DOI issue:
Nr. 1
DOI article:Bažant, Jan: Nation and art: from Miroslav Tyrš to Max Dvořák, and back
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31179#0020
a model for Czech national Art, was predetermined
by the différence between the Ancient Greek and
Roman nations.
It is characteristic of the high status of Tyrš in
Czech historical memory that Zimmermann, a Bo-
hemian German, was never mentioned in connection
with the work Eáww/y /A ITorCy/A/z? R<?ÆM/7 Ert?.
It is also characteristic that no one commented on
the réception of this work into the Czech culture of
its time. In general terms, Tyrs's activity in the His-
torv of Art was enthusiastically welcomed because
it hlled a niche in the Spectrum of Czech scientihc
activitiesA However, the silence concerning his re-
search was a stark contrast to the frenetic welcome
of the researcher. The hrst Czech monographie work
on the History of Art was never remarked on in the
Czech press. Düring his lifetime, Tyrš did not find
any mention of his research on Laocoon in Czech
books or journalsA
In connection with Tyrš's appointment to the post
of Professor of Art History, many scholars had to
read and evaluate the book, but no one mentioned
it even once in their writingA The explanation is
in the ten-year interval between the writing of the
book on Taocoon and Tyrs's professorship, which
was between 1879 and 1883. At that time, the Vatican
^ NINGERA, K.: ZZz'yPtP P'PnPzzry pyLd Ed. P. KOUDELKA.
Praha 1874 (2^ ed.), p. 164; GRÉGR 1883 (see in note 13),
pp. 14-22; ADÁMEK, K.: Z %Az P^A 7. Velké Meziříčí 1888,
p. 71; onA?, 47, 25. 12. 1909, No. 294, p. 5.
^ Mentions of the Laocoon group in the Czech literatuře of
that time demonstrate that Winckelmann's interprétation was
taken for granted, cf. MALÝ, J. (ed.): DrzPzzý AhAayy y/AzzzL
/zzzzzAý 4. Praha 1881, p. 94, "Řecko"; MADIERA, K.: O
nejdůležitějších pojmech ésthetických. In: ZAP LzPsy. DPrgL
PzhLP^z A ZAP LAPy PP DéPP/P yy. DzzP^zzzý yyp^A^-
Ed. J. YAČLENA. Písek 1880, No. 18, pp. 45-167, see p.
110 on Laocoon; HAKL, B.: (Lvů A RzAzz ^ PPP A
P^^zpyZ. Brno 1881, p. 331; HLAYINKA, A.: Vatikán sídlem
uměny a vědy. In: OZycr, 6, 1883, No. 15, p. 238; KUČERA,
K.: BPyzzé. Praha 1883, pp. 143-144.
Cf. LOMIČOVÁ, M.: Pokus Tyršův a Mádlův o napsání dějin
umění výtvarných a Tyršova habilitace na české technice. In:
McřďpoyřgAA^-PfAř ČLTZP yPztzy?, 7/Zlý 7. Praha 1976,
pp. 5-39.
'i TYRŠOVÁ 1934 (see m note 3), p. 37.
group statue was perceived in an altogether different
light, due to new archaeoiogical excavations in the
Eastern Mediterranean. In 1872, in the introduction
to his work, Tyrš stressed that all scientihc disciplines
had evoived due to herce compétition.^ The goai
is to beat the Opponent, there is no other way to
victory, defeat is an integral part of every scientihc
contest. When asked to evaluate Tyrš's entry into the
Art historical aréna, we could to say that, after an
energetic start, he was knocked out.
On September 9*, 1878, Carl Human began the
excavation of the monumental altar of Zeus from
the hrne of Eumenes II (197 - 159 BC) in Bergama,
Turkey, the results of which deconstructed the en-
tire History of Ancient Art, including the book by
Tyrš. As early as the summer of 1879, a relief slab
was discovered which depicted Athéna and Giant
Alcyoneus. The Gianťs head so dosely resembled
that of the Vatican Laocoon that one of the Ger-
man archaeologists exclaimed: "Ahw Asv
E^wotw."^ jacob Burckhardťs reaction rehects the
agitated atmosphère among Art Historians after this
epochal discovery. In 1882, after seeing the reliefs in
a Berlin museum, he wrote in his hotel room: "TAt
Ar rA/PnA /A ryrA/yr yf /A
P/wAA čw/A?A /A^y-zwA. ý..ý
'' Cf. KUNZE, M. — KÄSTNER, V: HzzPLřtzyzzzzz/zzAzzg, ZZ. D<zr
MGrwwPiyg,2;wc%. DfAAPzAA zzzzPDAzyyAHrrAZAčzzr. Berlin
1990, p. 33. In the hrst campaign, which ended in 1880, 94
slabs with reliefs were unearthed, cf. CAčwzL P^rHzzygzvAzzggzz
wzzPřzgďzzz<?zz, 7P77 — 7PP4.MzzyBřPAPzzzzzzPBPA^2<?yZZzz/zzzzzzzz
ZérAtřt. Dortmund 1963. The discovery was immediately
published, cf. CONZE, A.: P^z^zzw<?zz. Berlin 1880; CONZE,
A.: OPAr A<? ZAř Ar ErAzzzzzzg Přy yrcyyřzz HArr yz/ Přzg^zzzczz.
Berlin 1881; CONZE, A.: DřrDAPZ/Ay P^yyr^yyřzzMPzzzy wzz
Přzy^/wozz. Berlin 1881. From 1880, the reliefs were exhibited
in the Old Museum (Altes Museum) in Berlin. Already in the
hrst publications, the Vatican Laocoon was compared with
the frieze of Pergamon and proclaimed to be from the same
epoch, cf. CONZE, A. et al.: DL EfgAzzPrí? PzfHzzygrAzz/zgřzz
yzz PfTgďWíw. Berlin 1880, pp. 53-55; OVERBECK, C. J. A.:
G<?yAP/p AfyArAAA% PAAL, 7. Leipzig 1881, pp. 295, 300,
312; REIFFERSCHEID, A.: Pgzgtzzwzz. Breslau 1881, p. 5;
MILCHOEFER, A.: DP BgAD/zg Ar Prc/wPAzzy.* Pzz FAzP
%zzy P^Tgzzzwzz. Berlin 1882, pp. 30-43; URLICHS, C. L. von:
PgyyM7AW.- GyAPA? zzzzP Kzzzzy/. Leipzig 1883, p. 30. KEKU-
LE, R.: Zzzr D^zztz/zzg zzzzP ZP/AyPAzzzzzzzg P^y P^zcroczz. Stuttgart
1883 was the hrst scientihc monograph on this theme. Cf.
also LEITHÀUSER, G.: D<?r GýwzPzz/iPy Př^^zozz zzzzPPz<?
Z^Aco/zgrzýyP. Hamburg 1889.
18
by the différence between the Ancient Greek and
Roman nations.
It is characteristic of the high status of Tyrš in
Czech historical memory that Zimmermann, a Bo-
hemian German, was never mentioned in connection
with the work Eáww/y /A ITorCy/A/z? R<?ÆM/7 Ert?.
It is also characteristic that no one commented on
the réception of this work into the Czech culture of
its time. In general terms, Tyrs's activity in the His-
torv of Art was enthusiastically welcomed because
it hlled a niche in the Spectrum of Czech scientihc
activitiesA However, the silence concerning his re-
search was a stark contrast to the frenetic welcome
of the researcher. The hrst Czech monographie work
on the History of Art was never remarked on in the
Czech press. Düring his lifetime, Tyrš did not find
any mention of his research on Laocoon in Czech
books or journalsA
In connection with Tyrš's appointment to the post
of Professor of Art History, many scholars had to
read and evaluate the book, but no one mentioned
it even once in their writingA The explanation is
in the ten-year interval between the writing of the
book on Taocoon and Tyrs's professorship, which
was between 1879 and 1883. At that time, the Vatican
^ NINGERA, K.: ZZz'yPtP P'PnPzzry pyLd Ed. P. KOUDELKA.
Praha 1874 (2^ ed.), p. 164; GRÉGR 1883 (see in note 13),
pp. 14-22; ADÁMEK, K.: Z %Az P^A 7. Velké Meziříčí 1888,
p. 71; onA?, 47, 25. 12. 1909, No. 294, p. 5.
^ Mentions of the Laocoon group in the Czech literatuře of
that time demonstrate that Winckelmann's interprétation was
taken for granted, cf. MALÝ, J. (ed.): DrzPzzý AhAayy y/AzzzL
/zzzzzAý 4. Praha 1881, p. 94, "Řecko"; MADIERA, K.: O
nejdůležitějších pojmech ésthetických. In: ZAP LzPsy. DPrgL
PzhLP^z A ZAP LAPy PP DéPP/P yy. DzzP^zzzý yyp^A^-
Ed. J. YAČLENA. Písek 1880, No. 18, pp. 45-167, see p.
110 on Laocoon; HAKL, B.: (Lvů A RzAzz ^ PPP A
P^^zpyZ. Brno 1881, p. 331; HLAYINKA, A.: Vatikán sídlem
uměny a vědy. In: OZycr, 6, 1883, No. 15, p. 238; KUČERA,
K.: BPyzzé. Praha 1883, pp. 143-144.
Cf. LOMIČOVÁ, M.: Pokus Tyršův a Mádlův o napsání dějin
umění výtvarných a Tyršova habilitace na české technice. In:
McřďpoyřgAA^-PfAř ČLTZP yPztzy?, 7/Zlý 7. Praha 1976,
pp. 5-39.
'i TYRŠOVÁ 1934 (see m note 3), p. 37.
group statue was perceived in an altogether different
light, due to new archaeoiogical excavations in the
Eastern Mediterranean. In 1872, in the introduction
to his work, Tyrš stressed that all scientihc disciplines
had evoived due to herce compétition.^ The goai
is to beat the Opponent, there is no other way to
victory, defeat is an integral part of every scientihc
contest. When asked to evaluate Tyrš's entry into the
Art historical aréna, we could to say that, after an
energetic start, he was knocked out.
On September 9*, 1878, Carl Human began the
excavation of the monumental altar of Zeus from
the hrne of Eumenes II (197 - 159 BC) in Bergama,
Turkey, the results of which deconstructed the en-
tire History of Ancient Art, including the book by
Tyrš. As early as the summer of 1879, a relief slab
was discovered which depicted Athéna and Giant
Alcyoneus. The Gianťs head so dosely resembled
that of the Vatican Laocoon that one of the Ger-
man archaeologists exclaimed: "Ahw Asv
E^wotw."^ jacob Burckhardťs reaction rehects the
agitated atmosphère among Art Historians after this
epochal discovery. In 1882, after seeing the reliefs in
a Berlin museum, he wrote in his hotel room: "TAt
Ar rA/PnA /A ryrA/yr yf /A
P/wAA čw/A?A /A^y-zwA. ý..ý
'' Cf. KUNZE, M. — KÄSTNER, V: HzzPLřtzyzzzzz/zzAzzg, ZZ. D<zr
MGrwwPiyg,2;wc%. DfAAPzAA zzzzPDAzyyAHrrAZAčzzr. Berlin
1990, p. 33. In the hrst campaign, which ended in 1880, 94
slabs with reliefs were unearthed, cf. CAčwzL P^rHzzygzvAzzggzz
wzzPřzgďzzz<?zz, 7P77 — 7PP4.MzzyBřPAPzzzzzzPBPA^2<?yZZzz/zzzzzzzz
ZérAtřt. Dortmund 1963. The discovery was immediately
published, cf. CONZE, A.: P^z^zzw<?zz. Berlin 1880; CONZE,
A.: OPAr A<? ZAř Ar ErAzzzzzzg Přy yrcyyřzz HArr yz/ Přzg^zzzczz.
Berlin 1881; CONZE, A.: DřrDAPZ/Ay P^yyr^yyřzzMPzzzy wzz
Přzy^/wozz. Berlin 1881. From 1880, the reliefs were exhibited
in the Old Museum (Altes Museum) in Berlin. Already in the
hrst publications, the Vatican Laocoon was compared with
the frieze of Pergamon and proclaimed to be from the same
epoch, cf. CONZE, A. et al.: DL EfgAzzPrí? PzfHzzygrAzz/zgřzz
yzz PfTgďWíw. Berlin 1880, pp. 53-55; OVERBECK, C. J. A.:
G<?yAP/p AfyArAAA% PAAL, 7. Leipzig 1881, pp. 295, 300,
312; REIFFERSCHEID, A.: Pgzgtzzwzz. Breslau 1881, p. 5;
MILCHOEFER, A.: DP BgAD/zg Ar Prc/wPAzzy.* Pzz FAzP
%zzy P^Tgzzzwzz. Berlin 1882, pp. 30-43; URLICHS, C. L. von:
PgyyM7AW.- GyAPA? zzzzP Kzzzzy/. Leipzig 1883, p. 30. KEKU-
LE, R.: Zzzr D^zztz/zzg zzzzP ZP/AyPAzzzzzzzg P^y P^zcroczz. Stuttgart
1883 was the hrst scientihc monograph on this theme. Cf.
also LEITHÀUSER, G.: D<?r GýwzPzz/iPy Př^^zozz zzzzPPz<?
Z^Aco/zgrzýyP. Hamburg 1889.
18