In German speaking countries Haydn’s oratorios, and particularly
, have played an important role in the repertoire of choral societies and music festivals since the 1810s. However, in France, and also in Paris — “the capital of the 19th century” —, Haydn’s oratorios were performed only on rare occasions, and then they were given mostly in parts. The reasons for these circumstances can be seen in the institutional and esthetical context of the Parisian concert life. With respect to professional concert societies, like the
Société des Concerts du Conservatoire
, rigid obstacles were on the one hand the enormous financial risk of a complete oratorio performance. On the other hand the established type of concert programmes with its varied mixture of vocal and instrumental pieces functioned as a barrier. Most important was a lack of mixed amateur choral societies, which developed in Paris quite late, primary in the 1840s, and then only little by little. Since oratorio performances lasted to be mostly a private affaire in the first half of the 19th century, it is not surprising, that Haydn’s oratorios were studied in aristocratic salons of Princesse de Belgiojoso and Baron Delmar with the intention of both education and entertainment.
A főúri lakóhelyek funkcionális rendszerében jól kifejeződik annak a társadalmi kapcsolati hálónak a szerkezete, amelybe a tulajdonosok háza (udvar- vagy háztartása) beágyazódik. A 19. század folyamán a főnemességet ért társadalmi változások (hivatali állások vállalása, politikai működés, részvétel gazdasági vállalkozásokban stb.) a köz- és magánszféra, az intim és a nyilvános funkciók határozott szétválását eredményezték. Ennek leglátványosabb megnyilvánulása, hogy a magánlakosztályok nyilvánossága és közéleti szerepe jórészt megszűnt, és ezt a társasági terek számban jelentősen megnőtt csoportja vette át. A főnemesi réteg ugyanis olyan tágas, külön saját életvitelt lehetővé tevő mozgástérrel rendelkezett, ahol párhuzamosan a férjnek és a feleségnek külön érintkezési körei lehettek. Az illem, a konvenció és a reprezentációs kötelezettségek azonban megköveteltek bizonyos érintkezést a házastársak között is, és a kapcsolatoknak ez a társadalmilag elvárt minimuma szabhatott korlátokat mindkettőjük életének. Ez határozta meg a nemzedékeket átfogó egység, a ház jelentéstartalmában kifejeződő, a férj és a feleség közötti nyilvánosan legitimált társadalmi kapcsolatot. A társasági terek, a fogadóhelyiségek, vendéglakrészek elrendezése, száma és kiterjedése a tulajdonosok rangszerű, a nyilvános közösségbe való beleszövődésének módját és mértékét tükrözi. A társasági terek kialakítása pontosan meghatározott társadalmi jelentéssel bírt, ezek a ház urának és úrnőjének szűkebb érintkezési köre számára voltak fenntartva. Itt fogadták azokat, akik rövid vendégségbe érkeztek, amikor a látogatások nem elsősorban a reprezentációt szolgálták, hanem inkább a kényelmes, bensőséges és az etikett szempontjából kevéssé kötött társasági együttlétet, szalonéletet. Az ebédlő ezzel szemben annak a sajátos, nyilvános társadalmi állásnak a jelképe volt, amelyet a tulajdonosok a főnemesség hierarchiájában elfoglaltak. Az ebédlő és az ehhez kapcsolódó vendéglakosztály lehetett alkalmas a rangban egyenlők vagy a magasabban állók hivatalos látogatásainak fogadására, utóbbi pedig elhelyezésére, elszállásolására. Az 1790-es évektől a számban megszaporodó, funkciójában specializálódó társasági és integrálódó gyűjteményes rendeltetések lineáris sorának differenciált beosztása alakult ki, amely ezeket a lakófunkcióktól a korábbinál jóval karakteresebben elválasztotta. A 19. században így a társasági funkciók teljesen vagy részben a lakófunkcióktól differenciáltan, a példák döntő többségénél a földszintre osztva, gyalogos feltárással jelentek meg. Az 1810-es években, a lineáris struktúrában kialakuló rendeltetéscsoport eredményezte több társasági helyiség egyidejű, központi feltárásának igényét, amely e hagyományos struktúra jelentőségét adta a korszakban. A nagyszámú társasági rendeltetést differenciáltan befoglaló centrális, háromtraktusos térstruktúrák kialakulása az 1850-es évektől volt jellemző, míg a lineáris kétmenetes elrendezések hagyományosnak tekinthetők a korszakban.
a Salon des Indépendants-ban és a Salon d'Automne-ban is ki voltak állítva, s föltűnést is keltettek, a legméltányosabb árakon fogják árusítani.” (A Miénk festői Kolozsvárt. Kolozsvári Hirlap, 1909. máj. 28., 4
Viktor Madarász (1830–1917) is considered as one of the defining exponents of “Hungarian national art”. Yet, paradoxically, the anointed painter of the so-called Hungarian national romanticism had to go abroad to paint the pictures that would promote the national consciousness in an oppressed country and champion the ideals of Hungarian independence. Madarász lived in the French capital for almost a decade and a half, studying under the academic master Léon Cogniet, exhibiting in the Salon de Paris and becoming acquainted with illustrious members of the Parisian art society. The work that Madarász carried out in France prompts us to investigate the circumstances that influenced his career there. This study aims to take a look at the most productive period in Madarász’s career – his Parisian period – in the light of the latest research and with particular emphasis on the works he exhibited at the Salon de Paris. In conveying new information and discussing the social and cultural circumstances of Viktor Madarász’s sojourn in Paris, as well as the connections he built up there – with educational establishments, exhibiting institutions, patrons, mediators and other artists –, this paper is intended to provide new insight into the strategies the artist pursued in order to build his career, and thereby to present his Parisian period in a new light.
Faué's mélodies have received too little attention. Here four early songs are subjected to musico-poetic and stylistic-technical analysis. To understand fully the young musician's achievement, the songs are viewed in their socio-cultural milieu. His earliest works date from the end of the Second Empire and the Franco-Prussian War; his first maturity coincided with the beginnings of la Belle Époque. Of modest origins, Fauré succeeded in earning the patronage of leading social and artistic figures of the time, including the venerable Franz Liszt, and the celebrated singer, composer and mistress of her own salon, Pauline Viardot. One mélodie each by these established composers is analyzed in comparison with the two musico-poetically similar pieces by the young Frenchman. These juxtapositions show clearly that Fauré followed his own path from the outset, in a direction that was altogether forward-oriented, even where it was built of stones borrowed from the past.
In the first half of the fifties almost every year there was a spring exhibition in Budapest. It was usually open to those who had no chance to show their works in the great state exhibitions in the previous years and thus the Ministry of Popular Education had not purchase any from them. There was a strict jury to select from the submitted works and to recommend what to exhibit and what to buy.
The Spring Exhibition opened on 20 April 1957 in all rooms of the Kunsthalle was different. The exhibits were not selected by a state-delegated jury but by four juries delegated by the artists themselves and everyone was free to submit their painting, sculpture, print to any of the four. The selection was also widely different from the ‘socialist realist’ works of the earlier spring exhibitions, representing a rich assortment of styles from naturalist to abstract and surrealist. The Greek sculptor Agamemnon Macris, who immigrated to Hungary and was immediately accepted and acknowledged by the art community, was entrusted with the organization of the exhibition; he arranged the selection by stylistic trends, each given a room of its own.
The Spring Exhibition was received by a meticulously organized volley of criticism. It was reviled by the dailies and – under the pretext of a debate – the newly launched literary weekly, Élet és Irodalom [Life and Literature] carried a series of disparaging articles. It was their coordinated opinion that under the motto “let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools compete” the Spring Exhibition was a misinterpreted copy of the ongoing Chinese cultural campaign and, in short, it was petty bourgeois anarchy incarnate. The experience of a free choice of style, unrestricted self-presentation and the intensive attack of abuse left a deep imprint on the memory of the artists. The same applies to art historical writing.
The author is a researcher of the history of the Fine Arts (from 1968 Arts) Fund. In the four decades of socialism this institution was in charge of organizing the subsistence of artists: the companies under its aegis did everything from casting sculptures to art trade, from grounding canvas to printing picture-postcards, and from the income the fund gave the artists old-age pension, medical care, sick pay and occasional allowances, and even interest-free loans. Several documents have been found scattered among the files of the Federation of Hungarian Artists and the Ministry of Culture found in the National Archives, which refer to the 1957 Exhibition. Excerpts are given from them in the Appendix. The picture that they help reproduce provides explanation to the nervousness with which the political leadership that rose to power with the support of the intervening Soviet troops after the 1956 revolution responded to the Spring Exhibition.
The documents reveal: the Spring Exhibition was not only an attempt to restore the artists’ intellectual autonomy, but also – and most importantly – to regain their financial independence. The four juries were also the cores of four possible artists’ groups, and the members of the Artists’ Federation and the Arts Fund would have been rallied in the “salons” they represented. Each of these salons would have owned a company which they hoped to set up on the material and personal resources of the art trading company of the Fund called Képcsarnok, and of the creative communities active with permission since the autumn of 1953.
Splitting up Képcsarnok into smaller companies was originally proposed by the Arts Fund director and the leaders of the art division of the Ministry of Education in summer 1956 and not by the Federation. It was hoped that when a single company was replaced by several, and each management included a few prominent artists, then the grumbling painters and graphic artists protesting against the hegemony of the only art trading company’s only jury and the only top leader of the jury could be pacified. The director’s plan was discussed by the artists several times in summer and autumn, but then the revolution broke out on the 23rd, veering the story into a new direction.
The Executive Committee formed from the Revolutionary Committee of the Federation of Artists and the ministerial commissioner Agamemnon Macris who headed the Federation put the plan in the focus of the reform of the Federation they jointly worked out. The four economic units called “salons” converted from the planned four small companies would have been held together by a new independent Artists’ Federation Association shedding the patronage of the state. The membership of the “salons”, with their leadership of prominent artists and juries answerable to them, and with the Arts Fund to be put under their control, wished to take their own destiny in hand, eliminating the so-far dictating bureaucratic apparatus: the party centre and the ministry. The Spring Exhibition would have been the debut of this reorganized Association and the enterprises that would have ensured its financial autonomy.
No doubt about it, this could not be put up with either by the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party or the government officials. The Kádárian leadership driven by the logic of the violent recapture of power refused to yield the safest means of control: the material resources and supervision of the access to them. Consequently, it deployed all possible means to checkmate the artists’ plan. In the forums of publicity the pluralism of the Spring Exhibition was vehemently attacked, while the office took “administrative” measures to thwart the working of the Association trying to reorganize itself in a new spirit and on new grounds. It was therefore in vain for Macris to visit György Aczél, the newly appointed deputy cultural minister to tell him his assessment of the situation and to advise on it, for no one listened to him. The working of the Association was suspected, the reform plans discarded and they tried to erase even the memory of the Spring Exhibition.
Die ungarische Literaturgeschichte weist zahlreiche enge oder lose literarische Kreise und Schriftstellergruppen auf, die im 18. Jahrhundert den Beginn des modernen Literaturlebens kennzeichneten. Die bisherige Fachliteratur sagt, dass die ersten relevanten Zentren des ungarischen (und ungarisch geschriebenen) Literaturlebens erst in den schon hierarchisierten, akademischen und literarischen Kreisen und Salons im 18. Jahrhundert zu orten sind. Meine Forschungen führen mich hingegen zu der Erkenntnis, dass dieses Bedürfnis nach einem organisierten literarischen Leben schon im 15. Jahrhundert auftritt. Das Ziel meiner Arbeit ist es, den Beginn dieser frühen Gruppierungen, die sich von der der Aufklärungszeit natürlich unterschieden, zu erforschen. Die Forschung behandelt die Frage, welche Kontakte die Netzwerke des literarischen Lebens definierten und zuletzt was für ein Modell diese Kollektive gebildet haben. Mein Ausgangspunkt ist, diese frühen Gruppen als kulturelle Knotenpunkte zu sehen. Um den vorliegenden Quellenkorpus analysieren zu können, möchte ich die Methoden der Netzwerkforschung verwenden, und diese führt mich zu der Frage, wie wir diese Gesellschaften als ein Netzwerk, also in einem Graph visualisieren und analysieren können, um dadurch neue Informationen über die Wirkung und die Identität der Literaten zu erhalten. Mit diesem Forschungsbericht möchte ich die wichtigsten Überlegungen, den theoretischen und methodischen Rahmen des interdisziplinären Projekts darstellen.
The Mazeppa sketch, written on pages 20–18 of Liszt’s Sketchbook N6, was composed a considerable time before the well-known study entitled Mazeppa (1841; 1851). In the past Rudolf Kókai and Dieter Torkewitz have written a few words about this composition. However, neither Kókai nor Torkewitz understood that the sketch, after a lengthy deletion, was continued on pages 19 and 18. All in all there are around 30 bars of this work, enough to reconstruct it. The result is a quite interesting, wild ‘Galop,’ most probably composed on ‘31 Mai Ecorchebeuf,’ according to the date written at the bottom of page 18 through the notes. If this is right, it means that the Mazeppa sketch stems from 1832, for Liszt stayed from 8 May until shortly after 25 June 1832 in Normandy, in the village of Écorchebeuf. In the spring of that year Franz Liszt frequented the home of Victor Hugo (nowadays the museum Maison Victor Hugo); he met there the painter Boulanger a few times, too. Louis Boulanger (1806–1867) had, in 1827, already exhibited his splendid Le Supplice de Mazeppa in the ‘Salon du Louvre’. Hugo, who was closely befriended with Boulanger, was so impressed by this painting that he wrote shortly afterwards his poem Mazeppa, which appeared in 1829 in the collection Les Orientals. So, in 1832 Liszt had regular contact with people who were most profoundly infected by the Mazeppa virus and he will have read Hugo’s poem at that time, maybe at his holiday address in Écorchebeuf. It is quite likely that then, under the direct influence of Hugo’s poem, he tried to represent in music the hellish ride of the young Cossack on a Ukrainian horse.
István Csók was intrigued by the story of Erzsébet Báthory, princess of Transylvania who lived in the 17th century, already during his academic studies. Around 1885 he depicted the best-known episode of her life-story: the ruler bathing in the blood of her servants. (Prior to him, only Viktor Madarász painted a picture of this scene in 1862.) When some 15 years later he returned to this theme, he picked another less known episode. The topic of his large canvas begun in 1893 is a scene when around 1600 Erzsébet Báthory is watching with sensual pleasure her stark naked maid-servants drenched in cold water in the courtyard of her Csejte castle in the chill of winter. Csók made several studies for the 4 × 6 m composition, including a model photo for the protagonist. The painting was completed by early 1895 and sent to the Salon exhibition in Paris in February.
The theme preoccupied the master for several decades and in the 1920s–‘30s he made several variations on it. They testify to his experiments with modern forms conveying the historical theme in an expressionist style. Parallel with that, he painted several variations and replicas of the motif of his monumental picture deemed most effective: the figure of Erzsébet Báthory.
The work also features in a central role in the painter's autobiography written continuously from the 1920s (published in 1944). In My Memoirs the Báthory appears as a “masterpiece” which, like Zola's highly influential novel (“L’Oeuvre”) gradually devours its author. In the narrative of the recollections, the picture becomes identified with the misconception of academism, “the temptation of Mammon”.
Csók relied on authentic historical sources for his painting. He drew on the records of the witnesses’ testimonies attached to the documents of the case published by Hungarian historians in periodicals from the early 19th century. To model the figure of the ruler, he used a portrait reproduced several times in the late 19th century but now lost. Its reproduction was also found in his estate. The elaboration of the composition coincided with the pivotal change in the ruler's evaluation his historiography: while earlier Erzsébet Báthory was described as a blood-thirsty monster, the analyses appearing from the late 1880s increasingly attributed her state to a mental disorder.
Csók's choice of this odd theme was a symptom of late- 19th century crisis of history painting. As against his fellow-painters of Munich and Nagybánya who tried to breathe life into this dying genre from the angle of plein air naturalism, Csók rejuvenated the great tradition of history painting with the sensational illusionism of salon painting and with the subtle psychological analysis of decadence. Contemporary critics received his work as a modern piece responding sensitively to up-to-date problems. On the basis of the then quite new sexual pathological researches most of the analysts described Erzsébet Báthory as a mentally deranged woman who committed acts of sadism in her fits of hysteria. In the analyses of the picture references are made to the father of hysteria research Jean-Martin Charcot as well as Richard von Krafft-Ebing who described sadism as a pathological case. To model the facial expression of Erzsébet Báthory, Csók drew on both the art academy tradition of “tête d'expression” and on the considerable pictorial material published by Charcot as the “iconography of hysteria” based on clinical case studies.
Csók meant his Erzsébet Báthory to be a “sensation” so he made sure it was first made public at the official Paris Salon. Then in autumn 1895 he also put it on display in Budapest, in a novel form of exhibition at that time: a one-man show. The press consequently devoted distinguished attention to it. Though the picture was originally ordered for the millenary festivities of 1896, the cultural ministry was reluctant to pay the promised price. Despite its ambivalent evaluation, it was eventually bought by the state in 1896 and sent to the representative Hungarian exhibition in Munich the next year.
For a few years the painting was included in the permanent exhibition of the National Museum. Upon the local mayor's request, in 1909 it was sent to Szeged on permanent loan together with several other works and it was displayed in the permanent exhibition of Szeged museum until 1940. Conservative circles in the town disliked it, and proposed already in the 1920s that being immoral it should be removed. Csók regarded the transfer of his painting to the countryside as “exile” and even tried to buy it back from the state. The last known station of the painting's “peregrinations” was Székesfehérvár where it arrived as a representative piece for the picture collection of the newly build Culture Centre in winter 1940. Its inclusion was partly justified by Csók's local attachment (he was born in the county) and also by the aim to create a spectacular collection of history paintings.
In spring 1944 the pictures of the gallery were put into a safe place but even rolled up the Erzsébet Báthory was too large to go through the air-raid shelter's door. During the siege it got lost. A note dated 1956 says that a one-time prisoner-of-war had seen it on the walls of the renaissance castle of Austrian Spittal an der Drau, Schloss Porcia, in the summer of 1945, framed and in perfect condition. The official search launched by the Austrian authorities on the basis of this information ended without result.
digital divide, online at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/contents.html
O'Reilly, T. (1999): How the Web was almost won. Salon Magazine, Nov. 16. http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/1999/11/16/microsoft