and in an elaborately carved framing in the Sala Terrana of the New Corps de Logis ‘CRAR 1753’ (figure 4.4). In a dormer of the Festinbau, there is a sentence, presumably left by a roofer in 1768, saying ‘Zum Creitz und leidten bin ich gemacht gott fahr mihr zur fall ich heit und nicht das gelt’7 (figure 4.5). A certain Hiller immortalized himself, by name (‘Hiller’) and date (‘1767’), in a corner room above the marble hall. Below is written ‘1767’ and, much bigger, ‘1777’, which has no reference to the name written above: the dates were probably carved by someone else who remains anonymous. Evidently, in 1777, that is, ten years after the inscription was made, some- body thought that a reference to Hiller’s inscription was appropriate. But what was remarkable about these years and what did someone in this little, out of the way room want to highlight? July 1767 seems to be a remarkable date because it was then that Duke Carl Eugen was back from his long travels in Italy. In the evening of the day he returned, there was a great banquet in the Marble Hall. A window opens the little corner room onto the hall below. So maybe Hiller observed the party from his raised hideaway, the little corner room above the Marble Hall. But in 1777 there was nothing remarkable, the court having left Ludwigsburg, except that 1777 was the year when the poet Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart was arrested for his criticisms of Duke Carl Eugen and imprisoned for ten years: someone may have intended to mark that date for this reason. The time of glorious celebrations was over, when also ‘CFR, HF and I.C.F.G. 1790’ was written on the base of one of the vases on the staircase balustrade in the Old Corps de logis (figure 4.6). Then we follow the few traces from the reign of Frederick (1797-1816), Duke, Elector, then King, and his wife Charlotte Mathilde (died 1828). Under the northern staircase of the castle church is written in black ‘Weigel 1798’ (figure 4.7). Again, on the west facade of the palace church, there are several names under the top cornice: ‘Honorus Honorusys Jacob Marqwardt von Massenbach [? Close to Schwaigern] / Anton Schnekenbürzer of Deilingen [near Balingen] Ano 1812’. The church must have been scaffolded again at this time, because the place where the inscription was made cannot otherwise be reached. An equally unusual place is the inside of the big barrel in the basement under the 6 ‘if all the screws fly’, meaning ‘if all the screws are not well fastened’. 7 ‘I hope only my money will slip out of my pocket and fall down and not I myself will fall down from the roof ’. daniel schulz120 games pavilion. There are numerous chalk inscriptions of coopers, like ‘Christian Friedrich Schelling von Derdingen ano 1820 Küferknecht’ (figure 4.8). ‘Christian 1825’ immortalized himself on a door on the third floor of the Old Corps the Logis; ‘Wenzler 1844’ was engraved on another door. On the roof window in the Festin building are the initials ‘K. D. 1879 b. 1898’; on a marble door vesture in the western gallery of the Old Corps de logis ‘Klemm Maler [Painter] 1884’ is scratched; immortalized in the stairwell of the bell tower of the Order chapel we find ‘W. Wanner von Urach 1893’, and another inscription tells us ‘Richard Drexel u. W. Wanner haben hier oben Tauben verjagt!! […] 1894’8 (figure 4.9). In a box with a flaming heart on the third floor of the Old Corps de logis stands the in- scription ‘Paul Albrecht (?) Monteur [installer] 20.3.1913’, ‘H. Hohenstein Installateur [fitter] 24.3.1920’. The inscriptions were crossed out later but are still legible. A certain Klara Krautt has repeatedly immortalized herself on a door on the ground floor of the New Corps de logis: ‘1932 Klara Krautt Ossweil’. From another graffito we learn that she was born on 5 November 1882; ‘Karl Lillich Elektromeister [master electrician] 29.5.1934’ was inscribed in the ceiling of the gallery on the second floor. Under his inscription Lillich drew a lightning, which today is still the company logo of ‘Elektro Lillich’. In the arcades of the eastern gallery to the games pavilion is inscribed in a heart: ‘1939 Helmut Breuninger’ (figure 4.10) and in the arcades of the western gallery ‘Erika + Robert 24.2. [19] 57’ (figure 4.11). In the same place, ‘Eddy + Marina 7.5.1967’ swore eternal love. On a door in the stairwell of the order chapel, craftsman ‘Eckstein Ossweil 1975’ is perpetuated; again, in the western arcade gallery was written ‘Dave loves Gina 1990’; and in a dormer in the Festin building we read ‘2001 Wirth’, also a craftsman. I stopped to collect graffiti made around that date. Perhaps someone else can look in Ludwigsburg palace for graffiti from the last 19 years. Below I present some eighteenth-century graffiti belonging to the different stages of the palace's construction: inscriptions, accounts, sayings, drawings, caricatures and dates. On the eighteenth-century building site, using the wall as a notebook or sketch pad, sometimes as smudge paper, was the rule. The wall surfaces in the shell of the Ludwigsburg Palace were obviously a common carrier for all sorts of notes and jokes, the more so since paper was then not as easily available as it is today. We should not look at graffiti only from our current per- spective. Influenced by ‘Tags’ of graffiti writers, we now see them as vandalism and assume that it is forbidden to write on walls. Therefore, most historians conclude that writing on walls was forbidden earlier as well. Matthew Champion, however, proved that many medieval carved graffiti were, on originally coloured architectural surfaces, clearer to see than today and that ‘Modern perceptions of graffiti as something that is destructive and unacceptable simply can- not be applied to these medieval inscriptions’ (2015, 5); and Raffaella Sarti demonstrated that in the Palazzo Ducale of Urbino even the ducal family members themselves left graffiti (Sarti et al. 2017, 46ff.). Juliet Fleming, in turn, has shown that writing on walls was common in Elizabethan and Jacobean England; as she states that, ‘early modern England was paper-short. As a result, the unleisured of every class wrote (usually in chalk, charcoal or marking stone) on walls, furniture and other suitable surfaces’ (2001, 9). In other words, writing on walls was not condemned at all times (Oliver and Neal 2010, 35). 8 ‘Richard Drexel and. W. Wanner have chased away pigeons here!!’. speaking walls 121 We can see the practice of wall writing in taverns illustrated in seventeenth-century pictures by the brothers Roeland and Peter van Laer (Guichard 2014, 71) and we know from different testimonies by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe that he himself was used to make graf- fiti (Guichard 2014, 28ff.). But Goethe never used the term ‘graffito’ for the traces he left on tables, walls or other surfaces. He just used a description of his activity: he carved, cut or wrote. In Moll Flanders (1722) lovers scratch a dialogue to a window glass: ‘You I love and you alone. I read it and asked him to lend me the ring, with which I wrote under it thus: And so, in love says everyone. He takes his ring again and writes another line thus: Virtue alone is an estate. I borrowed it again, and I wrote under it: But money’s virtue, gold is fate’ (Defoe 1964, 71). In 1798, the glass journeyman Christian Ludwig Eichenbrander scratched a similar saying to a window glass in Ludwigsburg Palace: ‘Ein Jungfer und ein Glasersgsell sind 2 Verbrechens Ding. Es ist um einen Stoß zu thun so sind beyde hin’.9 We even find graffiti on artworks, wall paintings and frescoes (Plesch 2010; Guichard 2014), for example in the Castello di Issogne. As Omar Borettaz states, ‘in the late middle ages, there was probably no palace, no church, no guesthouse, no tavern, or other public space that did not reveal on its walls traces of the passage of guests, pilgrims, wayfarers, or customers’ (1995, 5). In the context of graffiti on artworks two graffiti that relate to the history of Württemberg stand out. A letter from Pope Benedict XIV to Cardinal Tencin, written on 23 May 1753, reveals a piquant story about Duke Carl Eugen during his first Italian journey. The Pope said he wanted to buy antique statues, which were in the Villa of the Duke of Modena in Tivoli. One of the statues was a Venus, that can be described as follows: ‘a beautiful naked Venus, and on one of her buttocks, engraved with the point of a diamond, you can find the name of the Duke of Württemberg, and on the other, that of the Princess, his wife; Interventions carried out by both of them when they were in Tivoli just before leaving Rome’ (Zahlten 1993, 28). Until 1830, this Venus figure stood in the salon of the Capitoline Museum and has since then disappeared (Uhlig and Zahlten 2005, xxxii). A graffito is also linked with the end of Carl Eugen’s Charles Academy. On the occasion of the dissolution of the Charles Academy in Stuttgart in 1794, under Duke Ludwig Eugen, the buildings were to be converted into horse stables. The former academician Johann Christoph Friedrich Haug chalked the following epigram on the door: ‘Olim musis, nunc mulis’ (‘once the muses, now the mules’). In Ludwigsburg you can find graffiti on a fresco by Luca Antonio Colomba from Arogno in Ticino. In the court chapel above the duke’s lodge there is a second site where visitors, pages and other servants could watch the ceremonies in the church. They left graffiti here (even a penis scratched onto a cupid), and also in the staircase leading to this place. Of course, the monarch would not be amused to see that penis on Colomba’s cupid, but no nobleman ever came to this place, and from the church below you cannot see it. It is different with the cheeky saying about the young lady and the glazier’s journeyman quoted above. Next to this writing, we find: ‘Christian Ludwig Eichenbrander Glasers Gesell bey Herrn Meister Andreas Wirthauß da in Ludwigsburg Anno 1798 d. 24. May.’10 To find this in a noble apartment, made when the rooms were restored for Friedrich I, maybe before the window was set in! This was the room in which Napoleon was to be housed when he visited Ludwigsburg in 1805. Did he see this? In any case, he surely could not understand German. 9 ‘a young lady and a glass journeyman are easy instruments of a crime, it just needs one push and both are ruined’. 10 ‘Christian Ludwig Eichenbrander glazier’s journeyman at Master Anreas Wirthausß in Ludwigsburg 24th May 1798’. daniel schulz122 So, there are enough examples showing that leaving graffiti was common and not for- bidden until comparatively recent times. I can certainly say that it was common among con- struction workers on the eighteenth century building site. But we see that in late-nineteenth century, it was forbidden to leave graffiti on the palace walls; in fact, in the galleries of the old main building that were open to the public, there was a plate fixed ordering that it was not allowed to scribble on the walls (Schulz 2018). But this warning did not stop anyone! The Ludwigsburg graffiti remain perplexing because in most cases we do not know exactly why a person was drawing or writing a particular graffito on the wall. Even the most common traces, the calculations which show what was measured, are not easily interpreted, for the traces remain fragmentary: what the person thought at the time and what we think as twenty-first century observers are never congruent. They are a directly historical source opening a door to another world, when the palace was built and used and not just a tourist site as it is today. Together with other historical sources like written documents or files, graf- fiti sharpen our view of the palace and complete the mosaic. What Champion states about the graffiti we find in medieval churches is also valid for Ludwigsburg Palace: ‘The medieval graffiti that we discover in churches today tells us about all aspects of the medieval world. It tells tales of grief and loss, of love and humour. … In short, it tells us of life’ (2015, xiii). 6. Caricatures of Duke Eberhard Ludwig The preludes to our excursion into the eighteenth-century figure world in the Ludwigsburg Palace are two caricatures. The draughtsmen seem to have had the palace builder, Duke Eberhard Ludwig, in their sights when drawing them (Schulz 2017, 68-71). The drawings are quite unremarkable, both in their size, and in the style of drawing and the material. A graphite drawing (about 20 cm high) in the picture gallery in the Old Corps de logis shows an aristocratic-looking person (figure 5). The head, shown in profile, has striking details: the eye too small compared to the proportion of the face, the straight long nose, the narrow sloping upper lip and the fuller lower lip. The face is framed by a wavy line indicating curly long hair, probably an allonge wig. Diagonally across from the sketch above the central entrance to the gallery is the bust of Duke Eberhard Ludwig, which was made by Donato Giuseppe Frisoni around 1711 (Fleischhauer 1958, 152, figure 5). The profile line and character of the drawing are similar to the bust. The drawing could be a sketch for fixing the stucco bust. Next to the drawing, a door frame seems to be sketched, above it a circle indicating the ex- tent of the composition of the ‘bust’. The face profile fits into the circle, the lines in front of the head indicating the wall surface. The graffito exaggerates certain features, such as the big nose, a stylistic device that was also used by Bernini or Tiepolo in their caricatures (Brauer and Wittkower 1931, plate 149b). speaking walls 123 Figure 5 – Stucco bust of the Duke Eberhard Ludwig by Donato Giuseppe Frisoni in the picture gallery of the Old Corps de logis and caricature of the Duke. Photo by Daniel Schulz. Courtesy of the Author Figure 6 – Drawing in graphite, figure of nobleman about 10 cm high and a fencer. Photo by Daniel Schulz. Courtesy of the Author daniel schulz124 While the Duke appears in a caricature or work sketch in the picture gallery, in the New Corps de logis he appears to be the protagonist of an unusually harsh caricature. A young fencer determinedly stabs a well-dressed gentleman in fashionable eighteenth-century costume with a tricorn on his head (figure 6). While the tricorn’s long tip fails to convince, the rest of the clothes are very detailed and accurately represented: the figure wears a justaucorps with long button placket and patch pockets, breeches and boots. The short-curly-haired head has portrait features. From the mouth, the figure’s spirits seem to escape. Right above, another figure is visible. An oversized and obese lady seems to try to stop the fencer with a clenched fist. It seems as if the figure of the nobleman was drawn first. Then another hand drew the fencer and maybe a third person the lady. These figures are probably the outcome of an interactive collective work, but this is difficult to determine.11 The corpulent lady could also be a separate graffito. It’s drawn with a very thin graphite line, nearly invisible. I only discovered it in a photo. It could be a very disrespectful caricature of the Duchess or the mistress of the Duke, Christina Wilhelmina of Grävenitz. Some people accused her of being the driving force behind the Duke spending too much money on his pa- lace. If one compares facial features, clothing – above all the patch pockets on justaucorps – and stature of the figure with the portrait of Eberhard Ludwig by Antoine Pesne from the year 1731, a similarity cannot be denied (figure 7). The caricature could well have originated in the same period as the painting, for around 1731-1732 the expansion of the New Corps de logis was in full swing (Fleischhauer 1958, 193-194). But does the figure really represent Duke Eberhard Ludwig? Also, does it represent a social critique or is it simply a joke? Above all, the differences in clothing show that the draughtsman meant and depicted two people of different social rank. It is noticeable that the ‘duke’ is precisely executed in the details and the draughtsman attached importance to the recognizability of the figure. In the figure of the fencer, instead, emphasis was placed on non-recognizability, for it looks like a stereotype: a young man, not identifiable, dressed only in a simple shirt, breeches and flat shoes. The idea of someone stabbing the sovereign Eberhard Ludwig in a caricature is not so outlandish. The court did not pay up promptly and this could be a reason for one of the artists or craftsmen to give vent to his frustration in this drawing. Perhaps the Duke is meant as a kind of windbag – not murdered at all but punctured so the air is let out of him. 11 There is a rare example of interactive graffiti in the student’s detention cell in Freising (Götz 2018, 234). The student Anton Andreas Lang painted his name there in 1764 in yellow ochre paint and someone else hung the name on red painted gallows and wrote below the offensive phrase, ‘little brat’. speaking walls 125 Figure 7 – Caricature and portraits of Duke Eberhard Ludwig (a portrait of Eberhard Ludwig from 1731 by Antoine Pesne; another portrait that shows the hat of the duke). Courtesy of the Ludwigsburg Palace/SSG Staatliche Schlösser und Gärten Baden-Württemberg. Photo and collage by Daniel Schulz. Courtesy of the Author There is no comparative example in the history of caricature in the eighteenth century that could have been a role model in any way. Nobody seems to have dared to portray a princely person in this way. Similar drastic representations exist only later, during the Thirty Years’ War, in pamphlets on the assassination of Wallenstein or, later, in William Hogarth’s Marriage A-la-Mode of 1745. In the fifth sheet of Hogarth’s series of six engravings, the young count is stabbed by his wife’s lover (Hogarth 1986, 133, figure 86). James Gillray’s 1793 engraving on the execution of Louis XVI is downright brutal (Gillray 1986, 77). Only much later can one find caricatures of Duke Carl Eugen and then, often, of his nephew, King Friedrich I, who was a preferred target of cartoonists (Schulz 2017, 71-83). The caricature of Eberhard Ludwig remains unique in its time in that the artist preferred to remain anonymous. Only the group of craftsmen directly involved in the palace knew who and what was meant by the caricature. With the completion of the work and the whitewashing of the walls, this knowledge was obscured. The red chalk over this graffito belongs to ‘Pipe smoker 3’ (figure 8.3). Maybe it was set over the scene with the fencer to mean another joke along the lines of ‘you can smoke the Duke in a pipe’ or ‘his promises are like smoke’. In this room there are in total four caricatures of pipe smokers who smoke different Italian pipes, as well as classical clay pipes of German origin (‘pipe smoker 1-4’, Schulz 2003). daniel schulz126 7. Smoking - No Smoking: Pipe-Smokers and Smoking Pleasure The drawings of the pipe smokers are fleetingly drawn on the wall, mocking portraits of work colleagues or superiors, created around 1725-1733. Day labourers from different nations were involved in the palace building, so there was a multi-cultural crowd and the different pipes showed that everyone had their own tradition. Tobacco consumption was already considerable in the eighteenth century and, because the tobacco trade was lucrative, in 1736 Duke Carl Alexander wanted to set up a tobacco factory in Ludwigsburg. The goal would be to carry on the trade without foreign imports (Schönleber 1834-1836, Fasz. 9, 10). ‘Pipe smoker 3’ was initially drawn as a large head in graphite, about 60 cm high (figure 8.3). Probably a second person then re-drew the head in red chalk, put a pipe in the mouth and then sketched a circular line, maybe representing the cloud of smoke surrounding the head. This smoker smokes a very long, one-piece clay pipe, but the pipe bowl is covered by layers of paint. These long-stemmed pipes were common in Germany and Holland, but they were not particularly strong because the long pipe broke quite often. Another one-piece clay pipe is smoked by ‘Pipe Smoker 2’ (figure 8.4), of whom only a fragment remains. This pipe has a cover to stop burning ash from falling out. ‘Pipe Smoker 4’ (red chalk, about 10 cm high) shows the folkloristic caricature of an Italian or Croatian, who certainly had a pronounced head in life. The figure smokes a two- part pipe typical of these regions, in which the pipe bowl is stuck onto a wooden stem (figure 8.1). In the corner under the head of the figure there is a scarf, a cravat. Because of the many artisans from northern Italy and the Balkans, who were noticeable because of their scarves, their settlement near the palace was called Krawattendörfle, which means cravat-village (Schulz 2009, 42-46). ‘Pipe Smoker 4’ has apparently not only irritated the draughtsman but is also ridiculed by someone else because the caption Ein Genusmann (a gourmet) is written with a graphite pencil by another hand. The saying ‘smoking someone in the pipe’ comes to mind. If you smoke someone in the pipe, you can easily handle them: they are no match for me. It may well be that such a proverb, or a similar joke, prompted the caricatures. So, many jokes of the artisans may have been aimed at people workers saw as fools. In general, it was probably rather rough at the palace, as, indeed, is illustrated in the same room by the saying about the ‘shit’. The two-part pipes were smoked in Italy, the Balkans and south-eastern Europe. The most important centre of pipe making in these regions, from which a large number of workers came, was Chioggia in the lagoon of Venice (Articus 1999, 63). The shape of the ‘Smoker 4’ pipe is similar to the barrel-shaped bowls from Chioggia. The pipe bowl, however, seems to be reproduced in a frontal view, the strangely kinked pipe in a side view. The upper part of the pipe bowl could indicate a cover to protect against flying sparks. ‘Pipe Smoker 1’ (red chalk, size about 20x30 cm) also smokes a pipe with a pipe bowl in the shape of an animal (dog or owl?) or a little man (figure 8.2). Presumably, an Italian or Croatian craftsman has been caricatured here, but the curved moustache suggests a Croatian folk type. His streamlined hairstyle is emphasized by the length of the pipe. For this pipe bowl, there is no exact equivalent in the spectrum of Chioggia pipes. There’s a rough resemblance to pipes in the form of human heads, such as a Turk’s head, a bearded old man with a hat or the ‘Zuavo’, a figure from the middle of the eighteenth century with hat and curly moustache (Boscolo 2000, 134). The figure occurs, like other human figures or animal forms, especially from about 1750 on (period 2 of Chioggia pipes). But, since the pipes of Chioggia can be distinguished only roughly, an appearance of such figures around 1725-1733 is quite possible. Where this character comes from is unknown, but he may be a lucky charm. ‘Pipe Smoker 1’ also has a similar moustache as the ‘Zuavo’. speaking walls 127 As I said before, this building site had workers from different cultural backgrounds; contemporary documents report troubles between locals and foreigners, and even between Protestants and Catholics. It seems that these troubles are reflected in the caricatures of pipe smokers, as they smoke pipes from different origins. But, mainly, they all had reasons enough to joke about their employer, the Duke. When it was about their wages, all of them – locals and foreigners – shared the same concern: they were all waiting for money, as is witnessed by the many complaints. In any case, this big room on the second floor of the New Corps de logis was full of graffiti and we can imagine that the workers and craftsmen here came up with a lot of nonsense, gave vent to their own feelings, got rid of frustration and found in such joking relief from their hard work. Maybe graffiti were tolerated for this reason? It would be interesting to know if Duke Eberhard Ludwig saw the graffiti, especially the ones on himself. But they were really inconspicuous compared to the pipe smokers. For in- stance, the graffito of the Duke and fencer (figure 6) cannot be seen from a distance. Graffiti were so low art that the Duke did not pay attention to them when he made his inspections of the building site. But we do not have any written proof of this. Figure 8 – Graffiti of pipe smokers. Photo by Daniel Schulz. Courtesy of the Author 8. ‘Our Little Town’: Graffiti of Houses and Churches Many of the graffiti of the palace represent buildings. In the vestibule to the picture gallery of the Old Corps de logis, numerous inscriptions and drawings of houses and other buildings are located on both sides of a window embrasure. Craftsmen have created here ‘their little town’. A name inscription dated 1721 gives information about the time of origin of the drawings. The antechamber was unrecognizable until 2001 because it was divided into small rooms and a part of it formed a corridor with no daylight that gave access to the various apartments. Fortunately, during the restoration of the entrance hall, the graffiti were preserved. Let us first look at the drawings in the eastern window embrasure (figure 9). On display are three timber-framed gables, a faintly visible large timber-framed house with plastered floor, two small plastered houses or stone buildings, two towers, an elongated building, a small tower and a dome as well as the profile drawing of a figure, a grid-like ornament, an 8-shaped magical (?) knot and illegible inscriptions. The timber-framed buildings stand out and, on closer inspection, all look differently constructed. For example, the small timber-framed gable of ‘House 1’ shows an axial emphasis and a division by K-struts (formed by stands with head and foot struts) and St. An- daniel schulz128 drew’s crosses. On the roof ridge is what looks like a ball or a crescent moon. The reduced but clear shape of this gable, but also of all the others, corresponds to the usual eighteenth-century half-timbered buildings which were everywhere to be found in the surrounding villages. Even in Ludwigsburg, most of the houses were not massive stone buildings, but half-timbered buildings with plaster. In the western window embrasures are shown: a building with a structure on the roof, a timber-framed house, several stars, a deer antler, several name inscriptions, three birds and a fantastic animal. Figure 9 – Graffiti of houses and buildings in a window embrasure. Photo by Daniel Schulz. Courtesy of the Author speaking walls 129 Figure 10 – Graffito of a half-timbered house, pentagram and pheasant. Photo by Daniel Schulz. Courtesy of the Author The house represented there is a two-storey building with a half-timbered gable and plastered floors (figure 10). The gable is divided into four zones and on the ridge sits a ball or decorative disc. In the middle upper window something illegible is written in graphite; next to the house is a pentagram, one of whose symbolic meanings was protection against evil, drawn to protect the house. On the right daniel schulz130 are a naive drawing of a bird, probably a pheasant, and, above, the name ‘Jacob Beury’ (?). Probably the joke was meant as a mockery to Beury, and, perceiving the ridicule, he crossed out his name. Above the drawing of this house and of another building there is a name inscription: ‘Johannes Streitl [?] 1721’ (see supra, 113). Further names scratched in the plaster can be read on the left above this other building: ‘Von Körn; Von K_ttolin [s] ky; Von Rieder’ and, above, a calculation. Perhaps the engraved names are those of the page boys at the court of Carl Eugen, because, at least since 1767, these rooms served them as a dormitory. Although these are not names of noble families, a ‘von’ prefix has been added to them; maybe the pages, or the guards, who made the inscriptions jokingly made themselves noble by adding it to their names. In the upper part of the embrasure is a red-chalk drawing of another pentagram which, instead of sharp corners, has loops. Right next to it is a naive graphite drawing of deer antlers. Other ani- mals are a flamingo (?), maybe a monkey (?) with a long tail and two peacocks. Pheasant, flamingo and peacocks could probably be seen in the ducal gardens; indeed, Eberhard Ludwig had created a pheasant garden around the pleasure palace named Favourite, which can be seen from the window whose embrasure we are examining. The flamingo seems to have been unknown to the drawer, because the drawing does not really come off and the beak is wrongly drawn. As can be seen from the above description, this particular wall has been busily written on. The reason why so many half-timbered houses are represented in this site is that half-timbered buildings were not unusual in the eighteenth century. The craftsmen, then, drew houses whose construction type was common in rural areas and therefore known to them. To build houses in Ludwigsburg, the craftsmen and new citizens were given mainly wood, with stones used only as foundation and basement. Even in Ludwigsburg, not all houses were plastered immediately – despite the fact that there was a regulation which prescribed that the facades should be plastered – but the timber-framed structure remained visible for a while. You still find timber-framed gables in fire lanes. Nevertheless, those represented here are not houses which existed in reality, although they were not simply drawn for fun either: indeed, too many different and detailed house types are shown in too small a space to be considered mere doodles. But what did the draughtsmen mean by drawing them? And also, did the craftsmen make those sketches simply to kill the boredom of their idle time? Were there bottlenecks in the construction process, when they had just to pass the time? Were there discussions about house types and construction methods? In any case, the very settlement where the construction workers lived may have provided examples for these drawings. Indeed, around 1707, the so-called colony, Krawattendörfle (‘village of cravats’), today called Bauhofstraße, served the building site as settlement for the workers (Sting 2000, 66); the area, with its houses, huts and barracks may have presented a colourful picture, similar to the collection of houses drawn in the graffiti. In the courtyard is the guards’ building with a detention cell. A whole scene is painted in red on the wall of the cell – mainly towers and a few houses, in one line. On the same wall is also painted a fortified city; does it represent the painter’s wish to be protected? Protected from despotism? Does it represent the heavenly Jerusalem? Jailed people have a lot of time, and therefore, in prisons we often find detailed scenes, drawn or painted, such as those in the Bishops’ prison in Chur (Tischhauser 2007), or in the prisons of the Inquisition in Palermo (Fiume and García-Arenal 2018). Other drawings seem to show stately buildings and may have something to do with the alterations to the Old Corps de logis, which were in full swing in 1721. For example, ‘Building 1’, a long, rectangular building with three gantries or arcades in the centre, designed with a clear solid line, could represent a draft of the planned sub-structure walls on the north side of the Old Corps de logis. Frisoni’s 1721 expansion plan envisaged a widening of the building to the north, which would then rise above the mighty sub-structure walls and terraces (Olschewski 2004, 54). These expansions never got beyond the work on the foundations. In 1724, Paolo Retti was instructed to dismantle what he had begun, speaking walls 131 and restore the terrace, including stairs and guardhouse. But it could also be the ground floor of the old main building (with the north-facing portal and other portal openings meant instead of the windows), or the former cascades in the sub-structure of the terrace. ‘Tower 1’ shows a clear connection with the construction of the Old Corps de logis. The draughtsman first drew a central axis, which at the same time forms the top of the turret. The turret apparently shows right and left of the axis different silhouettes of a roof hood. Below is an alternative design for the roof hood and, finally, someone jokingly put a flower in the spire. The shape of the roof and the top of the turret resemble the bell tower of the Old Corps de logis. Between 1719 and 1722, according to Frisoni’s plans, the building was raised with a 5-axis pavilion-like structure, called a Mezzanine. The construction was given a high mansard roof with a watch case and clock tower. The drawing of a turret is similar to this. So, it is not to be doubted that these graffiti were related to the planning and execution of parts of the palace. This also seems to apply to various church representations in the northeast spiral staircase of the Festinbau, a festival hall building. ‘Tower 1’ is constructed in clean lines around a torn midline and the drawing could well have come from the hands of a skilled draughtsman. Above the shaft rises the gently curved, bell-shaped helmet, above it a gallery with a double-arched window. On top sits the tower dome, or lantern, whose shape is reminiscent of an elongated onion, vase or amphora. Simi- larly, the towers in Frisoni’s first design for the facade of the city church of 1717 are shown. ‘Tower 3’, however, shows a bell-shaped tower helmet, which has some similarity with Retti’s design of the Reformed Church opposite the city church on the market square, which he started planning in 1731. 9. Construction Traces: Offset Marks and Stonemasons’ Marks From graffiti of buildings we will come shortly to the practice of building itself. In some places, both on the exterior and in the interior of the Ludwigsburg Palace, in addition to conventional stonema- sonry, you find various graffiti referring to elements of the building’s structure, such as offset marks, calculations or tallies, maybe checks on the delivery of materials. Not always fully understandable, these are inscriptions both similar to and different from those we have encountered up till now: they are notations provided with a practical use. Matthew Champion defines such masons’ marks graffiti of a particular kind, that of a quality control in the sense of ‘I made this’ similar to the ‘I was here’ graffiti (Champion 2015, 125ff.). High up on the hunting pavilion cornice above the windows of the first floor, sandstones bear painted numbers or letters in red chalk such as ‘F’ and ‘A’, which served as offset marks or signs that have a purely constructional task. They refer to the fact that a stone belongs to a certain position. On the game pavilion there are different offset marks with a ‘B’ and on a corner plate there is ‘Zum Ecke’ (?) (‘for corner’). Two offset marks with the letter ‘C’ are labelled ‘Mitel’ and ‘Mitte’ (‘middle’). In the latter case, the writing stands on the head, which proves that the stones were worked on the ground. Then there are the marks ‘D’, ‘G’, ‘K’, ‘W’ and ‘M’ and, on a piece of sandstone, strokes, or Roman numbers, a kind of checklist. A stone above the segmental arch of a window bears bogen (‘bow’) and on a corner of the south wall stands süden (‘south’). In addition to these marks, on many stones are found carved stonemason marks such as ‘H’, which refers to the master craftsman Johann Ulrich Heim or to his brother, the stonemason Matthias Heim. The master builder Christoph Friedrich Weying, for whom the symbol ‘W’ stands, worked for the brothers Heim, while the symbol ‘V’ stands for Johann Georg Vögelin. These graffiti in which structural elements are represented lead us to graffiti related to the palace decorations, which can be seen in several different ways, as I will try to show in the following pages. daniel schulz132 10. Drafts and Work Sketches There is an interesting graffito on the south wall in Room 227 in the western cavalier building. A youthful, naked Ganymede, with his left arm raised, seems to be leaning against the frame of a wall panel (figure 11). Of this frame decoration, only the preliminary drawing in pencil, from around 1788 is visible. In fact, the figure is under this more recent decoration and is certainly from the time of building. If the body was drawn in some detail by the draughtsman, the head is more abstract: this was made by a circle surrounded by lines – like a sun – which probably represent the hair. In this faceless head, a second person has drawn in graphite the face of the older, bearded god-father Zeus. There is a direct connection between the drawing and the ceiling picture of the Abduction of Ganymede in Olympus from the circle of Luca Antonio Colomba, painted around 1720 (figure 11). The picture, hidden under a suspended ceiling, was made especially for this room and its exclusive ceiling mirror. This is proven by the fact that the restorer saw that the canvas had never been re-framed. The red chalk drawing could be a draft of the ceiling image, as the posture of Ganymede in the drawing clearly matches the execution in oil. But the figure is drawn in quite an amateurish manner. Why is the head so peculiarly abstract and the face of Zeus drawn in it? Why is Zeus not depicted as a separate figure as it is in the painting? The answer is probably that the drawing, rather than a simple draft, is a satirical re-presentation of the ceiling. The craftsmen or workers have made fun of the pathos of Colomba’s image in the jokes they have put on the wall. Thus, next to Ganymede, is also drawn the joking figure of a small male. One person might have painted the Ganymede, another the face of the elder in the figure of the youth. Did the illustrators realize that, by portraying two figures merging into one, they were representing the idea of Platonic love, in which two people merge into one. Next to this graffito, is a small jesting figure drawn in graphite, with a big head and small body. Someone coloured the cheeks in red chalk. Figure 11 – Ganymede, graffito in Western Cavaliers building, a Persiflage (?) on Colomba’s ceiling picture, 80x50 cm, red chalk and graphite. Courtesy of the Ludwigsburg Palace/SSG Staatliche Schlösser und Gärten Baden-Württemberg. Photo and collage by Daniel Schulz. Courtesy of the Author On the ground floor of the New Corps de logis (Room 4, today Lapidarian), can be found deco- rative drawings of the monogram, EL, Duke Eberhard Ludwig (figure 12.1). Thus, the drawings unambiguously betray their date of creation as between 1725 and 1733. It seems as if the wall surfaces of a window embrasure and an adjacent wall were used as practicing areas for these designs. speaking walls 133 The large initials are meshed and standing on a kind of scroll or volute, and they are spec- ular. The letters end in acanthus leaves and above the monogram sits a detailed, and realistically drawn ducal crown (Herzogshut). The hoop is covered with ermine, the purple cap framed by edging, decorated with pearls and on top of the imperial orb. On the left-hand side an arrow points to a second ducal crown, which was done unrealistically, with only a few strokes drawn fast against the wall. Next to it is an also imperfect orb (the cross lacking the crossbeam) and the name ‘Fridrich’. In addition to the large monogram, on the right-hand side there is a smaller one in graphite, but less detailed. The orb on this Herzogshut is indicated only as a ring bearing a high cross. Then several ducal monograms without crowns are inscribed. One finds the inscription ‘ELutt [Eberhard Luttwig (Ludwig)] ich habe zieret’ (‘ELutt I decorated’) – but we have no information about this ‘I’. The name of the Duke, Eberhard, elegantly executed in red chalk, also appears on the wall. Figure 12 – Apotropaic graffiti: knots and pentagrams. Photo by Daniel Schulz. Courtesy of the Author The sketches are exercise drafts for the ducal monogram and the ducal crown, such as are found everywhere in Ludwigsburg. The idea was that who the ruler in this palace was had to be proclaimed everywhere. Translated into our present language of forms, the ducal monogram would correspond to the tags of today’s graffiti writers. Originating from the tradition of memorial graffiti, the tag consists only of the name (or pseudonym) of the sprayer (writing name), often heavily stylized, graphically over-drawn and therefore hardly decipherable (Treeck 1993, 148). On the same wall next to the crowns and monograms we find a knot and several stars that should be hexagrams or pentagrams. These seem to allude to the practice of magic, a last typological group of graffiti, those with an apotropaic character. 11. Apotropaic Graffiti: Pentagrams, Hexagrams and Knots Some of the graffiti in Ludwisburg Palace are at first sight mysterious, and call for interpretation: mazes, knots and stars (hexagrams and pentagrams), which are not simply decorative designs, for instance. Since pentagrams, so-called Drudenfüße, are to be found clearly in different places, one must consider whether the symbolic ornaments they present have an overall apotropaic character and whether the labyrinthine forms are to be regarded as knots. Of course, all of these forms have also a playful character, which also applies to the knots, or mazes. Therefore, a symbolic interpretation should not be out of place here. daniel schulz134 As I noted above, since antiquity, the pentagram, also known as the Drudenstern or Drudenfuß, has been held as a magical apotropaic sign. The Drud or Trud is a plague that threatens humans, and according to superstitious thinking, the pentagram is supposed to protect against it as well as evil spirits, the evil eye, the dead, witches, disease and all other evils, probably because the five spikes of the pentagram symbolize the five wounds of Christ. If the pentagram is to be effective, it must be drawn in a continuous line, which means an infinite line, drawn all at once, without the pin used to draw it dropping off the writing sur- face. Often it is painted on doors, bedsteads, etc., as a protection against witches (Seligmann 1910, 293-294; Adler et al. 1991, 86). In Pfisterer’s Barockes Welttheater (1716) there is, for example, the figure of a dismissed soldier marching with his wife. She carries the child on her back in a cradle protected by a pentagram, and on another leaf a pentagram is attached to the foot of a cradle (Pfisterer 1996, 126, 220). Pentagrams and hexagrams symbolize both the visible and the invisible world. The ambivalence of these signs is expressed by the fact that they were also thought to be used by demons to gain access to humans. The hexagram is a six-pointed star, also called Solomon’s Seal, which is formed from an upright and a fallen triangle. It has a superstitious function and is a symbol of protection like the pentagram. The sides of the two triangles represent the six sides of the world (top, bottom, front, back, right, left); the three straight lines symbolize the holy Triassic. In many cases, the hexagram is also called the Shield of David because, according to tradition, this made him invulnerable (Hansmann and Kriss-Rettenbeck 1977, 238). Often the pentagram, hexagram, and octagram are used interchangeably, for in principle they serve the same su- perstitious purpose. In the window embrasure in the antechamber of the picture gallery (Old Corps de logis), there is a pentagram drawn in graphite over the drawing of a half-timbered house, probably meant as the house’s protection (figure 10). Above the house another pentagram appears. Since the ends end in loops, this seems to be just a doodle. In the western servants’ stairway (New Corps de logis) a pentagram, but also three sev- en-pointed stars, are next to stucco designs. The seven-star (heptagram) is also considered a protection against disaster (Bentele 1995, 77). In the Hornmoldhaus in Bietigheim-Bissin- gen, on a wall in the gallery to the summer-room, there is a graffito with a Drudenfuß and a seven-pointed star (Heptagramm). The wall bears a decorative painting of the eighteenth century and inscriptions of the years 1762 and 1789. However, they could also be just failed pentagrams or playful drawings. In room 4 on the ground floor, next to the designs of the ducal monogram, more failed penta – or hexagrams can be seen (figure 12.1). That may have been an area in which workers were practicing the drawing of certain geometrical forms: they probably practised the drawing of an hexagram, which is more uniform than a pentagram, but its angles are more difficult to draw. That some of the pentagrams have been hastily drawn may well be due to the hustle and bustle of each situation. Furthermore, since these are magical characters, secrecy was essential. If the Drudenfuß is seen by someone else before it is completed, it is ineffective. Even a pentagram that is wrongly drawn may not be effective. In Ludwigsburg Palace there are also representations of knots that are comparable to certain medieval knot graffiti, as those found and documented in many English churches (Pritchard 1967, 86; figures 119, 43, 71). In the antechamber of the picture gallery (Old Corps de logis) there is a knot in the form of an ‘8’ or loop whose intersecting lines form nine rhombuses in the middle. This form also corresponds to the sign of infinity. A multiple entangled knot is located in the northern stairwell in the Order building. It is a so-called speaking walls 135 Solomon’s knot, composed of two superimposed ‘8s’ or a swastika (Pritchard 1967, 33, figure 43; Biedermann 2000, 238). A similarly constructed, but less artfully entwined knot can be seen close to the representation of the Ducal crown (Room 4, New Corps de logis, figure 12.1), and beside it there is another imperfect knot. Similarly, there is a knot in the Old Corps de logis, drawn above a deer, in a hunting scene (figure 12.3). Another is drawn next to a church (New Corps de logis, figure 12.2). Finally, some debris found in the palace’s foundation may have a superstitious character: the New Corps de logis of Ludwigsburg Palace was built on a hillside, so that the actual ground floor under the rooms of the southern front constitutes the foundation, walkable if one stoops, with a higher cavity below the marble hall. In the foundation walls there is the head of a Bacchus figure with vine leaves (?) in its hair. But why they walled the head here and what that could have meant we don’t know: the reason remains hidden in the darkness of the foundations. Also found there were the fragments of two ammonites. In fact, it was believed that fossilized ammonites, belemnites (cuttlefish) and sea urchins, but also so-called ‘thunderbolts’ (prehistoric tools), were thrown from the sky during storms. Due to their heavenly origin, the stones were regarded as power bearers and often used in house walls (Hansmann and Kriss-Rettenbeck 1977, 32). Ammonites were also seen as fossilized snakes and because of their round shapes in some regions they were sunstones, into which the sun had burnt a face. Ammonites in walls, especially in facades, were thought to protect against lightning. Perhaps the ammonites in the New Corps de logis were meant to perform the same task if they were not accidentally trapped in the building stone. Shoes were often stored in attics for superstitious reasons. Two women’s shoes, six men’s shoes, several shoe soles and fragments of side and heel parts were found in the palace. However, information about where exactly they were found is missing, so whether they were stored for superstitious reasons can only be surmised. The Sumerians left dead shoe cups as a gift of dedication in graves, because shoes would be useful for the journey to the afterlife. Shoe amulets were also used in various prehistoric cultures, for they were probably thought to protect the wearer in all cases and warding off all evil (Sulser 1948, 28-30). How widespread superstition still was in the eighteenth century is shown by the numer- ous witch trials that were still being carried out. When, in 1731, Duke Eberhard Ludwig separated from his long-time mistress, Wilhelmina von Grävenitz, she was brought to trial on a charge that she had bewitched the Duke and tried to get his blood and hair for black magic practices Osswald-Bargende 2000, 10). 12. Conclusion The few examples of graffiti from the baroque building site of Ludwigsburg Palace presented here show that graffiti are an important cultural manifestation and source of historical infor- mation. In the Ludwigsburg case, they greatly enrich the history of the palace, as they provide an insight into the everyday life of the palace which can hardly be inferred from its building files. As maintained by Doris Jones-Baker (1993), graffiti can be considered as records of secular life, as historical records, as records of people’s names and initials, as a local record of natural events, as a record of religious life in the parish, as witnesses of the design and fabric of buildings and, therefore, as records of the work of architects, masons and craftsmen. The aim of this article has been to show that the Ludwigsburg eighteenth-century graffiti are direct records of the life, practice and work of construction workers, artists and craftsmen on the building site of a palace. So far, there is no other known baroque palace which can daniel schulz136 give the same view – and in such quantity – as Ludwigsburg. Since the written files do not provide much information about the workers, graffiti offer an added window onto a palace building site and the minds of those working there and creating all the splendour with which to honour Duke Eberhard Ludwig. The palace was meant to give him immortality and Chronos to record the Duke’s acts in the book of history for all eternity. What Champion states as regards the English medieval church graffiti also applies to the Ludwigsburg Palace. Graffiti ‘offers us a rare glimpse of the lives of those who worshipped in the parish church; lives that otherwise have left almost no marks upon the world that they inhabited’ (2015, xi). Compared to the Duke’s world, in which the palace was the scene of a hierarchical court life, graffiti constitute a contrasting anarchical layer, which remained in place even when they became invisible because the walls were covered over or whitewashed. Graffiti were, for workers, a means to vent their grievance against the hardships of work- ing life. We have seen some of them as interactive communications, reflecting conflicts, jokes and mockery. But we have also seen that some graffiti simply served a practical purpose, using the walls as a sketchbook for designs, to explain building processes. We have seen that at this building site it was common to use walls as surfaces for writing and drawing and we have no indication that this practice was forbidden. The workers had access to all areas of the palace, so long as structures of buildings were not finished. We have seen that some workers, guards and servants wrote their names or initials, simply meaning ‘I was here’ to leave a personal trace. You find these graffiti mainly in public areas and most often in periods where the palace was less in use. Most of these eighteenth-century graffiti are anonymous. Rarely do we find a full name and a date. Although the graffiti of the following centuries are not the main focus of this article, I wish to point out a few things: in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, craftsmen could not leave their traces on walls because they had access only to some parts of the palace; later graffiti, therefore, were made by visitors or tourists, and only in the public parts of the palace to which they were admitted, where they were either waiting or passing through. As no one was allowed to enter the state and private apartments of the monarch without a guide, you find no graffiti there. It is a completely different situation to that, for example, in the sixteenth-century Palazzo Ducale of Urbino, where you can find graffiti in private as well as in public areas (Sarti 2009). But the baroque palace of a ruling family is less a domestic than an institutional place, as the whole life of the ruler was public. Duke Eberhard Ludwig didn’t have a private apartment, he had only a state apartment, and it is only in the nineteenth century that we see a division between public and private rooms. From the middle of the nineteenth century there was a change in function. The palace was no longer used by the king, but only by more or less distant relatives and as a base for regional authorities and archives. Their employees left different graffiti, the family members none. In my doctoral thesis (Schulz 2018) I give a view of the history of the palace and I tell the story of the life which was led there, analysing the furnishings, decorations, written files, inventories, objects found beneath floors and graffiti. All these sources together allow us to reconstruct a reliable account of the history of the palace and of its inhabitants and users. As I have been trying to show, graffiti are an essential source for the reconstruction of that history. Sometimes, maybe, graffiti are nothing but small marginal notes; sometimes they are a valuable source, as in Ludwigsburg Palace. But all in all they enrich the classical art-historical point of view immensely. speaking walls 137 Works Cited Adler Helmut, Franz Mandl and Rudolf Vogeltanz (1991), Zeichen auf dem Fels – Spuren alpiner Volk- skultur, Unken, Museumsverein Festung Kniepass. Articus Rüdiger (1999), ‘Tonpfeifen aus Italien’, Knasterkopf, Fachzeitschrift für Tonpfeifen und histor- ischen Tabakgenuss 12, 60-73. Baden und Württemberg im Zeitalter Napoleons (1987), Ausstellung des Landes Baden-Württemberg, Bd. 1.2, Stuttgart, Württembergisches Landesmuseum Stuttgart. Baudrillard Jean (1976), ‘Kool Killer ou l’insurrection par les signes’, in Id., L’échange symbolique et la mort, Paris, Gallimard, 128-138. Bentele Günther (1995), Die Malereien im Bietigheimer Hornmoldhaus, Bietigheim-Bissingen, Druck Bietigheim. Biedermann Hans (2000 [1989]), Knaurs Lexikon der Symbole, Berlin, Area. Borettaz Omar (1995), I graffiti nel castello di Issogne in Valle d’Aosta, Ivrea, Priuli & Verlucca. Boscolo Giorgio (2000), La pipa chioggiotta e altre pipe in terracotta, Postfazione di G. Vianello, Sot- tomarina, Il Leggio. Brassaï (Halász Gyula) (1960), Graffiti, Stuttgart, Belser. Brauer Heinrich and Rudolf Wittkower, eds (1931), Die Zeichnungen des Gianlorenzo Bernini, Bd. 2, Berlin, H. Keller. Champion Matthew (2015), Medieval Graffiti. The lost voices of England’s churches, London, Ebury Press. Defoe Daniel (1964 [1722]), Moll Flanders, New York, Signet Classics. Fiume Giovanna and Mercedes Garcia-Arenal, eds (2018), Parole Prigioniere. I graffiti delle carceri del Santo Uffizio di Palermo, Palermo, Istituto Poligrafico Europeo. Fleischhauer Werner (1958), Barock im Herzogtum Württemberg, Veröffentlichung der Kommission für Geschichtliche Landeskunde in Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer Verlag. Fleming Juliet (2001), Graffiti and the Writing Arts of Early Modern England, London, Reaktion Books. Foster Norman (2003), The Reichstag Graffiti, Berlin, Jovis. Gillray James (1986), James Gillray, 1757-1815. Meisterwerke der Karikatur, ed. by H. Guratzsch, kat- alog by M. Hasse, Stuttgart, Hatje. Ginzburg Carlo (1986), ‘Spie. Radici di un paradigma indiziario’, in Id., Miti, emblemi, spie. Morfologia e storia, Torino, Einaudi, 158-209. Götz Ulrike (2018), ‘ “Nomina stultorum …” Graffiti des 18. Jahrhunderts im Karzer der ehemaligen bischöflichen Hochschule in Freising’, in P. Lohmann, ed., 221-238. Guichard Charlotte (2014), Graffitis, Inscrire son nom à Rome XVIe-XIXe siècle, Paris, Seuil, doi: https:// doi.org/10.1353/ahs.2016.0085. Hansmann Liselotte and Lenz Kriss-Rettenbeck (1977 [1966]), Amulett und Talisman, Erscheinungs- form und Geschichte, München, Callwey. Heller Hartmut (1993), ‘Denk mal! – Unscheinbare Narben im Stein, Steinmetzzeichen, Zangenlöcher, Zieglermaße, Graffiti, Hochwassermarken und Wetzrillen’, Frankenland I, 41, 218-232. Hogarth William (1986), William Hogarth 1697 - 1764, hrsg. von B. Hinz, H. Krug., Giessen, Anabas. Jones-Baker Doris (1993), ‘English Mediaeval Graffiti and the Local Historian’, The Local Historian 23 1, 4-19. Kraack Detlev (1997), Monumentale Zeugnisse der spätmittelalterlichen Adelsreise, Inschriften und Graffiti des 14.-16. Jahrhunderts, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kraack Detlev and Peter Lingens (2001), Bibliographie zu historischen Graffiti zwischen Antike und Mod- erne, Krems, Medium Aevum Quotidianum. Langner Martin (2001), Antike Graffitizeichnungen. Motive, Gestaltung und Bedeutung, Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert. daniel schulz138 Lohmann Polly, ed. (2018), Historische Graffiti als Quellen. Methoden und Perspektiven eines jungen Forschungs- bereichs, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag, Lohmann Polly (2018), ‘ “Wer das liest ist doof ”. Materialität und agency pompejanischer Graffiti’, in P. Lohmann, ed., 37-50. Oliver Jeff and Tim Neal (2010), ‘Elbow Grease and Time to Spare: The Place of Tree Carvings’, in Idd., eds, Wild Signs: Graffiti in Archaeology and History, Oxford, Archaeopress, 15-22. Olschewski Eckhard (2004), ‘Der Ausbau der Schlossanlagen in den Jahren 1721 bis 1733’, in Staatli- che Schlösser und Gärten Baden-Württemberg, ed., Schloss Ludwigsburg, Geschichte einer baro- cken Residenz, Tübingen, Silberburg-Verlag, 46-77. Osswald-Bargende Sybille (2000), Die Mätresse, der Fürst und die Macht: Christina Wilhelmina von Grävenitz und die höfische Gesellschaft, Frankfurt/M.-New York, Campus Verlag. Pfisterer Daniel (1996 [1716]), Barockes Welttheater, Württembergisches Landesmuseum Stuttgart, Geschichtsverein Köngen, Stuttgart. Plesch Véronique (2010), ‘Destruction or Preservation? The Meaning of Graffiti on Paintings in Re- ligious Sites’, in V. Chieffo Raguin, ed., Art, Piety and Destruction in the Christian West, 1500- 1700, Farnham, Ashgate, 137-172. Preisigke J.D. (2018), ‘Graffiti an ägyptischen Tempeln’, in P. Lohmann, ed., 17-35. Pritchard Violet (1967), English Medieval Graffiti, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Ricoeur Paul (1988), Time and Narrative, vol. III, trans. by K. Blarney and D. Pellauer, Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press (original edition, Temps et récit, Paris, Seuil, 1985, 3 vols.). Sarti Raffaella (2009), ‘Renaissance Graffiti: the Case of the Ducal Palace of Urbino’, in S. Cavallo and S. Evangelisti, eds, Domestic Institutional Interiors in Early Modern Europe, Farnham, Routledge, 51-83. Sarti Raffaella, Manuele Marraccini, Angelo Rubino and Matteo Dellepiane (2017), La pietra racconta. Un palazzo da leggere, Urbania, Arti Grafiche Stibu. Sheon Aaron (1976), ‘The Discovery of Graffiti’, Art Journal, 36, 1, 16-22, doi: 10.2307/776110. Schönleber G.F. (1834-1836), Historisch-Statistisch-Topographische Nachrichten von der Stadt Ludwigs- burg, Handschriftlicher Entwurf um 1834-36, Kopie im Stadtarchiv Ludwigsburg S40 Nr. 7, mit Seitenzählung (Original: HStAS J 1 222). Schulz Daniel (2003), ‘Smoking – No Smoking, Pfeifenraucher in Schloss Ludwigsburg, Württem- berg’, Knasterkopf, Fachzeitschrift für Tonpfeifen und historischen Tabakgenuss 16, 154-159. Schulz Daniel (2005), ‘Zwischen Hakenkreuz und Milky Way, Zur Geschichte des Ludwigsburger Schlosses im 20. Jahrhundert’, Ludwigsburger Geschichtsblätter 59, 151-172. Schulz Daniel (2009), ‘Am Anfang war ein Jagdschloss, ein Wirtshaus und ein Krawattendörfle, Italiener, “Kroaten” und andere Migranten am Ludwigsburger Schlossbau’, Ludwigsburger Geschichtsblät- ter 63, 27-54. Schulz Daniel (2017), ‘ “Was für ein Schweinswal”, Karikaturen auf Herzog Eberhard Ludwig, Herzog Carl Eugen und König Friedrich’, Ludwigsburger Geschichtsblätter 71, 67-85. Schulz Daniel (2018), Verborgene Spuren in Schloss Ludwigsburg. Graffiti und Depotfunde als Zeugnisse der Baugeschichte, Ausstattung und Nutzung, Darmstadt, WBG. Seligmann Siegfried (1910), Der Böse Blick und Verwandtes, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Aberglaubens aller Zeiten und Völker, vol. II, Berlin, Hermann Barsdorf. Sting Albert (2000), Geschichte der Stadt Ludwigsburg, vol. I, Von der Vorgeschichte bis zum Jahr 1816, Ludwigsburg, Ungeheuer + Ulmer. Sulser Wilhelm (1948), Bally Ausstellung Felsgarten Schönenwerd, Führer durch das Schuhmuseum der Bally Schuhfabriken AG, Schönenwerd, Bally Schuhmuseum. Tischhauser Ursina (2007), ‘Chur, Bischöfliches Schloss, Marsölturm. Graffiti und Rötelzeichnun- gen im Churer Diözesanarchiv’, in ADG/DPG (Hrsg.), Jahresberichte Archäologischer Dienstes Graubünden, Chur, Südostschweiz Print AG, 83-95. speaking walls 139 Treeck Bernhard van (1993), Graffiti Lexikon, Street Art – legale und illegale Kunst im öffentlichen Raum, Moers, Edition Aragon. Uhlig Wolfgang and Johannes Zahlten (2005), Die großen Italienreisen Herzog Carl Eugens von Württem- berg, Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer. Wenger Michael (1998), Ludwigsburg – die Gesamtanlage, Heidelberg, De Gruyter. Zahlten Johannes (1993), ‘Die Italienische Reyße 1753 des Durchlauchtigsten Herzogs Carls von Württemberg … und die Folgen’, in K. Merten and C. Fandrey eds, Italienische Reisen – Herzog Carl Eugen von Württemberg in Italien, Ausstellungskatalog Schloss Ludwigsburg, Weißenhorn, W. Kohlhammer, 12-33.