DOI Heft:
Nr. 1
DOI Artikel:Blower, Jonathan: Max Dvořák, Wilhelm von Bode and "The Monuments of German Art"
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.31179#0106
pleased the young Franz Joseph I, to whom they were
dedicated.^ But the cost of producing these books
brought an early end to the project, and for the time
being all further monument research was conhned
to the scholarly journals of the Central Commission.
The work of inventorisation was then resumed in
the 1880s by its new president, Alexander Freiherr
von Flclfert, by whtch time the daunting slze of the
task had been diminished — roughly halved tn fact
- by the Compromise of 1867 and the establishment
of an autonomous Hungarian monument authority.
Taking the crownland of Cannthia as a test case,
Helfert chose to organise his new monument inven-
tory along French lineš. The resulting volume, which
had taken the best part of ten years to complété, was
unanimouslv declared a failureA
Dvořák hrst came to the problém of inventorisa-
tion in 1902, when he reviewed a sériés of publica-
tions that was being issued at a rather alarming rate
by the Archaeological Commission of the Bohemian
Academy of Sciences in Prague; its Tdd^ypdy o/
Ať T7/Vo/?7 zz/zd M/Aá/Á Ádo/z/z/zzo/zA gd A<? TT/zgdo/z/ o/
7BA///AV This particular project had been conceived
in 1894 and was then rapidiy implemented with
funding from the provincial Bohemian government.
The hrst ten volumes appeared between 1897 and
1902 — with the conspicuous absence of any direct
hnancial support from the imperial government in
Vienna. Despite Dvořák's own peripheral involve-
ment with the Bohemian art topography (he later
contributed to the volume on his birthplace, Schloß
Raudnitz), his assessment of the hrst ten volumes
was curt: "TA A^o/zArzA tzn? dA/zg A čy<?A
tz/zd zz/zd Jdr zzt 7 ttz/z Ad Agy zzm o/z A<? zz^dod
^ HEIDER, G. — EITELBERGER, R. (eds.): AízZZg/hArďAg
TT/vZA/zd^Vg Ar OrZgrrgZgArrdg// KArgrrZ^Zgr. 2 vois. Stuttgart
1858 — 1860. Particularly interesting here is Eitelbergerh
politicization of art history in the wake of Austria's loss of
Lombardy (1859) to the nascent Italian nation. In his history
of DZg KW At Ad A/ArovA MAzh/zd, Vol. 2, pp. 1-34,
he effectively lays claim to the ceded territory by citmg the
supposedly Germanie origins of its monuments.
^ KzzzzrZ-Tpygrgüdz'g At TfgryggZi?zz^zr Kdz'zzZgzz. Wien 1889, see esp.
Helferťs foreword, p.v.
Topggr^A'g Ar A't/077ttA% zzzzd Ázzz/rZ-DgzzC/zzzz/g A KAzzgrgzA
BčAzgzz rgzz Ar Uz^gzZ At yzz/zz Azydzzgg At iW. JAAzzzzdgrZr. 51
vols. Prag 1897 - 1939.
z/zgdprodzzmd, zf /bzAor Am/zArA/z/l Tdo zZAV/tzZz'o/zr gdo/z
dz/yo /zzzzA A do AtAřd'T^Azzrřr dy A7o/%z/z/A Aoz/A o/z/y do
/zrod A ozvopp/A/zAozzrotT^ ITis criticisms here could be
tnterpreted as nothing more than an oblique attack
on Josef Mocker, the restoration architect and Czech
nationaiist who produced the majority of the offend-
ing drawings. But they may also háve been partially
motivated by an overarching Flabsburg patriotisme
From the perspective of the Central Commission
in Vienna this hurry of art historical activity in the
Slavic north will háve left the core German-speak-
ing crownlands looking, to borrow Schinkeks words,
rather "/ztzÁfd zz/zd dzzrroA by comparison, "dAo z? /zoz/z
ro/oyy A zzAr/zzo/dy z/A/zdzzdzZod rozz/zZrß'd^ The Bohemian
art topography, then, effectively put pressure on
the Central Commission to hnally get Austria's own
artistic héritage on the map [Fig. 4].
Dvořák did so conscientiously. As préparation
for the MzzVÁzz/z A A be made a thorough
study of the existing German inventories and, like
Bode, he found them wanting. In a programmable
article published in 1906, Dvořák too compared the
German topographies to the analogous MGH, and
thus art history to history properV The result was
not favourable. Whereas the MGH had been řol-
lowed by zy)o/z bW/g d/V/znA/z zyW dzárzzW/z'J
the publication of the topographies had proven
scientiňcally sterile. "7 Á/zo/b y7 /zo roAozzr or t^/zz/zozz/zř
zz^o/A gd zz/d ArZory AzzZ dzzr d<?<?/z ArpAod dy or dzzrod o/z Ao
zzrZ Zodog/tyd^Ar. Do/zg roz/tr o/ dooÁr Azz/zd zz/zzzrod A A<?
dd/tzAgr zz/zdpoopd j<?/do/z/ zdoÁ zz/zyZdz/zg zy) A Ao/zz. Tdzr dzzr
doro/zzo zzd A<? wom ro/zjpdzzozzt rom/zzdy, zz/zd &yAAz/7y oyor
Ao Auy7z^j/i?z?/-ií, zzrdz/yg ArmzzV/zgdy AzzAod /ooÁz/zg
A^o Ao At/ory o/ Gor/z/zz/z zzrA^'*'
DVOŘÁK, M.: Topographie der hlstorichen und kunst-
Denkmale im Königreiche Böhmen. In: A7dZgz7zz//yg// Ar
BzrZA/Zr Ar Ör/grrgdA'rgdg GgrgA'AtA^vVdg, 23, 1902, p. 371;
DVOŘÁK, M. — MATĚJKA, B.: DgrpA'drgdgBgy/'A Rz/zdAZy.
TW. Rz///dAZygrdgdbrr. Prag 1910, Vol. 27, m the séries cited
in note 96.
^ SCHINKEL, K.F.: Memorandum zur Denkmalpflege [1815],
In: HUSE, N. (ed.): Dg/zZrrdg TgxZg zz/zr drgz Jzzdr-
dzz//dgrZg//. München 1984, p. 70.
^ DVOŘÁK: Deutsche Kunsttopographien I. In: Rw/rpyrzAA-
A7A AEyg/gg%, 3,1906, pp. 59-65.
5° Ibidem, p. 60.
104
dedicated.^ But the cost of producing these books
brought an early end to the project, and for the time
being all further monument research was conhned
to the scholarly journals of the Central Commission.
The work of inventorisation was then resumed in
the 1880s by its new president, Alexander Freiherr
von Flclfert, by whtch time the daunting slze of the
task had been diminished — roughly halved tn fact
- by the Compromise of 1867 and the establishment
of an autonomous Hungarian monument authority.
Taking the crownland of Cannthia as a test case,
Helfert chose to organise his new monument inven-
tory along French lineš. The resulting volume, which
had taken the best part of ten years to complété, was
unanimouslv declared a failureA
Dvořák hrst came to the problém of inventorisa-
tion in 1902, when he reviewed a sériés of publica-
tions that was being issued at a rather alarming rate
by the Archaeological Commission of the Bohemian
Academy of Sciences in Prague; its Tdd^ypdy o/
Ať T7/Vo/?7 zz/zd M/Aá/Á Ádo/z/z/zzo/zA gd A<? TT/zgdo/z/ o/
7BA///AV This particular project had been conceived
in 1894 and was then rapidiy implemented with
funding from the provincial Bohemian government.
The hrst ten volumes appeared between 1897 and
1902 — with the conspicuous absence of any direct
hnancial support from the imperial government in
Vienna. Despite Dvořák's own peripheral involve-
ment with the Bohemian art topography (he later
contributed to the volume on his birthplace, Schloß
Raudnitz), his assessment of the hrst ten volumes
was curt: "TA A^o/zArzA tzn? dA/zg A čy<?A
tz/zd zz/zd Jdr zzt 7 ttz/z Ad Agy zzm o/z A<? zz^dod
^ HEIDER, G. — EITELBERGER, R. (eds.): AízZZg/hArďAg
TT/vZA/zd^Vg Ar OrZgrrgZgArrdg// KArgrrZ^Zgr. 2 vois. Stuttgart
1858 — 1860. Particularly interesting here is Eitelbergerh
politicization of art history in the wake of Austria's loss of
Lombardy (1859) to the nascent Italian nation. In his history
of DZg KW At Ad A/ArovA MAzh/zd, Vol. 2, pp. 1-34,
he effectively lays claim to the ceded territory by citmg the
supposedly Germanie origins of its monuments.
^ KzzzzrZ-Tpygrgüdz'g At TfgryggZi?zz^zr Kdz'zzZgzz. Wien 1889, see esp.
Helferťs foreword, p.v.
Topggr^A'g Ar A't/077ttA% zzzzd Ázzz/rZ-DgzzC/zzzz/g A KAzzgrgzA
BčAzgzz rgzz Ar Uz^gzZ At yzz/zz Azydzzgg At iW. JAAzzzzdgrZr. 51
vols. Prag 1897 - 1939.
z/zgdprodzzmd, zf /bzAor Am/zArA/z/l Tdo zZAV/tzZz'o/zr gdo/z
dz/yo /zzzzA A do AtAřd'T^Azzrřr dy A7o/%z/z/A Aoz/A o/z/y do
/zrod A ozvopp/A/zAozzrotT^ ITis criticisms here could be
tnterpreted as nothing more than an oblique attack
on Josef Mocker, the restoration architect and Czech
nationaiist who produced the majority of the offend-
ing drawings. But they may also háve been partially
motivated by an overarching Flabsburg patriotisme
From the perspective of the Central Commission
in Vienna this hurry of art historical activity in the
Slavic north will háve left the core German-speak-
ing crownlands looking, to borrow Schinkeks words,
rather "/ztzÁfd zz/zd dzzrroA by comparison, "dAo z? /zoz/z
ro/oyy A zzAr/zzo/dy z/A/zdzzdzZod rozz/zZrß'd^ The Bohemian
art topography, then, effectively put pressure on
the Central Commission to hnally get Austria's own
artistic héritage on the map [Fig. 4].
Dvořák did so conscientiously. As préparation
for the MzzVÁzz/z A A be made a thorough
study of the existing German inventories and, like
Bode, he found them wanting. In a programmable
article published in 1906, Dvořák too compared the
German topographies to the analogous MGH, and
thus art history to history properV The result was
not favourable. Whereas the MGH had been řol-
lowed by zy)o/z bW/g d/V/znA/z zyW dzárzzW/z'J
the publication of the topographies had proven
scientiňcally sterile. "7 Á/zo/b y7 /zo roAozzr or t^/zz/zozz/zř
zz^o/A gd zz/d ArZory AzzZ dzzr d<?<?/z ArpAod dy or dzzrod o/z Ao
zzrZ Zodog/tyd^Ar. Do/zg roz/tr o/ dooÁr Azz/zd zz/zzzrod A A<?
dd/tzAgr zz/zdpoopd j<?/do/z/ zdoÁ zz/zyZdz/zg zy) A Ao/zz. Tdzr dzzr
doro/zzo zzd A<? wom ro/zjpdzzozzt rom/zzdy, zz/zd &yAAz/7y oyor
Ao Auy7z^j/i?z?/-ií, zzrdz/yg ArmzzV/zgdy AzzAod /ooÁz/zg
A^o Ao At/ory o/ Gor/z/zz/z zzrA^'*'
DVOŘÁK, M.: Topographie der hlstorichen und kunst-
Denkmale im Königreiche Böhmen. In: A7dZgz7zz//yg// Ar
BzrZA/Zr Ar Ör/grrgdA'rgdg GgrgA'AtA^vVdg, 23, 1902, p. 371;
DVOŘÁK, M. — MATĚJKA, B.: DgrpA'drgdgBgy/'A Rz/zdAZy.
TW. Rz///dAZygrdgdbrr. Prag 1910, Vol. 27, m the séries cited
in note 96.
^ SCHINKEL, K.F.: Memorandum zur Denkmalpflege [1815],
In: HUSE, N. (ed.): Dg/zZrrdg TgxZg zz/zr drgz Jzzdr-
dzz//dgrZg//. München 1984, p. 70.
^ DVOŘÁK: Deutsche Kunsttopographien I. In: Rw/rpyrzAA-
A7A AEyg/gg%, 3,1906, pp. 59-65.
5° Ibidem, p. 60.
104