Collecting the Painted Netherlands: The Art Collection of Ernest of Austria in Brussels

The (art) collection of Archduke Ernest of Austria (1553-1595) is widely unknown when it comes to early-modern Habsburg collections. Ernest, younger brother of Emperor Rudolf II (b. 1552) and educated at the Madrid court, was appointed Governor-General of the Netherlands by King Philip II of Spain, his uncle, in summer 1593. Ernest relocated his court from Vienna to Brussels in early 1594 and was welcomed there with lavish festivities: the traditional Blijde Inkomst, Joyous Entry, of the new sovereign. Unfortunately, the archduke died in February 1595 after residing in Brussels for a mere thirteen months. This investigation aims to shed new light on the archduke and his short-lived collecting ambitions in the Low Countries, taking into account that he had the mercantile and artistic metropolis Antwerp in his immediate reach. I argue, that his collecting ambitions can be traced back to one specific occasion: Ernest’s Joyous Entry into Antwerp in June 1594. There the archduke received a series of six paintings of Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1525/30-1569) known as The Months (painted in 1565), hanging today in separate locations in Vienna, New York and Prague. These works of art triggered Ernest’s collecting ambitions and prompted him to focus mainly on works of art and artefacts manufactured at or traded within the Netherlands during the last eight months of his lifetime. Additionally, it will be shown that the archduke was inspired by the paintings’ motifs and therefore concentrated on acquiring works of art depicting nature and landscape scenes from the 1560s and 1590s. On the basis of the archduke’s recently published account book (Kassabuch) and of the partially published inventory of his belongings, it becomes clear that Ernest of Austria must be seen in line with the better-known Habsburg collectors and that his specific collection of “the painted Netherlands” can be linked directly to his self-fashioning as a rightful sovereign of the Low Countries.

Dose-painting intensity-modulated proton therapy for intermediate- and high-risk meningioma.

BACKGROUND Newly diagnosed WHO grade II-III or any WHO grade recurrent meningioma exhibit an aggressive behavior and thus are considered as high- or intermediate risk tumors. Given the unsatisfactory rates of disease control and survival after primary or adjuvant radiation therapy, optimization of treatment strategies is needed. We investigated the potential of dose-painting intensity-modulated proton beam-therapy (IMPT) for intermediate- and high-risk meningioma. MATERIAL AND METHODS Imaging data from five patients undergoing proton beam-therapy were used. The dose-painting target was defined using [68]Ga-[1,4,7,10-tetraazacyclododecane tetraacetic acid]- d-Phe(1),Tyr(3)-octreotate ([68]Ga-DOTATATE)-positron emission tomography (PET) in target delineation. IMPT and photon intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment plans were generated for each patient using an in-house developed treatment planning system (TPS) supporting spot-scanning technology and a commercial TPS, respectively. Doses of 66 Gy (2.2 Gy/fraction) and 54 Gy (1.8 Gy/fraction) were prescribed to the PET-based planning target volume (PTVPET) and the union of PET- and anatomical imaging-based PTV, respectively, in 30 fractions, using simultaneous integrated boost. RESULTS Dose coverage of the PTVsPET was equally good or slightly better in IMPT plans: dose inhomogeneity was 10 ± 3% in the IMPT plans vs. 13 ± 1% in the IMRT plans (p = 0.33). The brain Dmean and brainstem D50 were small in the IMPT plans: 26.5 ± 1.5 Gy(RBE) and 0.002 ± 0.0 Gy(RBE), respectively, vs. 29.5 ± 1.5 Gy (p = 0.001) and 7.5 ± 11.1 Gy (p = 0.02) for the IMRT plans, respectively. The doses delivered to the optic structures were also decreased with IMPT. CONCLUSIONS Dose-painting IMPT is technically feasible using currently available planning tools and resulted in dose conformity of the dose-painted target comparable to IMRT with a significant reduction of radiation dose delivered to the brain, brainstem and optic apparatus. Dose escalation with IMPT may improve tumor control and decrease radiation-induced toxicity.