Architecture of the Prague Pantheon: Museum and Nationalism
Jan Bažant
The building of the National Museum was built in 1883-1891 in a style combining
traits borrowed from ancient Rome, Renaissance Italy, and, last but not least, baroque
France1. This style is generally known as Neo-Renaissance and its perhaps best-known
example is Grenier’s Opera in Paris completed in 18742. Historicism of National Museum
conformed not only to European, but also to local fashion, because the most important
commission of Czech patriots, the National Theatre in Prague of 1866-1883, is also in the
Neo-Renaissance style3. It might seem that by museum’s architect, Josef Schulz (1840-1917),
a desire to build in the up to date style outweighed wish for national representation, but from
the beginning Czechs perceived his museum building as an embodiment of their national
feelings4. In the book with the telling title “The National Museum. The Memorial of our
Cultural Renaissance” František Kop ended the introduction with a pathetic exclamation:
“The National Museum must be holy to our people and sacred to the whole educated world.”5
What it was, than, what made this particular building an icon of the national movement?
Jan M. Černý, Nové Museum království Českého v Praze, Praha 1891; Jan Lier, „Museum království
českého“, Zprávy Spolku architektů a inženýrů v království Českém 25, 1891, 178-180; Alice Masaryková,
Národní Museum v Praze, Praha 1940; Jindřich Vybíral, Jindřich Noll, Josef Schulz 1840–1917, Praha 1992; J.
Noll: ‘Výstava Josefa Schulze v obnoveném Rudolfinu’, Památkové Péče, liii/1 (1993), pp. 37–8; Jiřina
Muková in: Růžena Baťková, Umělecké památky Prahy. Nové Město. Vyšehrad. Vinohrady (Praha 1), Praha
1998, 672-675; Lubomír Sršeň, Národní muzeum Praha. Průvodce, Praha 1999 (translated as: Architecture,
artistic decoration and original arts-and-crafts fixtures of the main building of the National Museum in Prague,
Prague 2000); Karel Ksandr, Pavel Škranc, The National Museum. National Museum - the architecture and
ornamentation of the main building, Prague 2001; Mojmír Horyna, ed., Dějiny českého výtvarného umění 17801890 (3,2), Praha 2001, 151-154.
2
Monika Steinhauser, Die Architektur der Pariser Oper. Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte und ihrer
architekturgeschichtlichen Stellung (Studien zur Kunst des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, Bd. 11), München 1969.
3
On Museum architecture cf. Jorn Bahns, „Kunst- und kulturgeschichtliche Museen als Bauaufgabe des spaten
19. Jahrhunderts. Das Germanische Nationalmuseum und andere Neubauten seit etwa 1870” in: Bernward
Deneke, Rainer Kahsnitz, eds., Das kunst- und kulturgeschichtliche Museum im 19. Jahrhundert (Studien zur
Kunst des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, 39), Munchen, 1977, 176-192; Martin Otto, Zur Ikonologie der deutschen
Museumsaechitektur zu Beginn des Zweiten Kaiserreiches, Diss. Mainz 1983; Alessandra Mottola Molfino, Il
libro dei musei , Torino 1991; Eric Hobsbawm, Terence Ranger, eds., The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge
1992; Juan Carlos Rico, Museos, arquitectura, arte. Los espacios expositivos, Madrid 1994; Jessica Evans,
David Boswell, ed.. Representing the Nation: a reader. Histories, heritage, museums. London - New York 1999;
Thomas K. Simpson, “The Museum as Grove of the Muses“ Journal of Museum Education 25, 2000, 28-31;
Barbara J. Black, On Exhibit: Victorians and their Museums Charlottesville, VA - London, 2000; Michaela
Giebelhausen, The Architecture of the Museum: Symbolic Structures, Urban Contexts (Barber Institute's
Critical Perspectives in Art History Series), Manchester 2003.
4
On Schulz cf. Pavel Vlček, Encyklopedie architektů, stavitelů, zedníků a kameníků v Čechách, Praha 2004,
594. On national symbolism cf. Otto W. Johnston, Der deutsche Nationalmythos. Ursprung eines politischen
Programms, Stuttgart 1990; Jürgen Link, Wulf Wülfling, eds., Nationale Mythen und Symbole in der zweiten
Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Strukturen und Funktionen von Konzepten nationaler Identität, (Sprache und
Geschichte, 16), Stuttgart 1991.
5
František Kop, Národní museum. Památník našeho kulturního obrození, Praha 1941, 6.
1
1
1. Josef Schulz, The National museum in Prague, from the North-West, 1883-1891.
We must start our query by stating that all national communities of the Habsburg
Empire claimed the Neo-Renaissance style as expression of their individual character. In
Austria, Northern Italy, Hungary, Poland, Croatia or Ukraine the cosmopolitan mainstream
architecture of a similar kind was also perceived as specifically Austrian, Italian, Hungarian,
Polish, Croatian or Ukrainian phenomenon6. From the very beginning, it must be said, some
Czech critics disapproved Schulz’s design which seemed to them uninventive and indefinite,
that is to say not Czech enough7. The foreigners, even those who sympathised with local
national movement, complained that Schulz’s National museum could as well stand in
Munich or Dresden, which is very true8. When historicism in architecture was dethroned, the
volume of critical voices increased significantly. In 1922, the leading Czech art historians,
Zdeněk Wirth and Antonín Matějček, wrote that “Schulz’s National Museum falls short of
the aesthetic quality of the National theatre, being as it is fragmented in general outline as
much as arrangement of massing, and generally a work too much of thought and little of
creation”9.
The uncompromising criticism of the National Museum continued throughout the
whole 20th century,10 but the negative assessment of specialists did in no way influence
Czech public whose enthusiasm for this building seemed, on the contrary, to increase in
time11. There is no doubt that the building possesses the power to captivate and in 1968 this
quality cost it dear. On August 21st, a Soviet soldier started fire on its façade from a heavy
6
We may recall the Burgtheater in Vienna (1874-88), City Hall of Trieste (1870-1875), Opera house in
Budapest (1878-1884), the Slowacki town theatre in Cracow (1889-1893), Croatian National Theatre in Zagreb
(1860), the Opera house in Lviv (1897—1900).
7
Zprávy Spolku inženýrů a architektů 19, 1884, 108.
8
Louis Leger, Prague, Paris 1907: “La Bohême n’a malheureusement pas créé le style monumental dui lui soi
particulier. Le musé national pourrait quasi bein s’élever à Munich ou à Dresde.“
9
Zdeněk Wirth, Antonín Matějček, Česká architektura 1800-1920, Praha 1922, 42, English translation by
Martin Tharp in Ksandr, Škranc op. cit. 30.
10
František Xaver Harlas, České umění, Praha 1908, 166; Vladimír Denkstein in: Národní Museum. 18181948, Praha 1949, 19: “v budově Národního musea necítíme nic osobitě českého, ale ani nic osobitě tvůrčího a
živého.” Marie Benešová, Česká architektura v proměnách dvou století. 1780-1980, Praha 1984, 189: “Po
architektonické stránce Schulz nepřekročil vžitý ráz současných středoevropských muzejí.”
11
In spite of all its shortcomings, writes Poche, “it cannot be denied that in the consciousness of the Czech
people the National Museum building occupies the second place, after the National Theatre, as the foremost
modern Czech cultural institution” (Emanuel Poche in: Emanuel Poche, ed., Praha národního probuzení. Čtvero
Knih o Praze, Praha 1980, 170).
2
machine gun in spite of the fact that not only in Prague, but also in whole Czechoslovakia no
one shot at the invasion army12.
2. Façade of the National Museum damaged on August 21st, 1968 by Soviet machine guns (detail).
After several minutes of uninterrupted shooting at the building, Soviet soldiers
jumped down from tanks and stormed it. This spontaneous action was never explained. It is,
however, very probable that the anonymous Soviet soldier was motivated by the striking
similarity of the National Museum in Prague and the Reichstag in Berlin, the picture of
which he certainly knew from his school years13. In Prague of 1968 our romantic soldier
could re-enact the 1945 taking of the Berlin Reichstag, because from his memory sprung the
famous photographs and pictures of Russian soldiers attacking Reichstag and finally erecting
red flag at its top.
3. “To Reichstag”, drawing by an army painter of the Grekov studio, who took part in the taking of Berlin,
1945. Reproduction: Shturm Berlina, Moskva 1948.
The fact that architects working in different countries on national commissions of
extreme importance arrived at almost identical solution is in no way surprising. It is known
that Paul Wallot admired French neo-renaissance, but it was not his personal taste, which
12
He was shooting from the tank approaching the building from the Wencesals square and heading to the
building of the Czech radio which is above the National Museum. At 10.30 AM, before the tank turned to left to
the Vinohradská třída, a Soviet soldier started to shoot all over the main facade and the flakes of stone start to
fall down from columns injuring Czechs who were in front of the entrance to the museum. Immediately, another
Soviet soldier on a tank at the left side of the museum joined the shooter. At that time the director of the
museum was in his office situated in this corner of the building and since bullets came from the northern and
eastern window he had to hide under his working table. It was estimated that more than 3.000 bullets were shot
at the museum building.
13
This similarity is stressed in Pavel Zatloukal, Architektura 19. století, Praha 2001, 72.
3
determined the appearance of his Reichstag building of 1882-189414. In the Prussian
kingdom there was a strong classicist tradition, but it was felt that for this very reason a
different idiom should be chosen for the parliament of the new state of all Germans. Wallot’s
project won the competition not only because Reichstag building stressed that unified
Germany is up to date in terms of culture, but also because its style courted its western lands
in which French taste prevailed in monumental architecture. The second German empire in
fact never created a national style in its representation buildings and the international NeoRenaissance prevailed here until the 90ties, when it was replaced by the Neo-Baroque style.
Ludwig Hoffmann and Peter Dybwad, for instance, built Leipzig “Reichstaggericht”, in
1888-1895 in style very similar to National Museum in Prague15. Wilhelm II’s personal
preference of Neo-Romanesque style never won its way on all German scale and specifically
German architectural style can be found only in monuments commissioned by various private
associations or local governments.
4. Paul Wallot, Reichstag at Berlin, from the West, 1882-1894. Reproduction: postcard, around 1900.
5. Ludwig Hoffmann, Peter Dybwad, “Reichstaggericht”, Leipzig, 1888-1895. Reproduction: postcard, around
1900.
The case of the National Museum in Prague was in a way similar to that of the
Reichstag in Berlin. The architrave above its entrance bears the Latin inscription “Museum
Regni Bohemiae”, because it was not built as “National Museum”, that is as a museum of
Czechs alone, but as a museum of all inhabitants of the Bohemian kingdom, Czechs and
Czech Germans alike16. In this country Czech nationalists and German speaking minority
competed for power, and there was also the central government in the German speaking
14
Godehard Hoffmann: Architektur für die Nation? Der Reichstag und die Staatsbauten des Deutschen
Kaiserreichs 1871-1918, Köln, 2000.
15
Thomas G. Dorsch, Der Reichsgerichtsbau in Leipzig : Anspruch und Wirklichkeit einer Staatsarchitektur,
Frankfurt am Main - Bern - New York 1999.
16
The museum was founded in 1818 as the “Patriotic Museum of the Czech Lands” (Vlastenecké museum v
Čechách), from 1848 it was “The Czech Museum” (Český museum), from 1854 ”The Museum of the Czech
kingdom” and from 1919 the National Museum (Národní museum).
4
Vienna, which had always the last word. The National museum was built by the conservative
Regional assembly in which great landowners had majority and this explains why it could not
be in, say, the ostentatiously national style of the so-called Bohemian renaissance. This style
was a counterpart of similar trends in Germany17, Poland18 and elsewhere, which were all
based on imitation of the local variants of the 16th century Italian renaissance. Josef Schulz
was certainly able to work in this idiom, because in 1875-1879 he designed in Prague the
House of the community of architects, the very first building in the “national” style, which in
Bohemia became very popular in the last decade of the 19th century19.
The obvious model for the National Museum in Prague was the only slightly earlier
Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. It was built in 1871-1891 and its façade was finished
already in 1880, just in time to influence Schulz’s design for the museum in Prague20.
Gotfried Semper and Karl von Hasenauer designed the Vienna museum in the NeoRenaissance style, also with a strong French flavour21. Similarly as in Berlin or Prague, the
Neo-Renaissance idiom of the Vienna museum was a deliberately chosen alternative 22. There
were several options, but the Vienna museum could be built neither in strictly classical style
which in this city was connected with democracy, nor in Neo-Gothic style which in this
context would evoke liberal bourgeois attitudes. Both these connotations were totally out of
place in the imperial museum and, evidently, the only possible option was a cosmopolitan
Neo-Renaissance.
Hubert Ster, „Die deutsche Renaissance als nationaler Stil und die Grenzen ihrer Anwendung“, Deutsche
Bauzeitung 72, 1884, 426 – 429; Dieter Dolgner, „Die nationale Variante der Neurenaissance in der deutschen
Architektur des 19. Jahrhunderts“, in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Hochschule für Architektur Weimar, 20,
1973, 155-166; Paul Chabron, „Alsace-Lorraine. Des cathedrales postales (1880-1910)“, Monumentshistoriques 184, 1992, 67-71; Francoise Forster-Hahn, „Deutsche „Bierburg“ oder „le clou de l'Exposition“? Le
Pavillon de l'Empereur auf der Pariser Weltausstellung 1900“ in: Uwe Fleckner, Martin Schieder, Michael
Zimmermann, eds., Jenseits der Grenzen. Französische und deutsche Kunst vom Ancien Regime bis zur
Gegenwart. Thomas W. Gaehtgens zum 60. Geburtstag, Band II: Kunst der Nationen, Köln 2000, 315-328.
18
Tadeusz Stefan Jaroszewski, Andrzej Rottermund, „Renesans Polski w architekturze 19. i 20. w. La
renaissance polonaise dans l’architecture du 19. et 20. s.“ in: Renesans. Sztuka i ideologia. Materialy
sympozjum naukowego Komitetu nauk o sztuce PAN (1973), Warszawa 1976, 613-638.
19
Cf. Jindřich Vybíral, Česká architektura na prahu moderní doby, Praha 202, 141-158.
20
Cf. Beatrix Kriller, Georg Kugler, Das Kunsthistorische Museum : die Architektur und Ausstattung ; Idee und
Wirklichkeit des Gesamtkunstwerkes, Wien 1991.
21
Harry Francis Mallgrave: Gottfried Semper. Architect of the Nineteenth Century, New Haven - London 1996;
Winfried Nerdinger, Werner Oechslin, eds., Gottfried Semper, 1803 - 1879 : Architektur und Wissenschaft,
München 2003.
22
Peter Haiko, „Das Kunsthistorische Museum als Monumentalbau. Architektur zwischen bürgerlichem
Selbstverständnis und imperialer Selbstdarstellung“ JKS 88 (NF Bd. LII), 1992, 141-155; Peter Haiko, „Bauen
in der Versuchsstation Weltuntergang. Wiener Architektur der Jahrhundertwende“ in: Ernst Piper, Julius H.
Schoeps, eds., Bauen und Zeitgeist. Ein Langsschnitt durch 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Basel-Boston-Berlin 1998,
77-91; Peter Haiko, „Semper und Hasenauer. Kosmopolitische Neorenaissance versus osterreichischer
Neobarock“ in: Cornelia Wenzel, ed., Stilstreit und Einheitskunstwerk. Internationales HistorismusSymposium, Bad Muskau, 20. bis 22. Juni 1997, Dresden 1998, 199-211; Margaret Gottfried, Das Wiener
Kaiserforum. Utopien zwischen Hofburg und Museum Quartier. Imperiale Träume und republikanische
Wirklichkeiten von der Antike bis heute, Wien-Köln-Weimar 2001.
17
5
6. Gotfried Semper and Karl von Hasenauer, Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, from the North, 1871-1891.
The dominant feature of the “Kunsthistorisches Museum” in Vienna, which we find
also in Prague, is a raw of columns which evidently quotes Claude Perrault’s rear side of
Louvre in Paris designed 1665. In Prague the raw of columns is, however, more emphasized
than in Vienna, because they are not attached to the wall but free standing, as in Paris, the
architectural tradition of which Schulz admired a lot. The main difference between the
museum buildings in Prague and in Vienna, however, is in the central part of the main
façade, which is much more stressed in Prague. Museum in Vienna has also central tower,
but it is smaller, with less prominent dome and, moreover, corner pavilions evoking
residential architecture obscure its mass. In Prague, the corner pavilions were replaced by
miniature obelisks, which assimilated this building to a Roman catholic church. Schulz
accentuated the central part not only by a domed tower with corner obelisks, but also by the
entrance portico with pediment, which is echoed in the façade of the tower23. These exterior
features prepared visitors for the so-called Pantheon, the hall of fame of famous Czechs,
which occupies the whole floor above the vestibule24. Already in 1891, when the museum
was open, this hall was enthusiastically characterised as a “secular temple”25.
7. Josef Schulz, Pantheon of the National museum in Prague, Northern corner, 1883-1891.
Cf. Semper’s designs for Dresden museum of 1842 (Milde op. cit. fig. 142, 146) and for the Vienna museum
of 1869 (Milde op. cit. fig. 309) where we find also high porticoed towers with domes.
24
Louis Leger, Prague, Paris 1907: „Autant que le permettaient les circonstances politiques et les resources dont
on disposait, on sěst efforcé de faire de ce Calais un pantheon de l’histoire et de la vie nationale.“ Cf. Vladimír
Denkstein, „Vývoj koncepce Pantheonu a umělecké výzdoby Národního muzea v Praze“, Časopis Národního
muzea 142, 1973, 65-87. In 1891 the label “Pantheon” was not yet generally accepted, cf. Karel Sklenář, Obraz
vlasti. Příběh Národního muza, Praha 2001, 282.
25
By the museum secretary Jan Matouš Černý, quoted by Karel Sklenář, Obraz vlasti. Příběh Národního muzea,
Praha 2002, 282.
23
6
Schulz impressed the jury by letting the famous monuments from past ages and the
main European great cities fully resonate in his building. It evoked ancient Rome, Italian
Renaissance, French Baroque and contemporary Vienna, but also the local tradition in the
literal sense of the word. The main entrance of the museum building is formed by three
arched openings cut in a flat wall articulated by expressive bossage. This configuration
recalls, no doubt intentionally, the building which the museum had replaced, namely the
“Horse gate” by Peter Nobile of the Vienna Academy which in 1832 received its neoclassical façade26. It was a familiar and thus re-assuring sight for Prague citizens and Schulz
skilfully preserved it. In other competition entries for the National Museum we do not find
this trait and we may thus presume that it also contributed to Schulz’s victory. The roots of
this perfect empathy for perspective of Czech patriots is to be sought in the years of Schulz
worked on the National theatre in Prague27. He was at first an assistant of its architect, Josef
Zítek, and after the fire of 1881 he rebuilt it to full satisfaction of the building committee in
which the Czech nationalists had the upper hand.
The emphasised central part of the National museum was not substantiated only by
the Pantheon contained in it, but also by a desire to assimilate the whole edifice to state
buildings of greatest importance28. This is not to say that Schulz imitated the already
mentioned Berlin Reichstag, even though it is possible, because it was begun one year before
the Prague museum. But Schulz could find inspiration for his design elsewhere, for instance
in royal residences or palaces of justice which were built all over Europe following the same
grandiose composition scheme. In the original proposal for the 1883 competition there was
not a word about Pantheon. It was exclusively Schulz’s initiative and the jury evidently
grasped the ideological potential of this hall of fame and its effect on the outward appearance
of the museum29. In Berlin, the message of the domed central part is obvious - it signalled the
presence of delegates of all Germans assembled in the Reichstag. In Prague it also signalled
assembly, but purely symbolical one. In 1891-1905 it was filled with bronze statues and busts
of famous Czechs, which formed a heavenly national assembly, a secular successor of a
congregation of state patrons.
Schulz evidently formulated something the Czech members of jury longed for without
knowing it. The warm reception of his proposal clearly shows that the ideas suggested in his
design were „in the air“, the generation of Czech patriots waiting for them to be expressed.
The main inspiration of Schulz’s Pantheon was obviously Palacký’s “Francisceum”. Around
26
Ksandr op.cit.37.
The Regional government appointed a committee to decide about designs submitted to the competition which
was headed by Count Jan Harrarch and the rapporteur was Czech patriot František L. Rieger. The rapporteur of
its professional sub-committee was Czech architect and patriot Josef Hlávka at that time active in Vienna (other
members: architects Karl Hasenauer and Friedrich Schmidt from Vienna and representants of the Prague
museum: Gustav Tschermak), Jan Krejčí, and Josef Emler, cf. Adámek op.cit. 87.
28
On the competition cf. Zprávy Spolku inženýrů a architektů v království Českém 19, 1884, 101-108, 143 and
181; Karel Adámek, „K dějinám nového musea království Českého“, Časopis Musea království Českého 86,
1912, 82-93. On the positive reception of the imposing silhouette of Schulz’s design of 1884 in the press of that
time cf. Vladimír Denkstein in: Národní Museum. 1818-1948, Praha 1949, 18. On political architecture:
Barbara Miller Lane, Government Buildings in European Capitals 1870-1914, in: Urbanisierung im 19. und 20.
Jahrhundert. Historische und geographische Aspekte, hg. von Hans Jürgen Teuteberg (Städteforschung.
Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für vergleichende Städtegeschichte in Münster, Bd. 16), Köln und Wien 1983,
S. 517-560.
Lawrence J. Vale, Architecture, Power, and National Identity, New Haven und London 1992.
29
The proposal is translated into English in Ksandr, Škranc op. cit., 13-15. The political implications of
Schulz’s project was, of course, clear also to opponents of Czech patriots. In the Bohemian assembly October
20, 1884, German delegates opposed that the project of the museum building is too expensive and that it contain
elements which has nothing to do with the function of museum (Adámek op.cit. 90), and later, on March 9 th,
1897, they protested against high costs of the decoration of Pantheon (Karel Adámek, “Umělecká výzdoba
Musea království Českého”, Časopis Musea království Českého 87, 1913, 257-265).
27
7
1840 František Palacký, the new secretary of the National museum (at that time called
„Patriotic Museum“), elaborated and attempted to implement the idea of a monumental
cultural centre in Prague, named after the deceased Austrian emperor Franz. 30 It should
contain all cultural institutions founded in Prague during his reign, museum included. As
regards its architectural style, Palacký insisted that it must be “entirely Czech” (durchaus
böhmisch) in idea, plan, material and conception. Palacký therefore expressly refused NeoRenaissance style as a dissonant and foreign element connected too closely with Italy.
Palacký was a scholar specialised in Czech medieval history and one could imagine
that he would propose Neo-Gothic or Neo-Romanesque style for the “Francisceum”, which
were at that time possible options. But he proposed Neo-Classical style, because, as he
himself stressed, it already took firm roots in Prague and thus could be presented as
specifically Czech. The centre of the Palacký’s “Francisceum” should form a monumental
rotunda serving as a library, the dome of which would be visible from far away. Its inclusion
in the Palacký’s museum design was probably stimulated by the rotunda with a columned
gallery of the Altes museum in Berlin, which Karl Friedrich Schinkel built in 1824-1828 for
exhibition of ancient sculpture31. Palacký planned for his rotunda also similar gallery, but
with columns from Czech marble, of course, where he intended to place statue of the
emperor Franz and depictions of famous Czechs.
8. Karl Friedrich Schinkel, “Altes Museum” in Berlin, rotunda, 1823-1830 (Carl Emanuel Conrad, aquarelle,
1831, Postdam, Staatliche Schlösser und Garten. Reproduction: Peter Betthausen, Karl Friedrich Schinkel,
Berlin 1983, pl. 17).
The model for all Pantheons, Palacký’s included, was the famous rotunda in Rome, in
which Raphael was buried in 1520 according to his expressly stated wish32. Hadrian’s
Pantheon resembles to mausoleum of ancient emperor and this connection was certainly in
play when it was later converted into the church of St. Mary and Martyrs. Following Rafael’s
example other artists and architects were buried in this church 33. When the first king of
united Italy, Victor Emmanuel II, died in 1878, he was, as is to be expected, also buried in
30
Franz Palacký, Gedenkblätter. Auswahl von Denschriften, Aufsätzen und Briefen aus den letzten fünfzig
Jahren, Prag 1874, 112-116 (Czech translation: Františka Palackého Spisy drobné 3. Spisy estetické a literární,
Leader Čech, ed., Praha 1903, 287-290). Srov. Jiří Kořalka, František Palacký, Praha 1998, 204-220; Karel
Sklenář, Obraz vlasti. Příběh Národního muzea, Praha 2002, 150-154.
31
Gottfried Riemann, “Schinkels “Pantheon der Deutschen” in: Hans Dickel, ed., Preußen, 2003, 193-199;
Wolf-Dieter Heilmeyer, Huberta Heres, Wolfgang Maßmann, Schinkels Pantheon : die Statuen der Rotunde im
Alten Museum, Mainz am Rhein 2004.
32
Gian-Lorenzo Mellini, „L'estrema opera di Raffaello“, Labyrinthos 14, 1995, no. 27-28, 119-167.
33
(G.da Udine, T.Zuccari, A.Carracci, P.del Vaga, B.Peruzzi).
8
the Pantheon in Rome, being later followed by the king Umberto I34. The idea of Pantheon as
a prestigious burial place was adopted in El Escorial in Madrid where the “Panteon de los
Reyes” was constructed in the 17th century and in 1862-1880 a series of rooms called
“Panteon de los Infantes” was built along the corridor leading to the rotunda35. “The
Pantheon motif, “ wrote MacDonald, “can be seen wherever authority, ecclesiastical or
political, demanded a recognisable, stately architectural imagery”36. In this function, as the
symbol of political power, we find the copy of Pantheon’s interior for instance in the
National Museum in Budapest of 1836-1844.
8. Rotunda in the National Museum in Budapest, M. Polack, 1836-1847.
In 19th century that of Paris overshadowed the Pantheon in Rome. This free imitation
of the Roman monument was constructed in 1755-1792 as the church of St Geneviève, the
patron saint of Paris. Its architect, Jacques-Germain Soufflot, conceived it as a domed church
built on the ground plan of a cross and fronted by a Greek temple façade. During the French
revolution it was converted into a mausoleum in which great Frenchmen were to be buried
and its windows were closed to enforce the solemnity of the interior37. It was above all due to
this Soufflot’s building that in 19th century Pantheon became an attribute of national
movements. These national halls of fame, however, must not necessarily resemble its Paris
model and it must not even be free standing structures. In 1583, for instance, the baroque
church of San Domenico in Palermo was transformed into “Panteon degli illustri di Sicilia38
34
Giuseppe Baracconi, Il Pantheon e la tomba reale : corredata di notizie inedite, Roma 1878.
Cf. also Gaudenzio Dell’Aja, Il Pantheon dei Borboni in Santa Chiara di Napoli, Napoli 1987.
36
W. L. MacDonald: The Pantheon: Design, Meaning and Progeny (London and Cambridge, MA, 1976), 131.
Cf. also: Marcin Fabiański, “L'influence de l'interieur du Panthéon sur l'architecture européenne des XVeXVIIIe siècles” Folia historiae artium 19, 1983, 75-97; Marcin Fabiański, “Panthéon, source des motifs
architectoniques de l'art européen des XVe-XVIIIe siècles”, Folia historiae artium, 20, 1984, 95-134; Richard
Wrigley and Matthew Craske, eds, Pantheons : transformations of a monumental idea, Aldershot 2004
(especially: Susanna Pasquali, “From the pantheon of artists to the pantheon of illustrious men : Raphael's tomb
and its legacy”, 35-56; Matthew Craske, “Westminster Abbey 1720 - 1770 : a public pantheon built upon
private interest”, 57-79; Alison Yarrington, “Popular and imaginary pantheons in early nineteenth-century
England”, 107-121;
Dominique Poulot, “Pantheons in eighteenth-century France : temple, museum, pyramid”, 123-145); Donald R.
Kennon and Thomas P. Somma, eds., American Pantheon : sculptural and artistic decoration of the United
States Capitol, Athens, Ohio 2004.
37
Cf. Marie-Louise Biver, Le Panthéon à l'époque révolutionnaire, Paris 1982; Gisela Gramaccini, „Moitte,
Quatremere de Quincy : l'architecture et la sculpture historique au Pantheon“, in: Robert Rosenblum, ed., L'art
et les revolutions : section 1 : l'art au temps de la Revolution Francoise, Strasbourg 1992, 157-177; Erika
Naginski, „En parcours initiatique pour le citoyen : le „chemin de croix“ de Quatremere de Quincy au
Pantheon“, in: Daniel Rabreau, Bruno Tollon, eds., Le progres des arts reunis : 1763-1815 : mythe culturel des
origines de la Revolution a la fin de l'Empire? Bordeaux 1992, 329-336; Alexia Lebeurre, Le Panthéon :
temple de la nation, Paris 2000.
38
Luigi Maria Majorca Mortillaro, La cappella dei Majorca nel pantheon di San Domenico in Palermo. 2 ed.
Palermo 1907; Salvatore Scozzari, La chiesa e il Pantheon di S. Domenico di Palermo, Palermo1910; Matteo
35
9
and in 1876-1880, the crypt of the monastery church in Cracow was transformed into
“Panteon narodowy” (National Panteon), in which outstanding Poles were subsequently
buried39. Nevertheless, the national halls of fame often quoted the Paris Pantheon. In 1915,
for instance, its free version was constructed in Lisbon and as “Panteao Nacionál” to provide
a final resting place for famous Portuguese.
10. Jacques-Germain Soufflot, Pantheon (formerly St Geneviève), Paris, 1755-1792.
As regards its architecture, the Pantheon in Prague is, as is to be expected, more
similar to Pantheon in Paris than to its Roman prototype, because it was also built on a
ground plan of the cross, interpreted in this context both as a token of victory and as a token
of hope for the vanquished. Nevertheless, Schulz also clearly stressed his formal and
functional allegiance to the Pantheon in Rome. In the Roman pantheon the inside wall of its
circular chamber is articulated by deep recesses, which are screened off by pairs of marble
Corinthian columns. In the Prague Pantheon one finds on all four sides exactly the same
recesses screened off by pairs of Corinthian columns, which we do not find in Soufflot’s
Pantheon. Moreover, in Prague we have not only the quotation of the Roman Pantheon motif,
but also a clear link as regards its function. Pantheon in Rome was used not only as a burial
place for famous people, but similarly as the “Poet’s corner” in the Westminster Abbey it
served also as a memorial hall, which is the main and only function of the Prague hall.
Musso, Illustrazione del Pantheon siciliano nel tempio di S. Domenico in Palermo, Palermo 1910; Antonino
Barilaro, San Domenico di Palermo : pantheon degli uomini illustri di Sicilia, Palermo 1971.
39
Klasztor Ojców Paulinów na Skałce, Kraków. Cf. http://skalka.paulini.pl/Kosciol/Panteon.html.
10
11. The Pantheon in Rome, seen from the west transverse niche. Reproduction: J. Durm, Die Baukunst der
Etrusker, die Baukunst der Römer, Stuttgart 1905, fig. 645.
12. Josef Schulz, Pantheon of the National museum in Prague, 1883-1891.
From 1766 memorial portrait busts of famous Italians, mainly of the members of the
Virtuosi, were placed on the walls of the Pantheon in Rome 40. Too many honorary busts
were placed inside of the church, however, and Pius VII decided to remove them to the
Capitoline museum, which he had founded in 1820. By that time, however, the idea of the
memorial hall was taken over by Florentines. After 1800, Florence wanted to become the
capital of Italy, and it actually served as such in the second half of the sixtieth of the 19th
century. In connection with these political ambitions, there was an attempt to turn the church
of Santa Croce in Florence into the Florence Pantheon. In the church many famous men of
Florence were buried like Michelangelo or Machiaveli and in 1829 a monumental cenotaph
of Dante Alighieri was erected here, even though the poet is buried in Ravenna41. There were
also other initiatives of this kind in Florence. In 1835-1856, a Tuscan pantheon was created
in the arcades of the Ufizzi, which was composed of twenty-eight statues of “Illustri
Toscani”.
Another project, the aim of which was to establish Pantheon of Italian scientists, was
far more important, because it was not motivated by local Florentine patriotism, but by
Italian nationalism. In 1841 in the natural history museum in Florence, the richly decorated
“Tribuna di Galileo” was inaugurated to commemorate this scientist who has no particular
Florentine connections42. This loggia was designed by Giuseppe Martelli in a lavish NeoThe whole title was “Pontificia Accademia Artistica dei Virtuosi al Pantheon“, cf. Giuseppe Bonaccorso,
Tommaso Manfredi, I Virtuosi al Pantheon : 1700 – 1758, Roma 1998.
41
Luciano Berti, ed., Il Pantheon di Santa Croce a Firenze, Firenze 1993; Regine Bonnefoit, „”Florentinis
ingeniis nil ardui est” : der Kult des Florentiner Genies : von der Restauration bis zur Hauptstadt des neuen
Konigreichs Italien, 1865-1870“ in: Henry Keazor, ed., Florenz-Rom : zwischen Kontinuitat und Konkurrenz,
Munster 1998, 209-231; Maria Maugeri, La chiesa di Santa Croce : Pantheon degli uomini illustri, Firenze
2000.
42
Guida della tribuna di Galileo, Firenze 1908; Giuseppe Boffito, Gli strumenti della scienza e la scienza degli
strumenti. Con l’illustrazione della Tribuna di Gallileo, Firenze 1929 ; Alessandro Gambuti, La tribuna di
40
11
Renaissance style and contains sculptures and wall paintings celebrating key moments in the
evolution of natural science, there are also stuccos depicting scientific instruments, and floor
mosaics with allegories of science43. This “scientific sanctuary” was eminently political
project connected directly with the movement for the unification of Italy, which makes it a
direct precedent of the Pantheon in Prague44. The architecture of “Tribuna di Galileo” is
conceived as a free evocation of Pantheon in Rome: the square hall has a glass and cast iron
cupola, an equivalent of Pantheon’s open oculus, and on two sides it has recesses screened
off from the hall by pairs of marble Ionic columns, a quotation of Pantheon’s recesses. At the
end of the “Tribuna di Galileo” there is round room with the statue of the Pisan scholar and
busts of his disciples, Castelli, Cavalieri, Torricelli and Viviani, placed in wall niches. This
round room was in fact a truly miniature Pantheon, because it was not only a memorial
rotunda, but also a martyrium – the relic of the middle finger of Galilleo’s right hand was
originally kept in a niche on the wall45.
13. Tribune of Galileo, Florence, 1841. Reproduction: Le grandi invenzioni antiche e moderne nell’industria,
nelle scienze e nelle arti, s.d. /end of the 19th century.
Galileo, Firenze 1990; A. Cecconi, „Il congresso degli scienziati italiani a Firenze (1841). Inventario del fondo
Riunioni Scientifiche Italiane“, Nuncius a. 6, 1991, n. 2, 213-278.
43
By Antonio Marini, Giuseppe Bezzuoli, Nicola Cianfanelli and Luigi Sabatelli.
44
William
E.
Carroll,
„Eppur
si
muove:
The
legend
of
Gallileo“
in:
http://home.comcast.net/˜icuweb/c02901.htm. Accessed Dec. 5th 2004: „In the 1830's Galileo's scientific
memorabilia were moved to a special "Tribuna di Galileo," established in another Florentine palace which was a
meeting place for the congress of Italian scientists. Galileo, by now an "Italian" scientist (as distinct from a
Florentine or a Tuscan scientist), served an important political role, helping to legitimate the aspirations of those
Italian nationalists who longed for the establishment of a single Italian nation.“
45
The finger was detached from Galileo’s body in 1737, when his remains were moved from the original grave
to the monumental tomb built on the initiative of Vincenzo Viviani. The finger was embelished in the same way
as relics of saints, i tis in a glass cup with gilt decorations and a cylindrical alabaster base bears a laudatory
verses by Tommaso Perelli (1704-1783): "Leipsiana ne spernas digiti, quo dextera coeli/ Mensa vias, numquam
visos mortalibus orbes/ Mostravit, parvo fragilis molimine vitri/Ausa prior facinus, cui non Titania quondam/
Sufficit pubes congestis montibus altis/ Nequidquam superas sonata ascendere in arces."
12
14. Aristodemo Costoli, Sculpture of Galileo Galilei in the Tribune of Galileo, engraving of Spagnoli.
In its time, “Tribuna di Galileo” was an important Neo-Renaissance architectural
monument with great publicity46. It was well known also in Prague and Josef Schulz
probably visited it during his stay in Florence47. There are evident formal similarities
between these two memorial halls, but the most important is the fact that in Florence the idea
of Pantheon was for the first time directly and explicitly connected with the national selfdetermination and the fight for political independence. In Venice, this connection was
reinforced on the eve of the armed insurrection against Austrian occupation. The “Tribuna di
Galileo” was opened on the occasion of the third congress of Italian scientists and their ninth
congress, which was held in Venice, decided to establish the “Panteon Veneto” in the seat of
the local government, the Palazzo Ducale. At September 26th, 1847, it was opened with great
pomp, even though at that time only four busts were on view. Later on, it was transferred to
Palazzo Loredan and today sixty two sculptures of famous Italians are exhibited in this
national hall of fame48.
In the time when the National museum in Prague was opened, however, Pantheon-like
architecture existed not only as nationalistic hall of fame with religious aura, but also as
totally profane exhibition hall. In general imagination, it must be stressed, this architectural
type was in no way connected exclusively with religious feelings and fame, but rather with
education, science and museums. Already at the beginning of the 18th century the
architectonic type of rotunda was adapted for secular institutions. In 1706-1713 the library
46
Atti della terza riunione degli scienziati italiani tenuta in Firenze nel settembre 1841, Firenze 1841; Giovanni
Rosini, Descrizione della Tribuna inalzata da sua Altezza Imp. e Reale il Granduca Leopoldo II di Toscana alla
memoria di Galileo, Firenze 1841; Enrico Valtancoli Montazio, La tribuna del Galileo, 184; F. Fantozzi, Nuova
guida ovvero descrizione storico-artistica-critica della città e contorni di Firenze, Firenze 1842, 673-674; V.
Antinori, Guida per la tribuna di Gallileo, Firenze 1843.
47
The article on Florence in the widely read Czech encyclopaedia mentions the “memorable tribune of Galileo”
(Ottův slovník naučný 9, 1895, 313). On Schulz’s Italian journey which lasted two years, from autumn 1868 to
summer 1870, cf. Z. Wirth, “Italia magistra. Italská cesta Josefa Schulze” Umění 17, 1945, 177-189.
48
Giuseppe Veronese, Panteon veneto, o di alcuni veneti illustri, Venezia 1860; Giuseppe Lorenzoni, “Il
Panteon Veneto del Palazzo Ducale”, Atti, Serie VII, Tomo IX, Venezia 1897-1898, 680-683; Alessia
Bonannini, “Il Pantheon veneto di Palazzo Ducale : un episodio del Risorgimento”, Archivio Veneto, Ser.5,
144/145, 1995, 99-137; Alessia Bonannini, „Cenni sul Pantheon veneto di Palazzo Ducale“ Venezia-Arti 10,
1996 (1997), 85-94;; Fabrizio Magani, Il “Panteon” Veneto, Venezia 1997. Cf. also Gino Benzoni - Gaetano
Cozzi, Venezia e l’Austria, Venezia 1999.
13
was built in Wolfensbüttel in the shape of rotunda, the first secular freestanding library
building49. A century later, the imitation of Pantheon in Rome already established itself as an
ideal temple of Memory, mother of Muses50. The secularisation of the architectural type of
Pantheon was completed by buildings like the rotunda of the World fair in Vienna from 1873
or Vierordtbad in Karlsruhe. In 1871-1873 Josef Durm built a health resort in the NeoRenaissance style in the park of this city, which was a variation on the theme of the Pantheon
in Rome51.
„The Dublin Museum of Science and Art“ by Thomas Deane and his son Manly Dean
is particularly instructive analogy of the National museum in Prague, because it is also in
Neo-Renaissance style and was opened in 1890, one year before the museum in Prague. In
the early twentieth century it was also upgraded to the rank of national museums. The central
part of the Dublin museum is almost free standing rotunda and its connection with the
Pantheon in Rome is therefore openly declared52. The National museum of Ireland was built
in a political atmosphere, which was similar to that of the Prague, because it was also directly
connected with national renaissance in which language and literature played crucial role. The
Dublin museum is, as we can read in its internet page, “the nation’s premier cultural
institution and that with the strongest emphasis on Ireland’s art, material culture and natural
history”53. And similarly as the National museum in Prague it was built to demonstrate the
high standard of Irish architecture, decorative stonework, woodcarving and ceramic tiling, its
columns being made of the Irish marble. Unlike Prague, however, the rotunda of the Dublin
museum served exclusively as an exhibition hall and there are no statues of Irish patriots and
no narrative paintings celebrating Irish history anywhere in the building54. This is very
important because it helps us to reconstruct the horizon of expectations of the first visitors of
the National Museum in Prague and to answer to the question what made the National
museum in Prague an icon of the national movement.
49
Destroyed in 1887.
The most influential projects of this type were “The Library Rotunda of Thomas Jefferson” in the University
of Virginia (1822-1826) and the already mentioned Old Museum of Karl Friedrich Schinkel in Berlin (18231830). Cf. Rainer Norten, „Neue Forschungen : die Pantheonidee um 1800“, Munster-Munchen 42, 1989, no. 1,
57-59; Marcin Fabianski, „Iconography of the architecture of ideal musaea in the fifteenth to eighteenth
centuries“, Journal-of-the-history-of-collections 2, 1990, no. 2, 95-134; Volker Plagemann, „Musee et Pantheon
: l'origine du concept architectural du musee“ in: Edouard Pommier, ed., Les musees en Europe a la veille de
l'ouverture du Louvre : actes du colloque organise par le Service culturel du musee du Louvre a l'occasion de la
commemoration du bicentenaire de l'ouverture du Louvre les 3, 4 et 5 juin 1993, Paris 1995, 213-241.
51
To the rotunda two wings were added, the right one contained the bathrooms for women, the left one that of
men. In the portico, there were busts of the archduke Friedrich and his wife, and in the niches at the drum of
rotunda there are classicistic statues, the decorative nature of which is clear from the fact that the four statue
types on the front side are repeated at the back side. In 1892 the pediment of portico was decorated by a fresco
with an allegory of health resort by Robert Ulke, in the interior of the rotunda there are frescoes by Wilhelm
Klose depicting Mediterranean landscapes.
52
Cf. A. T. Lukas, The NAtional Museum. Its Place in the Cultural Life of the Kation, Dublin 1969; Frederick
O'Dwyer, The architecture of Deane and Woodward Frederick O'Dwyer, Cork 1997.
53
Cf. http://www.museum.ie/.
54
Originally it was mainly devoted to an exhibit of casts from antique subjects and Indian bronze guns, trophies
of British victories over the natives.
50
14
15. “The Dublin Museum of Science and Art” (after John F. Finerty, Ireland in Pictures, Chicago 1898, p.
323).
16. Rotunda of the “The Dublin Museum of Science and Art” (after John F. Finerty, Ireland in Pictures,
Chicago 1898, p. 244)
Museum in Prague differs from other contemporary institutions of this kind by a
dexterous combination of up to date scientific objectivity, cosmopolitanism and nationalistic
rhetoric, which the Czech public of Schulz’s time perceived as architectural modernity. This
national message was not conveyed so much by what visitors saw, however, as by what they
were told. Similarly as the great buildings of Bohemian Baroque, which in Prague everyone
knew by heart, the National museum communicated with visitors above all by explicit
instructions and hidden commentaries. After entering the museum, visitor is impressed by the
dark marble vestibule and than dazzled by the immense staircase bathed in golden light.
Since the façade of the Pantheon with its large windows is clearly visible at a great distance,
every visitor is directed to this central hall where he slows down because it is not clear where
to proceed. Visitor is brought to a standstill also by numerous statues, busts and wall
paintings which adorn the Pantheon and invited to gaze into the depth of history, to rode with
the resonance of these images and to immerse into the defeats of the Czech nation and its
past victories, which are promises of the future ones.
It is only after this meditation on the destiny of the Czech nation the visitor is allowed
to enter exhibition rooms, the doors of which one discovers only after a walk around busts
and statutes of famous Czechs. The left door ushers him to the world of minerals and the
doors on the right to cultural history of the Czech lands, which begins in a systematic and
scientific way - at the very beginning, in the prehistory55. There is a deliberate tension
produced by the contrast of the cosmopolitan exterior of the National Museum building and
the militantly nationalistic hall of fame in its interior. Equally effective is the clash between
the emotionally charged Pantheon and adjoining exhibition rooms, which propagate a strictly
55
This arrangement is still retained and it will be also respected in the future, cf. the last note.
15
scientific worldview. It can be argued that Czechs probably did not identify themselves so
much with the Neo-Renaissance forms of their National Museum as with the strains which
Pantheon brought about. One can even maintain a position that this precarious unity of
radically contrasting points of view reflected the main dilemma of the Czech national
existence, which tended to oscillate forever between isolationism and open mindedness.
17. Josef Schulz, Pantheon of the National museum in Prague, door in the south wall leading to the collection of
minerals, 1883-1891.
Tension, we must add, characterised also the building of the Berlin Reichstag,
although with different connotations. From its inception Germans criticised their Reichstag
for its international exterior and praised it for the decidedly German tone in the interior
combining Renaissance with Gothic forms and using traditional German wooden panelling56.
In Paris, Prague or Vienna one would certainly use marble in a building of such importance.
The imperial museum in Vienna represents another example of a similar strategy, its façade
is also in cosmopolitan Neo-Renaissance style, but inside specifically Austrian tone was
allowed, because Hasenauer designed it in a Neo-Baroque style, which evoked the Habsburg
architecture of the first half of the 18th century. These examples demonstrate that architects of
that time used a very sophisticated language, which was largely forgotten in the
incomparably more straightforward 20th century.
„Im Infern aber gelangte Wallot durch die souveräne Vermischung von enaissance- und gotischen Motiven,
die sich wundervoll zu einer inheit durchdringen, zu einer schlechthin neuen Formensprache, die, aus dem
Boden der Überlieferung hervorgewachsen, zugleich national und Modern war“ (Anton Springer, Die Kunst
von 1800 bis zur Gegenwart, 9. verb. u. erw. Aufl. Bearbeitet von Max Sborn, Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte
5, Leipzig 1925, 432).
56
16
18. Original interior of the Reichstag, Berlin, 1882-1894.
19. The dome of the cupola hall, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, 1871-1891.
Well-travelled visitors of the Prague National museum could know that by the end of
the 19th century the combination of museum and the hall of fame ceased to be established
norm. We cannot presume, of course, that they knew the National Museum in Dublin which
was, as we stressed above, totally devoid of nationalistic imagery. But it is supposable that
they were well informed about what was going on in Vienna and the history of the local
imperial forum is instructive in this respect. In the 1866 competition Heinrich von Frestel’s
design still included arcades of fame and Moritz von Lörch also planned in between the
museum buildings a hall of fame conceived as a triumphal arch with free standing arcades on
both sides. But in the final version of the “Kunsthistorisches Museum” in Vienna which was
open in the same year that in Prague, there was no hall reserved exclusively for this
purpose57.
At the same time, however, military museums started to be built and in them
pantheon-like halls of fame were almost obligatory. Rotunda of the Museum of military
history in Wien is especially similar to the Pantheon in Prague both as regards its architecture
and function58. Ludwig Förster and Theophil Hansen built this museum building, the first one
in Wien, in 1850-1856 in Byzantine, Hispano-Moorish and Neo-Gothic style. In 1891, when
the weapons were transported from the Vienna “weapon museum”, as it was originally
called, to the “Kunsthistorisches Museum”, the military museum was renamed “K. u. K.
Heeresmuseum”. In the vestibule there is the “Hall of strategists” with 56 statues of the
57
In the dome of the Cupola Hall the Habsburg patronage of arts is celebrated by relief sculptures depicting
emperors from Maximilian I to the than ruling emperor, Francis Joseph I.
58
This similarity is also stressed in Pavel Zatloukal, Architektura 19. století, Praha 2001, 72.
17
famous strategists made of the Carrara marble. The rotunda on the first floor is conceived as
a “temple of fame” of the Austrian army, which is glorified by rich sculptural and painterly
decoration, by Karl von Blaas59. In this building, Schulz could find inspiration for the central
tower with the first floor serving as a vestibule and the second floor as a hall of fame with
dome visible at the exterior.
20. Ludwig Förster, Theophil Hansen, Vestibul of the Museum of military history in Wien, 1850-1856.
21. Ludwig Förster, Theophil Hansen, Vestibul of the Museum of military history in Wien, 1850-1856.
As a matter of fact, the Pantheon in Prague looks very much like a variation on the
theme of the rotunda of the military museum in Wien – its inner space on a rectangle square
59
Joh. Christoph Allmayer-Beck, Das Heeresgeschichtliche Museum, Wien (Das Museum : die
Repräsentationsräume), Salzburg 1981; Manfried Rauchensteiner “Eine zu Stein gewordene Idee : das
Heeresgeschichtliche in: Historismus (Parnass, Sonderheft 12), Wien 1996, 120-127; Das Heeresgeschichtliche
Museum in Wien, Wien 2000; Ilse Krumpöck, Die Bildwerke im Heeresgeschichtlichen Museum, Wien 2004.
18
ground is also divided by four huge pillars and galleries supported by columns in such a way
that the square ground plan is transformed into a cross60. Moreover, the rotunda of the
Military museum in Vienna is on all four sides vaulted by four arch strips, which form
pendetives bearing a drum on which the dome rests, exactly like in Prague. The Vienna
military museum was built as a part of the Arsenal, in the construction of which Josef Schulz
took part during his studies at the Academy of Vienna (1860-61 and 1862-63) where he
studied in the class of Ludwig von Foerster.
22. Arsenal in Vienna, 1849-1855.
Arsenal was an army complex, which was a direct result of the revolution in 1848. It
is a paradox that Prague National museum could be inspired by the building so closely
connected with oppressive force and the attempt to restore the Habsburg absolutism, but it
must not be the only source of inspiration of this kind. The “temple of fame” in the Vienna
military museum was imitated in the military museum in Dresden and above all the Old
Armoury in Berlin reconstructed in 1880-1883. In the middle of the north wing a rotunda was
built with a prominent dome honouring the Brandenburg-Prussian army. When its decoration
was completed in 1891, the rotunda contained wall paintings depicting important events from
the history of the Brandenburg-Prussian army accompanied by relevant allegorical creations.
In this rotunda bronze statues of Hohenzolern rulers and bronze busts of important persons
from the Prussian history were arranged around the marble statue of Victoria almost four
meters high. Similarly as the Prague rotunda, the Berlin one was also intended for state
ceremonies61.
23. Arsenal, Dresden, 1873-1876, from 1897 Museum of Military History (Militärhistorisches Museum).
60
In Vienna there are four columns on longer sides, two on shorter sides, the ground plan of the Pantheon in
Prague is square and so on all four sides there are tribunes supported by two columns, as in recesses in the
Pantheon in Rome.
61
Das Königliche Zeughaus : Führer durch die Ruhmeshalle und die Sammlungen, Berlin 1914; Die
Ruhmeshalle : Amtlicher Führer (Staatliche Museen, Zeughaus), Berlin, 1943; Monika Arndt, Die
"Ruhmeshalle" im Berliner Zeughaus. Eine Selbstdarstellung Preussens nach der Reichsgründung (Die
Bauwerke und Kunstdenkmäler von Berlin, Beiheft 12), Berlin 1985.
19
24. “Hall of Fame” in the Berlin military museum in 1935
Immediately after its opening, the Berlin military museum with its hall of fame
became one of the main sights of the city, the fame of which had spread far and wide. It was
soon imitated in Munich, where in 1899-1919 the Bavarian army museum was built along its
lines and it is interesting to note, that the Pantheon of the National museum in Prague
evidently influenced its monumentalised central part. It follows from this, that the Prague
Pantheon had in fact no counterpart in the than contemporary historical museums or
museums of natural history, but in military museums. Moreover, these military counterparts
could be found in all neighbouring capital cities, not only in Vienna, but also in Munich,
Dresden and Berlin.
20
25. Plan of the domed building of the old Bavarian Army Museum, Munich, 1899-1919.
The Prague museum wanted to instruct on the riches of natural world and human
history, but its aim was also the formation of Czechs. In the marble memorial tablet placed
next to the door to the Pantheon the museum’s mission was summed up as follows: “The
National museum … was built by Josef Schulz and decorated by outstanding Czech painters
and sculptors to demonstrate to local people and foreigners the richness of the nature, above
all our own, and also the world history, work and learning of past ages, the glory and misery
of our nation, as education, warning and boost.” 62 The words “the glory and misery” state
explicitly, what the architectural conception of the National Museum implies, namely that it
wants to influence mass public opinion in the same way a military museums – by glorifying
victories and lamenting over defeats. It is to be noted that this inscription does not come from
the time of the opening of the museum, but from the year 1947, when Czechoslovakia
recovered from the German occupation. In the time of national defeats, in 1938-1945 and
again in 1968-1989, the National museum became a privileged place of mourning for the
tragic destiny of the Czech nation and a promise of its future victories63.
At the end of the 19th century, Czechs were not allowed to have a parliament in which
they could decide about themselves and this explains why they had built a museum
resembling a parliament building. In it, they set up a Pantheon resembling a hall of fame of a
military museum, which they also lacked. In today’s Czech Republic, the National museum
V. Businský, „Výměna nápisů v Národním museu“, Časopis Národního musea, odd. duchovědný 116, Praha
1947, 213.
63
Jaroslav Švehla, „Pantheon, síň slávy a žalu“, Venkov 34, Praha 1939, no. 200, supplement „Neděle
venkova“ p. 3; Anna Masaryková, Národní museum v Praze, Praha 1940; František Kop, “Národní museum,
symbol a bohatý pramen poznání odvěké vyspělosti kultury české”, Vlast 54, Praha 1940 no. 5; František Kop,
„Padesát let budovy Národního musea“, Národní politika, Praha 1940, no. 278, Sunday supplement; František
Kop, Národní museum – památník našeho kulturního obrození, Praha 1941; Jaroslav Švehla, Bomby kolem
Pantheonu – Národní museum v Praze v letech 1039-1945, Praha 1946. It was not accidental that Jan Palach
chose the ramp of the National museum as the place to burn himself as a protest against the Soviet occupation
of 1968.
62
21
in Prague is not the only medium to reveal to general public “the richness of the nature” or
“the world history, work and learning of past ages”, as we read on its memorial tablet.
Nevertheless, because of its Pantheon in which state ceremonies are still performed, the
whole museum is presented as a pillar of Czech statehood64. The building of the National
theatre is the main icon of the Czech national movement of the late 19th century, but
throughout the 20th century it was the dignified silhouette of the National museum, which
formed background of countless political demonstrations the aim of which was the political
independence of the Czechs. This shared feeling of identification with a monumental
building contributed significantly to the process of national unification, which explains why
it could acquire and retain its patriotic aura65.
In the „Long-term conception of the development of the National museum. 2004-2014“ (Prague March 24th,
2004 no. 509/2004-S) we may read that this museum is important for the “perception of the state traditions and
values of the Czech republic” (p. 3).
65
On historicism and Neo-Renaissance cf. Also: Jutta Zander-Seidel, Kunstrezeption und Selbstverständnis.
Eine Untersuchung zur Architektur der Neurenaissance in Deutschland in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts
(Erlanger Studien 28), Erlangen 1980; Kurt Milde, Neurenaissance in der dt. Architektur. Grundlagen, Wesen
und Gültigkeit, Dresden 1981; M. Zgorniak, Wokol neorenesansu w architekturze XIX wieku : podstawy
teoretyczne i realizacje (Autour de la neo-Renaissance dans l'architecture du XIXe s. : bases theoriques et
realisations, Krakow 1987; Friedrich Jaeger, Jörn Rüsen, Geschichte des Historismus. Eine Einführung,
München 1992; G. U. Grossmann, P. Krutisch, eds., Renaissance der Renaissance, Kat. München, Berlin 1992;
Hermann Fillitz, ed., Der Traum vom Glück : die Kunst des Historismus in Europa (Künstlerhaus Wien), Wien
1996; Rosanna Pavoni, ed., Reviving the Renaissance : the use and abuse of the past in nineteenth-century
Italian art and decoration, Cambridge 1997 (especially: Stefano Della Torre , Valeria Pracchi, “The neoRenaissance in nineteenth-century Italy : the search for self-representation in city architecture”, 177-206); Jan
Bouzek, „The Neo-Renaissance in the Individual Countries of the Danubian Empire and the Classical
Tradition“ Studia Hercynia 3, 1999, 41-55; Hans-Rudolf Meier, Marion Wohlleben, eds., Bauten und Orte als
Träger von Erinnerung : die Erinnerungsdebatte und die Denkmalpflege, Zürich 2000; Petra Leser,
“Historische Architektur : Strömungen in der Architektur des 19. Jh.” in: Stefanie Lieb, ed., Form und Stil,
2001, 289-297; Walter Krause, Heidrun Laudel and Winfried Nerdinger, eds., Neorenaissance : Ansprüche an
einen Stil ; Zweites Historismus-Symposium, Bad-Muskau, Philo Fine Arts, Dresden 2001 (especially: Walter
Krause, “Neorenaissance in Österreich-Ungarn”, 188-202; Jindřich Vybíral, “Die "moderne" Renaissance in
Böhmen”, 218-229); Mari Hvattum, Gottfried Semper and the problem of historicism, Cambridge 2004.
64
22