DOI Heft:
Nr. 1
DOI Artikel:Bažant, Jan: Nation and art: from Miroslav Tyrš to Max Dvořák, and back
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31179#0021
ro/W F/^F<9 yorr^rFo^ o/ FAii? F^rí^yFy^/y jy^r-
F^Ay ř^ryFVyg F/777F F?^ i^AFFř^ <%/w%F FF?^ ^oFFo^T?/
ý)0^r o/ F& T^oroóA Fr /or F^ř ^Vř/wCC."*^
What did T)^rš do? At Hrst, nothing, in špite of the
fact that he regularly reported on new archaeological
discoveries in the Czech press. However, m 1883, he
published a short notice in NAvAT ÁrFy (National
Paper), from which it is clear that the discovery
forced him radically to revise his conception of Art
HistorvAln April 1884, he ňnally travelled to Berlin
to see the reliefs with his own eyesr^ After his retům
to Prague, but before his nervous breakdown and
the fatal trip to the Tyrol, he wrote an article, but
left it on his desk. It was published by his wife, who
found it when she arranged her husbanďs books
after his deathA
In this article, entitled "Laocoon", Tyrš wrote:
"A GF^F ^wFrrAf ^y ^ F?MÁAFF?^77 Fr
pfřrrF/Tg F/? Gro/7p oý HFF?^/?ýfo//? F^ř P^r-
^7/%w?Fr Py /o ^ F/^^^AAč* /voA/
ýórLzyoro^. APoyř /z/A AAz/T rorro^o/yzFA /PFr
FA/zr TAporFÁozz FF?g* Popy zz?A PAPr Mwr ro/ziFÁřrA
Py FPo/^ ro rF^FAr tz/zz/ /Po r^poPohFy op FPo Po/g^o/?pA^o
ro ^AAzzF, FF^A /Poy roz/A wF FzTZzzgF/zí* oFpi'wFro P^F F^zzF Fp<?
rroo'Forr op Tzzoroozz Fpo FzTzFFzzFo/i*. ÁFzzr^ FPo Př/gzz^o/z
pAyť oo/^orprow Fpo p<ooP op Áízz^ÁozzFzz/zy Tzzoroo/z wz/rF
Př zz AFřf ^o/Ayhoz/z Fpo Jzzzzzř p'OoPT
Tyrš does not agréé with this viewpoint, but
not because of that which he wrote in his book
2' BURCKHARDT, BnFg. Ed. M. BURCKHARDT. Basel
1949 - 1994, Vol. 8, p. 67 (letter to Robert Grüninger, August
17,1882); GOOSSMANN, L.: Imperial Icon. The Pergamon
Altar in Wilhelminian Germany. In: TA pwnM/ <?p Ai^Ar%
PPtZory, 78, 2006, pp. 551-587, the quotation of Burckhardt
on p. 551.
2** NJroAF /AZy, 11. 8. 1883, Supplement No. 33, reprinted in
TYRŠOVÁ 1934 (see in note 3) pp. 163-164. According to
Tyrs, the roots of the Pergamon frieze are in the 4^ Century
BC. He thus reopened the question of the dating of the
Laocoon group statue. If the Pergamon frieze has roots in
the classical Greek Art, there is no reason to date Laocoon
to the Ancient Roman era.
TYRŠOVÁ, R.: AfzrztrFzr Ty/k,yřA ztw/wojkz? AA Praha 1934,
p. 113; SVOBODA, K.: % zACk ryz/T/D/oj-z cAoyřA
Aprrzzz' M&y rrAoré. Praha 1957, p. 176.
AUrcz/z/z' PrZy, 7. 9. 1884, Supplement No. 249. Tyršova did
not include this article in Tyrs's collected writings, in spite of
on Laocoon. His criticism of Wagnon and Kekulé
is based on Trendelenburg, who thought that
sculptors active in Pergamon copied the Laocoon
group, which he considered to be older and artisti-
cally more valuableA Trendelenburg thus returns to
Winckelmann s dating and évaluation of the Vatican
Laocoon. Tyrš comments on it as follows: "TA zVw
jFzzrF zzgzzF/z Fo Áy/ř^^FFzzFř _gfí*zzTy. FF^ř grozzp rFzzFzzí* Fr
zzzorg* T^r/^rF, A AozzA z^F?i*zz ^ y3Aw F^č* FrzzÁFFzozzA
rozzrgyFFozz^ýrozzz F3^ oA?7**y<?7wz/, yfzÁzý)^ýHz/z FF?ř y^ryp<?zzC
o/ NzzrF^zzF Gf^Á ArF... ? T//F /z^FF^r rzzzz rFzV^
zz zzwC o/ 7? F^^FFřf zz/AzV... %-*<? rzz/zzzoF r^Fy z/zzF<? 77 o/
NrF F?T7J*Fyy OT/TYřAč'!* 77^ <9/7 Ff?ř 1*0-7*77^7/ i*A^AF7* FrAFt. TAo
^Fonh/ iVTA 7^0 F?77yo 77F 07/r T/FigoiA Fi* Foo yTTg^o^FT?^/
F^oryoro FF Fi* i^Fro Fo 7*077^7/7*7* i*7*7yFF7*T7Áy 77FF777AFf 77F F?Fy-
F07?7*T7/ FOTTTp/hFot. "
In the summer of 1884, Tyrš had to admit that
his attempts at a breakthrough in Art History had
been a failure. He was forced to discard the very
idea of an evolutionary template which would make
possible the dating of works of ArtA For him, it
was not a matter of the dating of one particular
work of Art, however famous it might be. In Tyrš's
writing, Laocoon was secondary; the artistic norm
was paramount, or a set of norms, on which Czech
national Art could be based. He wanted to lay down
the ideological foundations on which Czech culture
could be grounded as hrmly as the Periclean Athens
was grounded in the Art of Pheidias or Polycleitos.
the fact that it is of crucial importance for the évolution of
Tyrs's Art historical thinking.
2 On Wagnon, cf. WAGNON, A.: IL?PřfgTMw 7/
AL^Tww. Genève 1881.
2^ TRENDELENBERG, A.: DA L^/GTwgnypř 77777/ Ar G/^-
777^777^ Tl*^77^77/7777771*7^777 HA^ri. Berlin 1884.
2'' Simultaneously with the work on Laocoon, Tyrš wrote on the
évolution of Art, cf. "O podmínkách vývoje a zdaru činnosti
umělecké" [About Conditions of the Evolution and Success
of Artistic Activity] (1872), reprinted in TYRŠOVÁ, R. (ed.):
Af/nVw Ty/kc 77/777777) i. Py77//7k777'0/77777^. Praha 1932, pp. 37-
100. Art evolves from "unconsciousness" (émotions, naivety,
impulsiveness) through a middle stage to full "consciousness"
(reason, sophistication, rehection). The peak is achieved in the
middle stage, after which Art déclinés and the Laocoon group
was according to Tyrš created in this phase, cf. TYRŠOVA
1934 (see in note 3), pp. 103-104.
19
F^Ay ř^ryFVyg F/777F F?^ i^AFFř^ <%/w%F FF?^ ^oFFo^T?/
ý)0^r o/ F& T^oroóA Fr /or F^ř ^Vř/wCC."*^
What did T)^rš do? At Hrst, nothing, in špite of the
fact that he regularly reported on new archaeological
discoveries in the Czech press. However, m 1883, he
published a short notice in NAvAT ÁrFy (National
Paper), from which it is clear that the discovery
forced him radically to revise his conception of Art
HistorvAln April 1884, he ňnally travelled to Berlin
to see the reliefs with his own eyesr^ After his retům
to Prague, but before his nervous breakdown and
the fatal trip to the Tyrol, he wrote an article, but
left it on his desk. It was published by his wife, who
found it when she arranged her husbanďs books
after his deathA
In this article, entitled "Laocoon", Tyrš wrote:
"A GF^F ^wFrrAf ^y ^ F?MÁAFF?^77 Fr
pfřrrF/Tg F/? Gro/7p oý HFF?^/?ýfo//? F^ř P^r-
^7/%w?Fr Py /o ^ F/^^^AAč* /voA/
ýórLzyoro^. APoyř /z/A AAz/T rorro^o/yzFA /PFr
FA/zr TAporFÁozz FF?g* Popy zz?A PAPr Mwr ro/ziFÁřrA
Py FPo/^ ro rF^FAr tz/zz/ /Po r^poPohFy op FPo Po/g^o/?pA^o
ro ^AAzzF, FF^A /Poy roz/A wF FzTZzzgF/zí* oFpi'wFro P^F F^zzF Fp<?
rroo'Forr op Tzzoroozz Fpo FzTzFFzzFo/i*. ÁFzzr^ FPo Př/gzz^o/z
pAyť oo/^orprow Fpo p<ooP op Áízz^ÁozzFzz/zy Tzzoroo/z wz/rF
Př zz AFřf ^o/Ayhoz/z Fpo Jzzzzzř p'OoPT
Tyrš does not agréé with this viewpoint, but
not because of that which he wrote in his book
2' BURCKHARDT, BnFg. Ed. M. BURCKHARDT. Basel
1949 - 1994, Vol. 8, p. 67 (letter to Robert Grüninger, August
17,1882); GOOSSMANN, L.: Imperial Icon. The Pergamon
Altar in Wilhelminian Germany. In: TA pwnM/ <?p Ai^Ar%
PPtZory, 78, 2006, pp. 551-587, the quotation of Burckhardt
on p. 551.
2** NJroAF /AZy, 11. 8. 1883, Supplement No. 33, reprinted in
TYRŠOVÁ 1934 (see in note 3) pp. 163-164. According to
Tyrs, the roots of the Pergamon frieze are in the 4^ Century
BC. He thus reopened the question of the dating of the
Laocoon group statue. If the Pergamon frieze has roots in
the classical Greek Art, there is no reason to date Laocoon
to the Ancient Roman era.
TYRŠOVÁ, R.: AfzrztrFzr Ty/k,yřA ztw/wojkz? AA Praha 1934,
p. 113; SVOBODA, K.: % zACk ryz/T/D/oj-z cAoyřA
Aprrzzz' M&y rrAoré. Praha 1957, p. 176.
AUrcz/z/z' PrZy, 7. 9. 1884, Supplement No. 249. Tyršova did
not include this article in Tyrs's collected writings, in spite of
on Laocoon. His criticism of Wagnon and Kekulé
is based on Trendelenburg, who thought that
sculptors active in Pergamon copied the Laocoon
group, which he considered to be older and artisti-
cally more valuableA Trendelenburg thus returns to
Winckelmann s dating and évaluation of the Vatican
Laocoon. Tyrš comments on it as follows: "TA zVw
jFzzrF zzgzzF/z Fo Áy/ř^^FFzzFř _gfí*zzTy. FF^ř grozzp rFzzFzzí* Fr
zzzorg* T^r/^rF, A AozzA z^F?i*zz ^ y3Aw F^č* FrzzÁFFzozzA
rozzrgyFFozz^ýrozzz F3^ oA?7**y<?7wz/, yfzÁzý)^ýHz/z FF?ř y^ryp<?zzC
o/ NzzrF^zzF Gf^Á ArF... ? T//F /z^FF^r rzzzz rFzV^
zz zzwC o/ 7? F^^FFřf zz/AzV... %-*<? rzz/zzzoF r^Fy z/zzF<? 77 o/
NrF F?T7J*Fyy OT/TYřAč'!* 77^ <9/7 Ff?ř 1*0-7*77^7/ i*A^AF7* FrAFt. TAo
^Fonh/ iVTA 7^0 F?77yo 77F 07/r T/FigoiA Fi* Foo yTTg^o^FT?^/
F^oryoro FF Fi* i^Fro Fo 7*077^7/7*7* i*7*7yFF7*T7Áy 77FF777AFf 77F F?Fy-
F07?7*T7/ FOTTTp/hFot. "
In the summer of 1884, Tyrš had to admit that
his attempts at a breakthrough in Art History had
been a failure. He was forced to discard the very
idea of an evolutionary template which would make
possible the dating of works of ArtA For him, it
was not a matter of the dating of one particular
work of Art, however famous it might be. In Tyrš's
writing, Laocoon was secondary; the artistic norm
was paramount, or a set of norms, on which Czech
national Art could be based. He wanted to lay down
the ideological foundations on which Czech culture
could be grounded as hrmly as the Periclean Athens
was grounded in the Art of Pheidias or Polycleitos.
the fact that it is of crucial importance for the évolution of
Tyrs's Art historical thinking.
2 On Wagnon, cf. WAGNON, A.: IL?PřfgTMw 7/
AL^Tww. Genève 1881.
2^ TRENDELENBERG, A.: DA L^/GTwgnypř 77777/ Ar G/^-
777^777^ Tl*^77^77/7777771*7^777 HA^ri. Berlin 1884.
2'' Simultaneously with the work on Laocoon, Tyrš wrote on the
évolution of Art, cf. "O podmínkách vývoje a zdaru činnosti
umělecké" [About Conditions of the Evolution and Success
of Artistic Activity] (1872), reprinted in TYRŠOVÁ, R. (ed.):
Af/nVw Ty/kc 77/777777) i. Py77//7k777'0/77777^. Praha 1932, pp. 37-
100. Art evolves from "unconsciousness" (émotions, naivety,
impulsiveness) through a middle stage to full "consciousness"
(reason, sophistication, rehection). The peak is achieved in the
middle stage, after which Art déclinés and the Laocoon group
was according to Tyrš created in this phase, cf. TYRŠOVA
1934 (see in note 3), pp. 103-104.
19