Císařský architekt a pevnostní stavitel Giovanni Pieroni

The arrival of Giovanni Pieroni in central Europe introduced the region to an altogether new model of versatile architect. Pieroni was an apprentice of Bernardo Buontalenti and contemporary of Florentine architects Sigismondo Coccopani and Giovanni Antonio Dosio, held the title of doctor of laws and enjoyed the friendship of Galileo Galilei, and brought with him the erudition of a builder of fortifications, the imaginativeness of an artist/architect, the intellectual curiosity of a natural scientists, and the philosophical and mathematical immersion into the mysteries of the celestial canopy supported by observations of the stars. He wrote up horoscopes on request, sketched designs for theatre scenery, surveyed the ground for new fortifications, and designed decorative gardens. He designed sacred and secular structures and set them in mathematically arranged landscape surrounding, supported and substantiated by astronomical considerations. He consulted with Kepler and Galileo on his observations and tried to help get the latter's work published. Like Galileo and members of the Accademie dei Lincei in Rome he was an opponent of the philosophy of Aristotle. In Vienna he performed an experiment with a vacuum for a high society audience and he founded there the first academic society in central Europe – Accademia degli Antistagiriti. Immediately after his arrival in Vienna and Prague Pieroni was appointed as the imperial architect of fortifications and soon after he served as an architect for Duke Albrecht of Valdštejn and other members of the aristocracy. He worked for Count Rombaldo Collalto, Duke Johann Ulrich of Eggenberg, Count Jaroslav Bořita of Martinic, Prince Václav Eusebius of Lobkowicz and others. This study is based on the author's work on a grant project titled 'Architecture, Urbanism and Landscaping in the Frýdland Estate of Albrecht of Valdštejn (1621–1634)'. The study focuses on a human, intellectual, artistic profile of Giovanni Pieroni, it does not present an in-depth analysis of his work. It adopts a critical view of some recent hypotheses and warns of the danger of creating academic 'myths' based solely on unsubstantiated assumptions.