Art and Literature Scientifi c and Analytical Journal Texts 2.2013

Art and Literature Scientifi c and Analytical Journal Texts

2.2013

Bruxelles, 2013 EDITORIAL BOARD

Chief editor Burganova M. A. Pletneva A. A. (Russia) — Candidate of Sciences, research associate of Russian Bowlt John Ellis (USA) — Doctor of Language Institute of the Russian Academy Science, Professor of Slavic Languages of Sciences; and Literatures in University of Southern Pociechina Helena (Poland) — Doctor California; of Science; Profesor of the University of Burganov A. N. (Russia) — Doctor of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn; Science, Professor of Stroganoff Moscow Pruzhinin B. I. (Russia) — Doctor of State Art Industrial University, Full-member Sciences, Professor, editor-in-chief of of Russia Academy of Arts, National Artist of Problems of Philosophy; Russia, member of the Dissertation Council Ryzhinsky A. S. (Russia) — Candidate of of Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial Sciences, Senior lecturer of Gnesins Russian University; Academy of Music; Burganova M. A. (Russia) — Doctor of Sahno I. M. (Russia) — Doctor of Sciences, Science, Professor of Stroganoff Moscow Professor of Peoples’ Friendship University State Art Industrial University, Full-member of Russia; of Russia Academy of Arts, Honored Artist of Sano Koji (Japan) Professor of Russia, member of the Dissertation Council Toho Gakuyen University of Music of Stroganoff Moscow State Art Industrial (Japan) — Professor of Toho Gakuyen University, editor-in-chief; University of Music; Glanc Tomáš (Germany) — Doctor of Shvidkovsky Dmitry O. (Russia) — Vice- Science of The Research Institute of East President of Russian Academy of Arts and European University of Bremen (Germany), its secretary for History of Arts, and Full and assistant professor of The Charles member; Rector of Moscow Institute of University (Czech Republic); Architecture, Doctor of Science, Professor, Kazarian Armen (Russia) — Architectural Full member of Russian Academy of historian, Doctor of Fine Arts in The State Architecture and Construction Sciences, Full Institute of Art History, Advisor in Academy member of the British Academy; of Architecture and Construction Sciences; Tanehisa Otabe (Japan) — Doctor of Sience, Kravetsky A. G. (Russia) — Candidate of Professor, Head of Department of Aesthetics Sciences, research associate of Russian at Tokyo; Language Institute of the Russian Academy Tolstoy Andrey V. (Russia) — Doctor of of Sciences; Sciences, professor in the History of Art at Lavrentyev Alexander N. (Russia) — the Moscow State Institute of Architecture, a Doctor of Arts, Professor of Stroganoff Full-member of the Russian Academy of Fine Moscow State Art Industrial University and Arts and President of the Russian National Moscow State University of Printing Arts; section of International Association of Art Misler Nicoletta (Italy) Professor of Modern Critics (AICA) affi liated with UNESCO; East European Art at the Istituto Universitario Tsivian Yuri (USA) — Doctor of Science, Orientale, NaplesPavlova I. B. — Candidate Professor, University of Chicago, of Sciences, Senior Researcher of Institute of Departments: Cinema and Media Studies, Art World Literature of the Russian Academy of History, Slavic Languages and Literatures. Sciences; Editor Smolenkova J. (Russia)

ISSN 2294-8902 © TEXTS, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tatyana Borodina I. E. Repin in the Eyes of the American Press and Public 5

Nina Getashvili Fate of the Art Following the Empire’s Downfall 17

Svetlana Mozgot Personal Space in Music: the “I—the Me” and “I—You” Concepts 23

Roman Perelshtein A Failed Saint in Archie Mayo’s The Petrifi ed Forest 31

Julia Smolenkova Stroganov School of Sculpture. VKhUTEMAS period. VKhUTEMAS: Sculpting Methodologies and Programs 35

Rusina Shikhatova Des bibliothèques de Strasbourg : la contribution russe 44

Ekaterina Matveeva Re-reading the Concept of Culture in a Social Context 53

Ilya Pechenkin To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture: between East and West 59

Josef H. Biller Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer 77

Alberto Milano L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro 104

Tatyana Borodina. I. E. Repin in the Eyes of the American Press and Public

Tatyana Borodina Director of Ilya Repin’s Memorial Home “Penates” Sankt-Petersburg, Russia [email protected]

I. E. REPIN IN THE EYES OF THE AMERICAN PRESS AND PUBLIC

Summary: Using the fi lm The Petrifi ed Forest by Archie Mayo as an example, the author formulates one of the universal themes of cinematography, called “the ideal and the reality”, and suggests a name for a movie plot that corresponds to the said theme: “the failed saints”. Keywords: ideal, reality, cinematography, movie plot, theme. It is well known that European viewers became acquainted with Russian art principally through international, worldwide and personal expositions of Russian artists abroad. Personal exhibitions in America began to be organized later than in Europe. The fi rst was opened in 1876 in Philadelphia, to be followed only in 1893 in Chicago. Thus the role of the press in the popularization of Russian art on the other side of the ocean was very important. Although Repin fi rst exhibited a painting (the recently completed Zaporozh Cossacks) in America at the Chicago exhibition, Americans had a chance to learn about the artist and to see reproductions of his paintings in popular literary and artistic magazines long before that. Interest in Russian culture became especially active in America in the 1890s, stimulated by the incredible popularity of Russian literature. American readers were so profoundly impressed by the works of Russian writers that critics began to speak about a Russian invasion of American literature. At that time almost all of Turgenev’s novels were translated, the names Gogol and Dostoevski became more and more popular and one after another the works of L. Tolstoy were published. His philosophical and political articles provoked a wide response (L. N. Tolstoy, 1965). An understanding of Russian culture was also

— 5 — Tatyana Borodina. I. E. Repin in the Eyes of the American Press and Public facilitated by essays about Russia by both American and European authors, whose works appeared in translation in the mid 1880s. As a rule these publications were well illustrated. Publishers often used prints from pictures by Russian artists and from portraits of politicians as reproductions; sometimes they ordered special drawings (or landscapes) as illustrations. In this manner for example, Eugene Schuyler, the former American consul in Russia, who spent many years in Moscow and St. Petersburg, rounded off his great work in 1879 about the age of Peter the Great. It was published in 1880 in Scribner’s Monthly Magazine complete with prints from pictures by V. Vasnetsov and V. Makovskiy. As for Repin, he made a copy of his recently completed painting Tsarevna Sophia, along with a second illustration Sofi a Exhorts the Streltsy, specially for this book. They were published in the August and December issues of the magazine (Schuyler 1880). Formerly these drawings were unknown to us. The originals remained in the publishing house and their location has not been discovered. A reproduction of Repin’s Bargemen (often known as The Volga Boatmen or Burlaki) appeared in the October issue of the same year (Schuyler 1880 October, 904). This painting belonged to the private collection of the Russian Royal family and was therefore not viewed by many. However it became famous throughout the world due to its reproduction in print. In Russia an etching from the Bargemen was published for the fi rst time in 1875 in the Pchela (The Bee) magazine as the illustration accompanying an article on I. E. Repin by Stasov, The very same etching in Scribner’s Magazine enabled Americans too to become acquainted with this picture. Repin saw a copy of this magazine at his friend Vasilchikov’s and wrote in a letter to V. V. Stasov: The magazine is very generous, its format is compact and it is maintained very intelligently; somehow they will reproduce my drawing, by which I mean Tsarevna Sophia, and what is featured here is executed very carefully (Repin I. E. 1949, 50–51). In 1889 The Volga Boatmen was reproduced once again in America in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine in the article Russia. Social Life written by V.E.M. de Vogué (Vogue, 1889). Many illustrations on Russian themes were also made by American artists, above all Anderson,

— 6 — Tatyana Borodina. I. E. Repin in the Eyes of the American Press and Public

Lindsay and Wellington. In Harper’s New Magazine for 1890 a drawing from the central part of Repins picture Seeing-off a Recruit was to be found. It was made by Tylstryp as an illustration for the article “The Russian Army” (Harper’s 1890, 188) It is probable that the sketch was made directly from the painting in the Tretyakov Gallery since the artist made a large number of copies in Moscow and St. Petersburg for Theodor Child’s articles in Harper’s New Monthly Magazine. Throughout 1889 and 1890 Child, the leading art critic of that magazine, published a series of articles on Russian culture. Judging by their names: A trip to Nizhnij Novgorod, Free Moscow, The Kremlin and Russian Art, Palaces of St. Petersburg, the author had travelled round Russia and was interested in both its past and present. Most interesting for us is the article “Contemporary Russian Art” (Сhild 1890, 76–97). It is an extensive professional survey of Russian painting and sculpture of the 1870s and 80s with brief commentaries on the development of Russian culture from the time of Peter the Great. The author offers this readers an excursion around the rooms of the Tretyakov collection to acquaint them with the latest works of Russian art. First of all he leads his imaginary audience to the end of the ground fl oor of the gallery where more than 30 pictures and portraits by Repin are to be found. The American critic begins his survey with Repin’s works precisely because he considers him to be the most eminent national artist. “Here,” writes Child, “you will witness something truly Russian” (Сhild 1890, 77). First he presents Vechernitzy for inspection as a picture with characteristic local colouring, before conducting a detailed analysis of the pictures They Did Not Expect Him, Religious Procession and Tsar Ivan the Terrible. The critic claims that Repin excels all Russian artists in his depiction of characters and believes that it would be diffi cult to fi nd an equal talent amongst contemporary artists of other countries. In his opinion Repin’s striking skill is already apparent in The Volga Boatmen and cannot name a simpler or more faithful portrayal in contemporary art of the poverty of working men. Child’s article includes a reproduction of the picture They did not Expect him. The author believes that from it the reader can judge how vividly and in what detail the story is told, how natural and inspired the faces are and the how intense the realism

— 7 — Tatyana Borodina. I. E. Repin in the Eyes of the American Press and Public

of the entire scene is. Describing in detail the composition of Ivan the Terrible, Child emphasizes the signifi cance of light in it and proclaims it a masterpiece in the use of the artist’s palette. The critic considers this work a magnifi cent portrayal of barbarous luxury, cruel customs and the tragic grandeur of 16-th century Muscovy. To his mind, Repin was not only a great master of historical painting, but also of portraiture. “It seems he experiences great pleasure in recreating the features of the great people of his nation.”(Сhild 1890, 77). Amongst the best. Child numbers the portraits of I. S. Turgenev, K. M. Fofanov, L. N. Tolstoy. Discussing the national idiosyncrasies of Repin’s creative work, the critic emphasizes the painter’s ability to be inspired by Russian subjects alone. According to Child, Repin mastered the western analytical method without adopting its traditions and prejudices. At the same time however his works are not overloaded with literary allusions as was so often the case with those of his fellow Russian artists (Сhild 1890, 77). In all of the painter’s works health and optimism are perceptible; just as they were so vividly refl ected in his own visage (Сhild 1890, 77). In this magazine Child published a print from Repin’s photo taken in the 1880s. Completing his analysis of Repin’s work the American critic says that from the commentaries and illustrations given here the reader can sense how great the scope of Repin’s talent is and understand why he occupies such a prominent position in the hierarchy of modem art (Сhild 1890, 78). Three years later American readers were to be able to increase their knowledge of Repin’s work. In 1892 in the September issue of Scribner’s Magazine drawings from Repin’s famous series Views of Nevsky Prospect were published as illustrations for the article Nevsky Prospect by Isabel Hapgood. I. A. Brodsky considers that these drawings were very close copies of those made in 1887–1890 (Brodskij 1948, 251–63). Once in America they were lost and their location remains unknown. Some sheets of this earlier version — for example, Nevsky prospect, Dominique Cafe, Chapel near Gostinny Dvor (some of which are now kept in the Russian Museum) — are masterpieces of Repin’s drawing skills according to V. V. Voinov, who devoted special research to the artist’s drawings (Brodskij 1948, 255). These drawings were fi rst exhibited and published in Russia in the 1920s. American

— 8 — Tatyana Borodina. I. E. Repin in the Eyes of the American Press and Public readers however had the opportunity to see Repin’s masterpieces an early as the 1890s. In 1892 an essay entitled “Repin. A Russian National Artist” was published in the November issue of The Century magazine. Its author was the aforementioned Isabel Hapgood (Hapgood, 1890). Her article is very well illustrated. Studies for the Zaporozh Cossacks, the drawing Leo Tolstoy lying reading, the studies A Maid of Little Russi, A Cossack of the Steppe, Procession of the Miraculous Icon in Little Russia, The Conspirator, The Arrest of the Propagandist were reproduced with the aid of woodcuts by Eiken. A Russian correspondent wrote of Hapgood’s article in his review in the newspaper Nov’ that “the American audience is in general happier than the Russian one because it has access to all the best works by Repin together with those published earlier in Harper’s Magazine and The Century. There are many fi ne American prints from almost all of Repin’s pictures and thanks to these, Repin has become one of the most popular artists amongst American artistic circles. All educated Americans now know this fi rst class Russian artist very well, while we have not even got photographs of his best works” (F. B. a). Regardless of the paradox in this statement, the journalist F.B. proved to be correct. Russian magazines of the 80s–90s were not as popular or well illustrated as those in America. In 1891 Repin was requested to make illustrations for Isabel Hapgood’s established article “Nevsky prospect”. As I. S. Silberstein established, Repin made 16 drawings, of which 11 appeared in 1892 in the September issue of the magazine. The fi rst album on Repin with text by J. Norden was published only in 1894 in a publication by the Department for the Procurement of State Documents. This de luxe edition was made to meet the order of the Viennese magazine “Die graphische Kunst’ with rights for publishing in Russian and French. It contained 11 individual sheets of illustrations and 20 reproductions included amongst the text. Prior to this publication isolated reproductions of Repin’s works appeared only in the magazines Pchela, Niva and Zhivopisnoje obozrenije. Due to its widespread circulation, Hapgood’s article in The Century magazine made Repin’s name extremely popular in America. Isabel Hapgood was an active propagandist of Russian culture and a great translator of the works of Tolstoy. She travelled twice to Russia.

— 9 — Tatyana Borodina. I. E. Repin in the Eyes of the American Press and Public

After visiting Yasnaja Poljana she published her memoires Tolstoy at Home. For more than fi fty years she was acquainted wfth V. V. Stasov and it is possible that she met Repin. She worked as a secretary for the Russian Symphonic Society in New York and with great conviction, sought to familiarize her compatriots with Russian literature, music and art. I. Hapgood was factually precise but somewhat over concise in describing Repin’s artistic activity. She thinks that he “is equally at home in historical subjects; in scenes from modem life, ranging from the court to the peasant, in interiors, outdoor lights, provided only that he be not asked to conform to the style of any set school, or to seek his inspiration outside of his native land — this is a rare phenomenon in the present day, when many men fi rst cultivate assiduously a certain school, too often foreign, and then proceed to seek their subjects in all lands except their own”(F. B. b). Repin became still more popular in America after exhibiting his painting Zaporozh Cossacks at the World exhibition in Chicago in 1893. Unfortunately, for some reason a second picture by Repin — The Reception of the Volost Foremen by Tsar Alexander III — was not displayed although it had been selected for the exhibition. The World exhibition in Chicago was devoted to the 400- th anniversary of the discovery of America by C. Columbus. In order to attract universal attention and to distinguish this exhibition from those that had come before it the Americans erected buildings which were striking in their dimensions, lighting and variety of forms in a very short space of time in Jackson park on the banks of lake Michigan. “This exhibition promised to be a marvel of the XIX century,” wrote V. V. Stasov (V. S. 1893, 235). Repin was on the staff of professionally qualifi ed organizers. He, K. Makovsky, K. Lemoch, A. Kouindzhi, and I. Korzhukhin were obliged to choose works by contemporary artists along with several pieces of Russian art from the collections of the Hermitage and the Academy of Arts for exhibition in America. P. I. Glukhovskoy, a gentleman in waiting to His Majesty’s Highest Court, was appointed the general secretary of the Russian department, whist the sculptor F. F. Kamensky (who had been resident in America since 1871) became the chief of the department.

— 10 — Tatyana Borodina. I. E. Repin in the Eyes of the American Press and Public

He created ornamental allegorical groups and statues for the Chicago exhibition (Gluhovskoj 1895). Judging by Glukhovskoy’s report, the Russian department exhibits were very well selected and included “only selected works”. That is why it enjoyed great success at the exhibition and was one of the most frequently visited departments of fi ne arts. All the organs of the American press testifi ed to the high artistic value of the Russian exhibits (Gluhovskoj 1895). The American papers created excellent publicity for the Russian department and a great number of people attended its opening. The crowd was so large and restless that F. F. Kamensky was compelled to inaugurate the exhibition without offi cial ceremony (Gluhovskoj 1895). The contemporary Russian press wrote: “Russian art won a brilliant victory on the other side of the ocean, although no blood was spilled, and achieved great glory, the testimony of which are enthusiastic reviews by American critics” (B. А. 1893). Sometime later a correspondent of Mozaika magazine wrote: “Thanks to the exhibitions in Chicago, New York, Philadelphia and to the excellent photos of pictures by Russian artists in many American illustrated magazines, Russian art, according to the Americans themselves has won itself widespread admiration in a very short space of time.” Other art critics regretted being deprived of the opportunity to see all works of Russian art and being compelled to judge Russian art only by the few works exhibited in their country. However, of all Russian painters, it was Repin who elicited the most interest among American critics/lovers of art. The name of the famous creator of the Zaporozh Cossacks was on the lips of everybody who was in the slightest bit interested in art. Americans were surprised by the expression, wonderful drawing skills and incomparable palette of the highly talented national painter (B. А. 1894). The picture Zaporozh Cossacks was awarded the Grand Prix at the Chicago exhibition. In all articles about contemporary European painting written by American art critics, Repin was named the genius of the XIX century. As a correspondent of Mozaika magazine reported, the picture Zaporozh Cossacks, representing laughing cossacks writing a letter to the Turkish Sultan, was the stimulus for an essay on “Laughter in Art”, written by the American Whitesheen. In his peculiarly American style the author writes that each character in Repin’s picture

— 11 — Tatyana Borodina. I. E. Repin in the Eyes of the American Press and Public is a masterpiece suffi cient to cover the painter with glory and Repin, gathering all of these characters into one picture, is simply a spendthrift who throws a whole handful of gold into a crowd in one go, rather than distributing it in separate gold pieces (B. А. 1894, 45). A correspondent of Nov’ magazine thought that, although Whitesheen’s turn of phrase was rather original, it simply served to confi rm what had been said by Russian art critics before him (B. А. 1894, 45). After the Chicago Exhibition in New York a pamphlet entitled Where and with Whom American Artists Should Study was published (B. А. 1894, 45–7). In it the author presents Repin as a powerful artist who can convey not only the external appearance but also the hidden psychological state both of individuals and of groups of people. He writes that there are few such artists-thinkers in Europe and therefore the study of just one picture by Repin would be more useful than a study of whole museums and galleries fi lled with pictures by the old masters, which, in spite of their classicism, are seriously outdated in terms of ideas and realistic portrayal of life (B. А. 1894, 45–7). The appearance of this pamphlet was not accidental. In the 1880s and 90s American painting was seeking its own means of development, however its characteristic feature was the sense of respect shown by American artists to the achievements of other nations. In his survey Nineteenth Century Art V. V. Stasov wrote: “American pictures often reveal much talent, much genuinely skilful use of artistic technique, but they lack the most important things — character and content.” (Stasov 1952, 640). Therefore it is not surprising that American critics recommended Repin as a teacher who commanded these components more strongly than any other artist. After the World exhibition in Chicago Repin’s paintings were exhibited in America only ten years later at the next exhibition after the 1904 Parisian World exhibition in Saint’Lois, Loisiana. According to the newspapers, preparation for the exhibition of the Russian department had started in Russia as early as the autumn of 1903. In 1904, however, the Russo- Japanese war began which consumed a lot of money and the Russian government refused to participate in the organization of the exhibition. Nevertheless the Russian department was opened and, in comparison

— 12 — Tatyana Borodina. I. E. Repin in the Eyes of the American Press and Public with the preceding World exhibitions, contained more numerous and varied exhibits representing almost all artistic societies and groups. For the most part, the Russian exhibition was organized thanks to merchants’ generosity. The costs were largely met by a member of the Organisational Committee, Counsellor of Commerce E. Grünwald. He was a wealthy fur-trader who supplied the Russian Court and was praised for his enterprise and punctiliousness. Moreover, he published a good catalogue with an introduction including particularly useful commentaries upon the themes derived from Russian history (World’s ex. Cat. 1904). Once again Russian art enjoyed great success at that exhibition. In Saint-Lois Repin exhibited a portrait of E. N. Korevo made in 1900. His work, as well as pictures by the academicians of art V. Makovsky, N. N. Dubovskoy and N. A. Kasatkin, was hors concours since these artists had been awarded with the Grand Prix at the previous World exhibitions. The panel of 78 professionally qualifi ed artists of the Worldwide Exhibition presented Repin and Makovsky with golden memorial medals and a diploma for “Outstanding effort and achievement in the pursuit of painting and the arts”. Unfortunately, however this exhibition ended very unhappily for its participants. Grünwald, who bore all the expenses of packing, transportation, insurance and sale of the pictures, was entitled to 30 % commission on each picture sold. In fact he began to sell pictures at his will, claiming them as his own property. Thus Repin’s portrait was sold and its location is now unknown. As a result of this Repin henceforth refused to participate in exhibitions or to organize his own expositions in America in spite of the potential rewards and very good press. Repin’s exhibition which was organised in Stockholm by the artist V. F. Levy, was transported to New York without his permission. A M-m Rudestar, an art dealer, added a forgery — a copy of the version of Zaporozh Cossacks from the Tretyakov Gallery — to this exhibition. This forgery was not even noticed by the connoisseur of Repin’s works Christian Brinton, the author of the introduction for the catalogue of the exhibition in 1921. In this catalogue he published the photo of Repin which was given to him as a present in “Penates” by the artist himself. In 1906 Brinton published a short article on Repin in the

— 13 — Tatyana Borodina. I. E. Repin in the Eyes of the American Press and Public

Century magazine after his journey to Russia and meetings with the artist (Brinton, 1906). He develops the main ideas of this essay in the introduction to the catalogue of the 1921 exhibition (Brinton 1921) Admiring the works of the artist, he interprets them faithfully and in depth and observes in detail the evolution of his creative work. As an introduction Brinton offers his refl ections about Russian science, history, people and culture. Judging by his statements, Brinton was also well informed about the development of Russian art. He observes correctly that, although Repin remained for 6 years in the Academy, his works are devoid of academic mannerisms. The American critic notes the innovative character of The Volga Boatmen. In his opinion, the general effect of the canvas is compelling in its sheer veracity of observation and in the expression of the latter. “It is absorbing to follow from canvas to canvas the unfolding of Repin’s pictorial power”, writes Brinton. “Ivan the Terrible and His Son can throw down a challenge to the grim Spaniards” and in the Zaporozh Cossacks he sees “almost Flemish opulence of colour.” “His method,” thinks Brinton, “is the reverse of impressionism. His principal works are not the result of a single swift transcription of something vividly seen or spontaneously apprehended. They are the outcome of prolonged study and adjustment”. “Year after year, says the American author, each of Repin’s paintings is hailed as the epitome of actuality or greeted as an eloquent evocation of the past. For all his preoccupation with the past, Repin did not lose contact with the interests and issues of his own day and generation.Side by side with the painter of history worked the chronicler of contemporary life and setting”, which “he portrayed with penetrating truth and intensity.” The critic also considers the skill of Repin as a portrait-painter. He points out that the master is “jealous of essentials and indifferent to all that does not directly contribute to the individuality of the sitter and nowhere has he succeeded better than in the likeness of the Prophet of Yasnaya Polyana.” “On various occasions,” writes the critic, “Repin has approached dangerous degrees of audacity, but always, instead of offi cially disciplining the artist, the offending painting has been purchased … by the tsar or some discerning grand duke. So open has popular disapproval of some of his works been at times, that they have

— 14 — Tatyana Borodina. I. E. Repin in the Eyes of the American Press and Public actually been removed from public gaze within a few hours after being placed on exhibition.” Brinton is right in saying that it is to Russia alone, that Repin has consecrated the passionate fervor of his vision and the vigorous surety of his hand and calls him “an instinctive realist” who is at his best when face to face with the living model. Although he seems to stand apart from his fellows, Repin may be compared with the father of German realists, Adolf Menzel, who created his compositions as accurately as he made his observations. Brinton’s ideas concerning the last years of Repin’s work art very interesting. He thinks that the master was productive when he lived in Kuokkala. 62 works exposed at the World exhibition in Rome in 1911 distinguished him from young artists because of their stylistic difference, especially the pictures painted when he was in his sixties. Although, during these stressful years, he could not fail to note that the complexion of art was rapidly changing, the painter of The Cossacks and The Black Sea Pirates refused to strike any sort of compromise with what is called modernism. He resolutely retained his individuality. Concluding his article, Brinton stresses that Repin refl ected his epoch, was a typical representative of it and lent expression to its spirit. At the New York exhibition in 1921 a total of 54 of Repin’s works were displayed to the public. Selfportrait, Black Sea Pirates, some studies for the latter and the third version of the Zaporozh Cossacks which later went to the private collection in Copenhagen, were reproduced. In the 1920s Repin received some more invitations to participate in exhibitions in America. However, because of the trouble with his pictures in New York and Saint Lois he declined these. The collection of reports by the American press on such a bright artistic personality as Repin may undoubtedly be enriched by new evidence to be derived, above all, from sources outside Russia. Already this systematization of almost unknown facts, however, enables us to get an impression of the uniqueness of reception and understanding in America of the work of the famous Russian artist. In contrast with literary research, Russian-American artistic links remain as yet completely unexplored. Therefore, the facts put forward in this article represent the fi rst attempt to tackle this question.

— 15 — Tatyana Borodina. I. E. Repin in the Eyes of the American Press and Public

REFERENCES 1. B. А. 1893. One more victory for the Russian art overseas. New Mosaic, 18:557– 60. 2. B. А. 1894. Repin’s fame in America. New Mosaic, 2:45–7. 3. Brinton, C. I. 1906. Repin. Тhе Сепturу, ХL. 4. Brinton, C. I. 1921. The Ilya Repin exhibition. Introduction and Catalogue of the paintings by Dr. Cristian Brinton’s head at the New-Kindegare Galleries. New- York City. 5. Brodskij, I. A. 1948. Unknown series of drawings by Ilya Repin “Views of St. Petersburg”. Repin, vol. 1. 251–63. 6. F. B. I. Е.Repin in Americans magasin. 7. 7. F. B. I. Е. Repin in Americans magasin. NBRАХ, F-1, оp. 54 XB k. 4. 8. Gluhovskoj, P. I. 1895. The report of the Commissioner of the Russian Department of Columbian Exhibition in Chicago. Sankt-Petersburg. 9. Hapgood, I. 1890. А Russian National Аrtist. Тhe Century. Illustrated Monthly Magazine, Nоvembеr, 1, 3–12. 10. Harper’s New Monthly Magazine. 1890. LХХХ. 11. L. N.Tolstoy and abroad world. 1965. Literaturnoe nasledie, vol. 1., 416–20. 12. Repin I. E. and Stasov V.V. Correspondence. 1877–1894. Vol. 2. 1949. Moscow, Leningrad. 13. Schuyler, E. 1880. Реtеr thе Grеаt. Scribner’s Monthly: An Illustrated Magazine for the People, vols. 19–21. 14. Stasov, V. ,V. 1952. Fine Art. XIX century. In Selected Writings. Vol. 3. Moscow: Iskusstvo. 15. V. S. [Stasov, V. ,V.?] 1893. A few details about the World’s Fair in Chicago. Nivа. 16. Vogue, V. Е. M. 1889. Russia Social Life. Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, June, 3–24. 17. World’s exhibition Saint Lois. Russian section. Fine Arts Catalogue. 1904. USA. 18. Сhild, T. 1890. Russian art modern. Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, 50. 19. Lutsevich, L. 2010. Leo Tolstoy’s excommunication from the Church: history and modernity. Burganov House. The space of culture, 4.

— 16 — Nina Getashvili. Fate of the Art Following the Empire’s Downfall

Nina Getashvili PhD, Professor, Head of Department of Art History at Ilya Glazunov Russian Academy of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture Moscow, Russia [email protected] FATE OF THE ART FOLLOWING THE EMPIRE’S DOWNFALL

Summary: It is interesting to trace the development of various national artistic communities in post-Soviet space. The situational analysis reveals the unevenness of that development, the similarities and differences between the existing stereotypes and prejudices, the changes in mythologies, artistic institutions, educational programs and critical refl ections, the reorientation of ethnical attitudes, the contribution to international projects and the presence in the international context, the participation in the process of globalization (fi rst of all in search for semiotic universality of expressive means), the strategies of cultural identity, the outbursts of religious infl uence upon art and the powerful attacks of the mass-culture, and numerous phenomena infl uencing the formation of the new “small” artistic communities. Keywords: Artistic communities in post-Soviet space, ex-Soviet- art, the Artists’ Unio, the national identity.

Twenty years ago, the largest country in the world, the Soviet Union, ceases to exist. Offi cially, the country’s full name was Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (it is not out place to enumerate them here, since nowadays they are independent not small states infl uencing the regional geopolitics Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia in the Baltic region, Ukraine, Belorussia, Moldavia in the Southwest, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan in Transcaucasia, Uzbekistan, Kirgizia, Turkmenia, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan in Central Asia). Thoughnder the Soviet power the so called “brotherly republics” (nowadays they are independent not small states infl uencing the regional geopolitics) possessed a certain autonomy, they were not fully independent. Rather they were parts of a single unitary “empire”. In the outside world, the residents of all the republics were en masse regarded as “Russians”, without taking into account their national

— 17 — Nina Getashvili. Fate of the Art Following the Empire’s Downfall distinctions. Yet, let us remember that well before the Revolution 1917 most of the territories of the Soviet Union belonged to the Russian empire; hence, behind the many ethnic groups of the Soviet Union there was a long tradition of coexistence. The abundance and variety of ethnic representations gave the impression of democratic equality of all the cultural diversity, within the great Soviet whole. And yet, such a situation had its underside. Despite the obvious difference between the national selfexpression and the presence of a number of artists having conceptual intentions of their own, the artistic situation in all the republics was more or less the same, since it was conditioned both by common ideology and by similarly structured institutions, functioning under guidance of Moscow. Besides, all the ways towards the “big worlds” passed through Moscow. During the years of Gorbachev’s “Perestroyka” (“reconsruction”), the situation as a whole did remain unchanged, though the artists, apart from the ideologically acceptable “realism”, could practice some “contemporary art”; besides, the unoffi cial art — in fact, a rather modest echo of the European modernism — could fi nally leave the “underground”. In the majority of Soviet republics (except the Baltic region) this situation suddenly ceased to exist just after the signing of the notorious Belovezhie agreement about the dissolution of the SU in December 1991. Though before that the ‘brotherly nations’ had been pressing towards self-determination and separation from their ‘big brother’ (sometimes this led to bloody confl icts), such of sudden acquisition of independence proved to be a shocking experience; the disintegration of habitual interconnections was only too violent. To be sure, culture was traumatized (both psychological and material) in the fi rst instance (to an extent, this can be collaborated by the fact that at the venetian Biennale the SU Hall was deliver to Russia). The system of social protection and the fi nancial base collapsed with the hasty transition to the market economy. Suddenly, artists found themselves in radically new conditions of work and every day life. The process of adaptation to new conditions is still incomplete (and, besides, every republic went through the crisis in her own way). And yet now, after 20 years, we

— 18 — Nina Getashvili. Fate of the Art Following the Empire’s Downfall can draw some conclusions about the immediate consequences of the freedom acquired in such an unexpected way. It is interesting to trace the development of various national artistic communities in post-Soviet space. The situational analysis reveals the unevenness of that development, the similarities and differences between the existing stereotypes and prejudices, the changes in mythologies, artistic institutions, educational programs and critical refl ections, the reorientation of ethnical attitudes, the contribution to international projects and the presence in the international context, the participation in the process of globalization (fi rst of all in search for semiotic universality of expressive means), the strategies of cultural identity, the outbursts of religious infl uence upon art and the powerful attacks of the mass-culture, and numerous phenomena infl uencing the formation of the new “small” artistic communities. So, what is the main sense of this change? The disappearance of central leadership? The fact that now, when the ceaseless struggle for the survival of arts is carried out on regional fi elds, a loser can blame but himself? (Unless he resorts to Russophobes — the most widespread and traditional mechanism of psychological defence among the ex- Soviet population). We have to take into account that the years preceding the collapse of the unitary state were marked by the fi rst steps of arts commercialization in the Soviet Union ( the emergence of fi rst private art galleries and arts dealers), as well as by a certain publicity “boom” around the Russian — and, consequently, ex-Soviet-art in the West (in the beginning of the ’90-s this vogue began to decline: Russia was not a novelty any more, though among the artists the euphoria continued for some time). Let us mention a noteworthy fact: though during the Soviet era the critics in Russia (and, especially, in Moscow) were vividly interested in the arts of ‘brotherly’ republics, after the dissolution of the Soviet state no serious work appeared on these subjects. There is direct evidence of psychological alienation from subject matters associated with the defunct state. And yet, the artists themselves show a certain disposition towards rapprochement. Perhaps, the main reason for this lies in their desire

— 19 — Nina Getashvili. Fate of the Art Following the Empire’s Downfall to join commercial streams. Another important reason is the wish to restore personal contacts through the new frontiers (as the “Georgian fi ne arts gallery” in Kiev). The artists’ striving to stay in the mainstream coincided with the major bureaucratic interests. As early as in 1992, an International confederation of Artists’ Unions — an alliance of the Artists’ Unions of the former Soviet republics — was established in Moscow. At the beginning, this was a rather nominal organization, whose top-managers were busy redistributing the property of the former All-Union Union of Artists. Since 1998, the annual Moscow International Salons place free space at the Central House of Artists at the disposal of artists from the ex-Soviet republics; hence, these artists are included into a relatively large market which, though still not very profi table, grows rapidly. By the tenth anniversary of the Confederation (2002), a thesis was launched which several years earlier could appear “aggressive” and “chauvinistic”: “The dissolution of the USSR didn’t put an end to the power of Moscow as a great centre of attraction in the realm of aesthetics” (A. Morozov). The need for new audiences and, especially, the commercial considerations induce Moscow arts dealers to set up galleries specializing in the arts from ex-Soviet countries. Nowadays, this segment exists on equal terms with many others in the giant arts market of Moscow. In the countries mentioned above, the Artists’ Union are as populous as in earlier times. Union of Russia embraces 5307 professional artists (+ Moscow Artists Union — more then 6000; + Sankt Petersburg’s Union — every year accept around 150 new members). Azerbaijan includes at last 880 members. The fi gures for the rest are as follows around: Ukraine — more then 4300; Tajikistan — 144, Turkmenia — 250, Belorussia — 1200; Georgia — more than 1700; Kazakhstan — 600; Moldavia — 400. Lack of fi nancing, however, compels the Unions to surrender their property (though the most part of it fell into the hands of cunning nouveaux riches during the “obscure” years just after the collapse of the USSR).

— 20 — Nina Getashvili. Fate of the Art Following the Empire’s Downfall

As regards an artistic aspect, a queer, conceptually indistinct eclecticism predominates everywhere (local nuances don’t affect the situation as a whole). Political freedom failed to give rise to new artistic trends. Western grants support the “contemporary art”, thus promoting new conjuncture (little example — since the end of the 90s, the Soros Foundation has created Centers of Contemporary Arts in Moldavia and Kirghizia). Sometimes interesting experimental ideas spring up within the mainstream (consider the “Signs of Eternity” series 2001–2002, created with joint efforts of European and Asiatic artists). Unfortunately, the audiences of such projects are nit numerous. On the other hand, local artists are involved in global processes, their projects gain recognition in many other countries. One of the most important exceptions is Tajikistan where no new artistic trends exist. Interestingly, the stormy collisions of social and artistic life of the period of transition generally occur beyond the exhibition spaces — as if someone has “vetoed” the most painful points of our time (it seems that the “art of pain”, unfortunately, is not in demand). Because of poverty, many artists in the ex-Soviet republics literally have “gone into the streets” creating “little Montmartre’s” in all the touristic centers, fi rst of all in the capitals. The same reason prompted many of their colleagues to emigrate. For the most part, the artists’ creative destinies turned out rather unhappy. On the other hand, nowadays the artists from new independent countries exhibit their works abroad more frequently than ever. Though means for the development of arts are chronically lacking and the situation, indeed, often turns out to be tragic ( let us mention the Artists’s House in Tbilisi destroyed during the civil war, or the homeless artists-refugees from Abkhazia), it was possible to organize some international plein-air conferences (one of them, dedicated to Marc Chagall, took place in Vitebsk, Belorussia), international biennales (for instance, in Tashkent, Uzbekistan), symposia (as a symposium on Shakespeare in the fi gurative arts of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2003, and our today). There are some successful joint projects. Let us mention those realized in Georgia: the 1st International symposium of ceramists in

— 21 — Nina Getashvili. Fate of the Art Following the Empire’s Downfall

1999 organized with the help of the Soros Foundation for the former USSR (the traditional partners from Armenia and Azerbaijan took part in it despite the mutual animosity between two countries); the German- Georgian workshop and exhibition of lithographs in 2000 organized with the help of the Goethe Institute. The Swiss Bureau on Cooperation and Development for the Central Asia helped to publish an album dedicated to Kirghiz arts, while the Scottish artistic group Look-Look cooperated with Lithuanuan textile workers at a practical and theoretical seminar dedicated to the Scottish textile and the development of open creative workshops. Further, there is a tendency to revise the national identity of great personalities who were once ‘appropriated’ by Russia. Thus, Chagall, Soutine, Malevich, Nadia Leger and El Lisitzky are now considered Belorussian artists, because they were born in Belorussia or their careers started there. In our context, there is also another quite unique situation (which, alas, is characteristic for a totalitarian state): the grandiose “golden” monuments to Turkmen-Bashi Niyazov. “There is nothing more diffi cult than to live in the times of changes”: the contemporary artists of the new independent states are fully aware of the truth of this Chinese maxim.

— 22 — Svetlana Mozgot. Personal Space in Music: the “I—the Me” and “I—You” Concepts

Svetlana Mozgot PhD, Associate Professor, Department of the Theory and History of Music and a Technique of Musical Education, the Art Institute at the Adyghe State University Maykop, Russia [email protected] PERSONAL SPACE IN MUSIC: THE “I—THE ME” AND “I—YOU” CONCEPTS

Summary: More than 60 samples of vocal music from the 17th to the 20th centuries are analyzed to investigate how personal space is refl ected in music through the “I — the Me” and “I — You” concepts. It is established that the “I — the Me” concept is embodied by using autocommunication or internal dialogue. The object of the nature presented in the form of the Alter ego (the Double) or Alter pars (the Interlocutor) acts as the virtual interlocutor. The “I — You” concept is embodied in vocal works for one soloist by using four main techniques: intonations of genre generalizations or intonations — genre mixtures, intonation portraiture, settled semantics of intonation formulas and contrast change of the dynamics, logic of tonal development or inclusion of sound imitation of reality. Formation of personal space of the Interlocutor is possible thanks to deepening of semantic meaning of the intonation marking an image in music, as well as owing to different positions of the description: by observer storyteller, commentator and by hero. Keywords: Personal space in music, the “I — the Me” and “I — You” concepts, musical contents, internal monologue, spatial positions of the description: observer storyteller, commentator, hero. Cultural concepts of intimate, personal, social and public spaces were introduced by the American anthropologist E. Hall (Hall, 2002) to examine how differences among them affect modern society. Our purpose is to study how the personal space is refl ected in music through the “I — the Me” and “I — You” concepts. Manifestations of personal space are associated with the embodiment of the human personality. While intimate space in music is traced through the description of the course of emotion of the person, his thought processes, psychophysiological reactions and features of speech3, the personal space is associated with the modeling of activity of the person, his interests (motivations or motives), temperament (emotionality),

— 23 — Svetlana Mozgot. Personal Space in Music: the “I—the Me” and “I—You” Concepts

abilities (activity) and character (self-control / will; Golubeva, 2005). Respectively the fi gurative and semantic sphere of personal space is refl ected in nature of interaction of the hero with the world around, close and other people. Personal space of the personality is opened in the outside world that is shown in music, fi rst of all, through the appeal to images of the nature, contemplation of which favors communication of the personality with himself. These images allow us to see and reveal the archaic basis in the person, when, in consciousness of the person, the world around was anthropomorphous. In this sense, the idea of N. N. Moiseyev is very natural. Characterizing materials and written sources of this period of development of humanity, the scientist notes that “the subjects about the Double and the Interlocutor in them are united: while the person was not exempted from the Double, he, actually, had no Interlocutor, and spoke … with himself ” (Moiseyev, 1990). Indirectly the idea about the Double and the Interlocutor is expressed in two Latin terms — the Alter ego — the Double (“another I, the close friend, the adherent who is so close that can replace me”) or Alter pars — the Interlocutor (from Latin: the other side, an opponent). Now we shall establish ways of marking personal space of the Double and the Interlocutor in music. In music, the “I — the Me” concept is formed thanks to conversation “with myself” which is developed between the person and the object of the nature with the help of internal dialogue between various I of the person or autocommunication (V. Petrenko’s term; Petrenko, 1998). This causes change of perspectives of a narration and topos discreteness. As a rule, the natural object, to which “I” appeals, carries out two functions at once, acting as a sign of symbolical space, and as the Alter ego or Alter pars. Vocal music is extremely rich with embodiments of an image of the Alter ego. It is an image of a plane tree from the aria of Kserks in the opera of G. F. Handel, an image of a fi eld in Antonida’s cavatina from M. I. Glinka’s opera Ivan Susanin, images of a wind and the Dnepr River from Yaroslavna’s crying in the opera of A. Borodin Prince Igor, an image of night in Lisa’s aria from the opera Queen of Spades of P. I. Tchaikovsky and many other images of the nature

— 24 — Svetlana Mozgot. Personal Space in Music: the “I—the Me” and “I—You” Concepts in chamber and vocal lyrics. Often the description from the point of view of “bird’s fl ight” – hollowness, the spatiality expressed by long pauses, fermatas, intended delays of tempo on high notes, the variation of intonations of vocal phrases as an echo by different timbres of the orchestra, emphasizing that situation is closer / is farther, duplication of a vocal melody by orchestral party with inclusion of sounds imitating reality and concentration of display of an emotional condition — is peculiar to these images. Not less interesting are ways of formation of personal space of Alter pars or the Interlocutor in music. An example of creation of personal space of Alter pars is Yaroslavna’s crying. Crying is created as an internal dialogue which is built in psychological space of the person with imaginary animated images. Internal dialogue is built by a method of a projection to it of own thoughts and feelings. Images of the nature, for example, a wind and the Dnepr River are presented here in the form of the Alter ego, and an image of the Sun, as Alter pars. The appeal to the Sun is solved doubly: the address description of the Sun is made through the point of view of “bird’s fl ight” as though from a position of Super I, when terrestrial objects, shown through air layers, lose the accurate colors and contours. The live, trembling atmosphere created by a tremolo in the high register, covering range from fi rst to the third octave, speaks about air prospect. The second part of the appeal to the Sun is associated with reproaches in which the Sun is shown as Alter pars: tempo (Allegro moderato) is accelerated; there is d-moll of the same name; the whole section sounds on dominant organ point, with inclusion of whole-toned and multi-tonality elements. Thus, Alter pars of the hero acts as the certain symbol — generalization having traits in music, adjoining the other, fantastic sphere which is far from the person. This is supported by the following signs: tempo acceleration, sound expressiveness strengthening through initial register musters of variants of one intonation, beauty in a multi-toned combination of signs of d-moll, a-Phrygian, F-dur and whole-toned elements. Other example of an embodiment of space of Alter pars is an image of an old huge oak in the aria of Prince Andrey Bolkonsky from a prolog of the opera of S. S. Prokofi ev War and Peace. Here we also see the

— 25 — Svetlana Mozgot. Personal Space in Music: the “I—the Me” and “I—You” Concepts

signs peculiar to Alter pars, observed when Yaroslavna appeals to the Sun. This fragment of the aria of Prince Andrey shows a duality. It is subdivided into two sections: the fi rst is connected with the external description of the forest road and an old oak “… and on the edge of the forest road …”, and the second, with reproduction of the statement of an old oak: “The spring and love, and happiness is a silly, senseless deception. There is neither spring, nor the sun, nor happiness!” The description of forest reality defi nes change of a tonality to e-moll; emergence of enharmonic modulation from e-moll on a triton in b-moll serves as an illustration of the description of an oak “the oak which has grown with old sores, with clumsy hands and fi ngers …”. Second section of the aria includes “the statement” of an oak. The oak as a symbol in mythology is associated with the World tree binding the world of people and the world of Gods, a life Tree and a family Symbol. The last association is especially important for understanding the value of this image for Andrey Bolkonsky. In Andrey Bolkonsky’s symbolical space the image of an oak can be connected with the image of his father, who was an isolated and severe man latently prevailing over him. This is seen from emergence of the b-moll tonality characterizing an image of an oak in the words “It seemed to me that life is over” in the section, devoted to an image of Natasha Meno mosso “There is something special in her”. Emergence of triplets of the sixteenth in accompaniment in the words “No, life is not over in thirty one” also can be connected with overcoming infl uence of Alter pars, symbolizing his father and embodied in the oak image. Generalizing these observations, it becomes obvious that musical characteristics of Alter pars are a little peculiar to the Interlocutor. The whole-toned and multi-tonality combinations and changes, courses on the increased intervals are more inherent in the fantasy sphere, which has already clear issued to this time. That is, it is possible to reveal evolution of refl ection of personal space of the Double in a concept of “I — the Me” developing from initial idealization and identifi cation of “I” with images of the nature before emergence of an image of Alter pars refl ecting negative qualities, from which “I” “tries” to be fenced off, or with other images prevailing over the hero.

— 26 — Svetlana Mozgot. Personal Space in Music: the “I—the Me” and “I—You” Concepts

Nevertheless, the question by what means the personal space of the Interlocutor is marked in music, remains open. In search for the answer we addressed to the “I — You” concept analysis in the contents of vocal works. There is a set of the semantic poles showing various distances, separating “I” and “You” in the relations of people with each other. Having analyzed more than 60 romances and songs of F. Schubert, R. Schuman, I. Brams, N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov, S. V. Rakhmaninov, P. I. Tchaikovsky and E. Denisov it has been revealed that in music there is a set of forms of addresses to “You”: love recognition, gentle address, support expression, appeal, appeal entreaty, dedication, hello, message, narration, offense statement, warning, order / command and a call. We have established that in the chamber and vocal works intended for mono performance of “I — You” relationship, the personal space of the Interlocutor is modeled thanks to intonation logic. Four main ways were revealed: 1. The form of the address (the serenade, an appeal, hello) having analog in real life and being expressed in music in the form of intonations — genre generalizations or intonations — genre mixtures; 2. The intonation portraiture creating distinctive features of the character, thanks to reproduction of features of speech, nature of movements, etc. 3. The use of intonation formulas, rhetorical fi gures and spatial value of intervals; 4. The dynamics, specifi c tonal logic and sound imitation of reality. The fi rst technique (use of intonations — genre generalizations) is most visually shown in M. Musorgsky’s cycle Songs and Dances of Death. In it genre intonations — a lullaby, serenade, a trepak and march — concretize personal space of “You”— an Interlocutor of Death. Interaction of genre intonations with the intonations representing images of different people brings a set of additional meanings in development. These additional meanings are born as well from immanent interaction between a genre template and the individual solution of a genre by the composer. So, the fi rst number “Lullaby” is constructed by using Death identifi cation with an archetype of Mother that is made by means of a reintoning by it the chaotic intonations of Mother. Lamentations and

— 27 — Svetlana Mozgot. Personal Space in Music: the “I—the Me” and “I—You” Concepts

confused recitation speech of mother with chromatic changed intervals performed by Death accept the aestheticized form. Intonations of Death here “are cleared” of the decreased and increased intervals, her speech is diatonic, except for a refrain “Bayushki, bayu, bayu!”. Here the third rocking habitual for a lullaby is replaced by the “empty” fi fth with fi nal “octave failure” in “nowhere”. Thanks to a triplet rhythm in a refrain the genre is identifi ed at once, but change of spatial sense of an interval from a habitual “harmoniously” full and “warm” third to an empty fi fth, guards, causing mistrust to an image of the Interlocutor. In “Serenade”, M. Musorgsky unites two techniques in the characteristic of the Interlocutor. Intonation portraiture of Death is carried out thanks to intonations — genre mixtures. The address of the unknown knight is far beyond the serenade framework. In a monologue — appeal, intonations of imperative march are traced. The relentless gait of the hidden 2/4 size which is approved by the note “… tempo alla breve” is audible behind circular, serpentine movements of a melody of a seducing. This imperative force contradicts the verbal “I will release”. The ideal image of the “unknown and wonderful” savior knight is turned into the horror hidden under hypnotic infl uence. The circle of couplets — at fi rst dedication, then recognition and a call, shows relentless reduction of invisible distance between the girl and the knight who has come to take her. The circular logic is traced also in intonation development, in continuous return to the fi fth tone of a tonic triad emphasizing internal emptiness and a statics of a fi fth. The space is closed by ascending octave exclamation: “You are mine!” Contradiction between the text and music point to infernal Nothing which is concealing behind a mask of the Knight. This is confi rmed by spatial semantics of an interval of a fi fth. “Trepak” approves absolute power of a leading image by the Macabra dance. The personal space of Death is marked again thanks to genre generalization in intonation. The personal space is built, as in the previous numbers, following logic of comparison of the real and ideal worlds. The real world is shown through events, shaking out the soul from the little man during life, and ideal, through dance of the priestess performing the ritual dance round the victim. Again the use of the fi fth

— 28 — Svetlana Mozgot. Personal Space in Music: the “I—the Me” and “I—You” Concepts tone of a d-moll triad in circular returns to it becomes a basis of melodic development of a trepak. The circular logic is maintained also in trepak variations which are displayed in temporary formation from winter, through spring to summer, and the ritual archetypical sense of dance of Death — the victim to fertility — is highlighted in a sweet dream. In “Commander” the image of Death gains objective lines, turning into the uncontrollable elements imitating sounds of battle. However, in the middle part of the monologue of Death addressed to participants of fi ght an image of Death is personifi ed, again thanks to genre mixture of intonations of speech — oratorical declaration and a march. The point of view of the observer, spatial position “from bird’s fl ight” from which this monologue is conducted, a combination of speech intonations and improvisational logic of development with a march rhythm allow us to perceive for an instant an image as the humanized Fatum. Thus, contrast between a genre template and the individual intonation solution of an image of the Interlocutor in each part of a cycle allowed establishment of means of marking it in music. This is preservation of intonation of a fi fth under any genre “cover” and its gradual saturation by certain sense of empty, infernal Nothing. It can appear as extending, increasing, decreasing, suddenly turned, hidden or as a fi fth tone of a triad, but it is present at all musical “statements” of the image of Death, being highlighted through logic of circular rotation. In reconstructing the personal space in chamber vocal works one more feature of this model was found. This is the presence of the third invisible participant, when one of the heroes acts in double function: he is a hero of a modeled situation of communication, who can be the observer storyteller, or the commentator of the events with the fi xed spatial characteristics of each of positions. The point of view of “bird’s fl ight”, which is characterized by more distant position, is peculiar to a position of the observer storyteller. It is expressed in prevalence of the solo statement over accompaniment which plays either a background role and leans on the general forms of movements, or rests on accord and choral complexes with inclusion of sounds imitating reality. The position of the commentator is measured by “closer” parameter in relation to object of the description and for it the detailed characteristic

— 29 — Svetlana Mozgot. Personal Space in Music: the “I—the Me” and “I—You” Concepts is peculiar, that is the material is given largely, boldly, in the forefront, in the dynamics f, in the “speech” register range of the small-fi rst octaves and with elements of genre or portrait specifi cation. As a result, embodiment of “I –You” concept does not always mean live dialogue and often includes a position of “the third invisible participant”. The personal space of the Interlocutor is formed thanks to change of positions of the description. Those are a position of the observer storyteller, the commentator and the hero. In the cycle Songs and Dances of Death of M. Musorgsky change of positions of the description allowed us to reveal archetypical and, in certain cases, the ritual models of human behavior hidden in the sphere of the collective unconscious.

REFERENCES 1. Golubeva, E. A. 2005. Abilities. Personality. Identity. Phoenix +, 682. 2. Hall, E. 2002. The History of Intercultural Communication: The United States and Japan. Keio Communication Review, 24. 3. Moiseyev, N. N. 1990. The Person in the Universe and on Earth: (Concerning I. T. Frolov’s Book About the Person and Humanity). Questions of Philosophy, 6, 356– 59. 4. Mozgot, S. A. 2011. Intimate Space in Music of the 17–19th Centuries: Ways of Expression and Indications. Bull. Adyghe State University, 4 (81), 177–85. 5. Petrenko, V. F. 1998. Psychosemantics of Consciousness, 264.

— 30 — Roman Perelshtein. A Failed Saint in Archie Mayo’s The Petrifi ed Forest

Roman Perelshtein PhD, S. A. Gerasimov All-Russia State Institute of Cinematography Moscow, Russia [email protected] A FAILED SAINT IN ARCHIE MAYO’S THE PETRIFIED FOREST

Summary: Using the fi lm The Petrifi ed Forest by Archie Mayo as an example, the author formulates one of the universal themes of cinematography, called “the ideal and the reality”, and suggests a name for a movie plot that corresponds to the said theme: “the failed saints”. Keywords: ideal, reality, cinematography, movie plot, theme. The theme of The Petrifi ed Forest, a 1936 fi lm directed by Archie Mayo and adapted from a Robert Emmet Sherwood stage play of the same name, can be stated as “the ideal and the reality”, as these two principles collide in the fi lm’s plot. Whereas the ideal, as defi ned by Mikhail Bakhtin, is the world of “the highest aims of human existence” (Bakhtin 1984, 9), the reality, as described by Oswald Spengler, is the world of “soul-expression”, fi rmly connected to the “obscure courses of being” (Spengler, 2013, 120–21), which Nietzsche called “the philosophy of wild and naked nature” (Nietzsche 1923, 83). Ideal and reality complement each other. They gravitate towards the image of unity that can be found in the mutual osmosis of the Apollonian and the Dionysian motifs in the Mediterranean culture. But, at the same time, the heightened state of the soul that announces itself with such mental constructs as dreams, desires, and ideals, and the excess of life force, that blindly expends itself as one of the manifestations of reality or nature, move in the opposite directions. This is even more blatantly obvious. The Petrifi ed Forest demonstrates the helplessness of a dream in the face of reality, and the magnitude of our desire to yet again put the dream and the reality in a fi ght. The devil of disappointment has fi lled

— 31 — Roman Perelshtein. A Failed Saint in Archie Mayo’s The Petrifi ed Forest

the Arizona desert with his presence. He has grown bored with tempting the tumbleweeds and the righteous, and has taken on the regular men. All of them are relics of idealism, but each has been fooled by life in his particular way. And those who have not yet been fooled or disappointed must hurry. The writer Alan Squier is seeking a beautiful death in the desert, and he fi nds it. It comes as a bullet shot by another disappointed romantic — the famed killer Duke Mantee. Duke is not as much the “last great apostle of rugged individualism”, as yet another victim of the century, whose religion is either pragmatism or skepticism. Even Gramp Maples, the child-like old skeptic of the gas station who took the wandering writer’s words as a joke, is disappointed. The old man realizes that the writer didn’t lie when Alan Squier demands of the devil that their contract be fulfi lled. And thus the devil guides Duke’s murderous hand that offhandedly and unenthusiastically squeezes the trigger. The devil, perhaps, is already regretting having appeared at the old gas station, for it is now people themselves that tempt him, one after another, testing the resilience of their destinies. Bose, the football jock in love with Gabrielle, challenges the gangsters but suffers a fi asco. Because of Duke’s unsteady hand, Bose gets away with only a light wound. As he is not yet ready to die, the devil tosses him off the chess board, not so much as a “captured” piece, but as a skittish one, unable to follow the strict ritual of the game. Mrs. Chisholm is disappointed with her husband and her life. Mr. Chisholm is, too, disappointed. Gangsters refused to play by the rules: they are not so much cold-blooded killers or angels of death, as they are undiscriminating vultures, complete with street riffraff habits. The owner of the gas station, who hasn’t fi nished playing a hero, is shamed in front of his companions, clients, and family. His dressed up troop is disarmed and morally destroyed. And yet the devil of disappointment is, too, disappointed. It is with too much ease that these stray souls wander into his hands. They occupy fairly respectable shells and they are armed with ideals, even though they never fi nd any use for them. Gabrielle is the one around whom the trouble brews. This girl who spends her time reading François Villon is destined to escape from the Arizona desert and perhaps even win over Paris. Gabrielle has an artistic talent, and it would be a sin to bury it. Even the devil of the desert is

— 32 — Roman Perelshtein. A Failed Saint in Archie Mayo’s The Petrifi ed Forest

helpless here: the girl is out of his league. She has not yet matured enough for skepticism. She has not yet learned those special mental arguments that paralyze the will and make one take on heroic acts, to sweeten one’s demise with fi reworks. That is precisely what the wandering writer, Alan Squier, accomplishes. He turns his death into a work of art, into a masterpiece that will outlive him. And perhaps art will rid Gabrielle of the smell of gasoline and hamburgers, but the devil of disappointment will come visiting from the desert again and again. He will appear with a smirk of a gangster and stay silent all night, or remind Gabrielle of his existence with the exalted chatter of a passerby intellectual. But we remember that Gabrielle’s future was bought for a high price. She’s the hope of the nation of pragmatists and skeptics, as the playwright Robert Emmet Sherwood saw America in the days of his youth. And yet the devil is uneasy paying his visit to the gas station lost in the sands. Love hasn’t yet run out of the human hearts. Love pushes them towards self-sacrifi ce: a compulsory one in the case of Duke Mantee, who is awaiting his girlfriend, and an inexplicable one in case of Alan, who signs off his life insurance to Gabrielle and trusts her to live life in his stead. The strange fl ame of love, fanned by the desert wind, feverishly lights up the entire universe, which, though the size of a gas station, still remains a universe. Idealists, to use the language of the Bible, are rarely “sons of the bondage of the law”. They abhor a system of moral statutes; indeed, they reject a measured, fulfi lled life. They are outcasts, derelicts, hunted by the nation, and it is unimportant who they are — rudderless intellectuals or wandering ruffi ans. Idealists, should they remain faithful to their great dream until the end, like prophets and righteous men, are destined to be the “sons of Grace.” But heroes of The Petrifi ed Forest are not prepared for that level of openness. They haven’t become transparent enough to let through the light that comes from beyond. The heat of the desert, which burns everything that’s alive even in the most tender of souls, has clouded their hearts. The world literature offers us a plethora of models created in the image of the ideal. Leading this procession is El caballero de la triste fi gura, Don Quixote of La Mancha. Spanish writer and philosopher

— 33 — Roman Perelshtein. A Failed Saint in Archie Mayo’s The Petrifi ed Forest

Miguel de Unamuno refused to believe that “Don Quixote is a fantastical or fi ctitious entity, as if it is feasible for the human imagination to give birth to such a stupendous fi gure.”(Unamuno 2005) The light that comes from beyond was carried through Miguel De Cervantes Saavedra, and to an even greater extent, this heavenly light was carried by his timeless hero. In The Petrifi ed Forest, the writer Alan Squier, like all Don Quixotes, sets off on his path with empty pockets. He could pay for his stay at the inn or his meal at the gas station restaurant with the heightened state of his soul, but minting such a coin is not an easy task. It requires having a vivid imagination and good manners. The lover of poetry, Gabrielle, accepts this form of payment, but her admirer, with the ambitious air of a maître d’affaire, protests. “He then asked Don Quixote, whether he had any money? ‘Not a cross,’ replied the Knight, ‘for I never read in any history of chivalry that any knight-errant ever carried money about him,’ ” (Cervantes 1993, 9) this quote from Cervantes perfectly matches the image of the write in The Petrifi ed Forest. Nonetheless, let us not rush to conclusions. There is something that prevents me from seeing Alan Squier as the new Don Quixote. Alan undoubtedly sacrifi ces himself, but the demon of narcissism, one of the most insidious spirits of the desert, continues to torment him. Alan is an uncompromising aesthete and, perhaps, that is precisely what destroys his soul. Alan is a lofty idealist, a failed saint. The movie plot based on the contradiction between the desired and the mundane could be called “the failed saints” and the topic corresponding to it may be named “the ideal and the reality”.

REFERENCES 1. Bakhtin, M. M. 1984. Rabelais and His World. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 2. Cervantes, S., M. 1993. Don Quixote. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited. 3. Nietzsche, F. W. 1923. The Birth of Tragedy, or Hellenism and Pessimism. New York: McMillan. 4. Spengler, O. 2013. The Decline of the West. Vol. 2 of Perspectives of World History. Windham Press. 5. Unamuno, M. 2005. Vida de don Quijote y Sancho, según Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, explicada y comentada. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. — 34 — Julia Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. VKhUTEMAS period

Julia Smolenkova PhD, Associate Professor The Stroganov Moscow State Art Industrial Academy Moscow, Russia [email protected]

STROGANOV SCHOOL OF SCULPTURE. VKHUTEMAS PERIOD. VKHUTEMAS: SCULPTING METHODOLOGIES AND PROGRAMS

Summary: The methods, principles and concepts of shaping in teaching in the VKhUTEMAS Sculpture faculty and the modern Stroganov Moscow State University of Arts and Industry are being compared and looked upon in the following article. Keywords: VKhUTEMAS, Sculpture, the Stroganov Art School history VKhUTEMAS1 is one of the vivid pages in the Stroganov Art School history which coincides with dynamic and hard times of the Russian history and culture. This was a period when some cultural institutes were reorganized and new educational structures were created. VKhUTEMAS (1920–1926) was created by means of merging the Stroganov Arts and Industry School (renamed as the First State Free Art Shops two years before) and the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture (the Second State Free Art Shops). This union had highly enriched the educational art process, though obviously the academic traditions and the realistic refl ection of the world, stankovism2 and genre views in sculpture, brought by the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture, hadn’t become determinant in VKhUTEMAS programs. The base for their creative, artistic and pedagogical methods was the Stroganov School of Sculpture. Nowadays the unique VKhUTEMAS school process is being copied to a greater or lesser extent by many higher art teaching educational institutions in their programs.

— 35 — Julia Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. VKhUTEMAS period

Of course, educational methods and built up on their base tasks couldn’t be formed and developed in such a short period of VKhUTEMAS existence. The foundation for them was formed by the concepts of shaping that included an obligatory synthesis with architecture as well as a number of specifi c principles which were all worked through by the leading Stroganov school pedagogues as far back as the fi rst decades of the 20th century. The sculpture department is now situated in the former Stroganov school workshops that were specially built for sculpture school students. Moscow Architectural Institute is situated in the former Stroganov school building while the art gallery “VKhUTEMAS” is located in the rooms with wide windows and unique columns there were previously used as rooms for sculpture studies. A refusal of academism in art and a determinative parting with stankovism are one of the main distinctive features of the Stroganov School of Sculpture — VKhUTEMAS. A concept of art synthesis that enveloped the artistic space of the twentieth couldn’t but refl ect on the use of VKhUTEMAS educational programmes. Besides their main disciplines students of the sculpture department studied the foundations of architecture, art composition and anatomy in the framework of the theory of art. The series of lectures on maths and physics involved descriptive geometry, perspective, and colour studies. Besides sculpture, drawing and composition the list of disciplines of the sculpture faculty included size, space and painting. Science of materials and technological processes of hard materials, casting, moulding and coining were part of an artistic practice. VKhUTEMAS students studied from the leading artists of their time, many of whom studied and exhibited in Europe. Professors of architecture such as I. Golosov, A. Vesnin, M. Ginsbourgh and N. Ladovskiy were among the leaders of constructivism; C. Melnikov, A. Rodchenko became world-famous for the presentation of their “Mahorka” pavilion in the Paris Exhibition of 1925; I. Chaikov who taught sculpture and studied in the Paris School of Decorative Arts; V. Mukhina who worked on probation in Burdel’s workshop in Paris; V. Baranov-Rossini with M. Larionov, N. Goncharova, A. Ekster participated in the fi rst exhibitions of Russian avant-garde, travelled

— 36 — Julia Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. VKhUTEMAS period

around Europe, took active part in artistic life of the French avant-garde. B. Korolev was one of the organizers of the Moscow Professional Union of Sculptors and Artists, the head of the Sculptural and Architectural Synthesis Committee attached to the Ministry of Education. All teachers were in active search of new creative ways by means of practice. They had seen and learnt a lot in Europe. So after returning to their homeland and taking the best, modern and relevant, they started building a new form of art on these principles. Perception of sculpture as an architectonic object devoid of stankovism narrative, with its own laws of correlation of bearing elements and elements that are being held and with a domination of simple laconic forms, became a distinctive feature of an art conception. This idea was made as a basis for their teaching methodology. Assignments that were formed on the principle of complication were began with experiments on modeling simple three-dimensional structures, where the emphasis was placed on an interaction between dimensions, the rhythms of the big and small parts of the work. A new perception of sculpture was pierced with a notion of an extension of space, main vertical and horizontal axes, a notion of surface, form and composition of shapes. These partly formal features of creating an image and form are observed in many students’ works that were saved in some photo archives. We can point out almost a whole identity of assignments and methodological programmes at the Department of Monumental and Decorative Sculpture in Stroganov Arts and Industry Academy. The assignment for the subject “Space”, which was lectured in VKhUTEMAS by architect V. Krinskiy is still taught. Some photos from the museum “VKhUTEMAS” archive are still left where separate works were pictured, for example, student I. Petrov’s work Exposure and Expression of Mass and Weight 3. A series of illustrations for the methodology of this program are presented by D. Melodinskiy in a monograph dedicated to V. Krinskiy (Melodinskiy 1998, 71–5). This program was taught by R. Iodko, a tutor and a graduate of Stroganov University, and afterwards by A. Burganov on the revived in 1945 department of Architectural and Decorative Sculpture in the Stroganov Moscow State University of Arts and Industry. Students recollect that I. Iodko often stressed that

— 37 — Julia Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. VKhUTEMAS period

the subject, taught in VKhUTEMAS, was an important stage in forming a monumental, abstracted from narrative, compositional thinking. One had to choose not more than three geometrical forms, e.g. cube, sphere, parallelepiped, cylinder, etc., that were by contrast with each other. A static and dynamic but balanced and intensifying the original concept composition had to be created. The ideas of a new understanding of relief were taught consistently and parallel in a context of different subjects (“Space”, “Sculpture”). This strengthened the single conception of school in the methodology of form-building. One can see this particular interpretation of the relief, partly abstracted from realistic shapes and forms, on photographs of the works of VKhUTEMAS students (e.g. “Krasnoarmeytsy”) and while observing any course of the MDS faculty (e.g., “Soldiers”, “Warriors”). In this way, with great emphasis on the surface of plans, the Stronganovsky style relief is taught to this very day, without any deviations from tradition. Strikingly similar are the assignments for academic studies. A relief of the 90’s taken from the methodical fund of the faculty, depicting a model sitting back to the artist, looks extremely similar in both form and plasticity to the relief of E. Kovarskaya, created around 1923–1924 (see photos from the Moscow Architectural Institute archive). The same can be said about the work method of the clothed fi gure. This task of the fourth course has the methodical justifi cation identical for all periods of the Stroganov school, including the VKhUTEMAS period. The fi gure was originally sculpted nude, so one could clearly the fi gure, and only after this was ‘dressed’. This helped to avoid false impressionism in the form of the sculpture, when the plasticity and energy of the shapes and volumes was levelled by the surface modelling of the folds. The undergraduate courses always consisted of sculpting fi gures that were life-sized, or even larger. The advanced task was creating a double fi gure composition, the luminaries of which had been recognised well- known sculptors I. Chaikov, who for a while was the head of sculpting in VKhUTEMAS , and V. Mukhina. Their development in this area of the Stroganov school is still relevant in today’s educational process. The task of creating this double fi gure composition was not an easy

— 38 — Julia Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. VKhUTEMAS period

Fig. 1. Carcass of diploma sculpture A Head of a Worker. V. Kudryashov. 1927

— 39 — Julia Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. VKhUTEMAS period

one — one needed to balance the volumes, plan out the inner space in the composition, create expressive silhouettes, to be seen from many different points of view. The rhythms and sizes of empty space are just as important as the volumes which they are in. Both the VKhUTEMAS and current curriculums feature the double fi gure composition as a part of several teaching assignments in the disciplines of “Composition”, “Relief” and “Academic Study”. The similarity of VKhUTEMAS sculptural programs and the restored in 1945 faculty of Monumental and Decorative Sculpture can be seen through a photo from the archive of E. Kovarskaya4, who studied at the Stroganov school on the sculptural-product division, and between 1922 and 1927 studied at the sculpture faculty of VKhUTEMAS where, after defending her thesis “Towards Socialism!” (Supervisor I. Chaikov), gained the title of “Sculptor-Monumentalist” and was recommended to continue to graduate school. In Kovarskaya’s archive, records of the Knowledge Committee of the Sculptural Faculty6 were preserved. The tasks for the diplomas are worth looking at. Topics were usually not chosen by the graduate but were selected at a special meeting of the faculty. It is worth noting that the basis of all tasks had certain architectural situations. To this day this tradition has been preserved by the Stroganov faculty of monumental and decorative sculpture. Almost all the same subjects that are now taught in Stroganov department of Sculpture can be recognised on some saved photos on which a school process and completion of tasks are pictured. The tasks include: incision, animalistic sculpture, portraits, task “Fountain”, “Horse Monument”, “A Monument to a Prominent Figure”, non-spatial reliefs which are a distinctive feature of Stroganov Sculpture School, one fi gure and double fi gure posing, a posing of a nude and dressed fi gure in the same movement; theoretical courses coincide as well, such as history of sculpture which was taught at the VKhUTEMAS Sculpture Department. An inclination of forms towards simplicity, as well as work with mass and forms, but not with the surface, can be seen in every student’s sculpture work. Graduate work A Head of a Worker by V. Kudryashov in 1927 attracts one’s attention among the photos of the VKhUTEMAS period from

— 40 — Julia Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. VKhUTEMAS period

Fig. 2. Diploma sculpture A Head of a Worker. V. Kudryashov. 1927

— 41 — Julia Smolenkova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. VKhUTEMAS period the archives of Moscow Architectural Institute. The work strikes by its largeness — six times normal size. A photo of the framework — an intermediate stage of work, is left. The photo was taken before the surface veneered and this makes the work a prominent independent and complete piece of art. A creative laboratory of the Stroganov School Sculpture Department of the VKhUTEMAS period is clearly seen in the modelling of the giant head riven on accurate surfaces. This laboratory is then reduced to perfection by V. Mukhina in her famous sculpture Worker and Kolkhoz Woman. These generalised cubic forms are characteristics of modern Stroganov School and are revealed in the drawing, composition and sculpture principles.

ENDNOTES 1. Russian: ВХУТЕМАС, acronym for Высшие художественно-технические мастерские Vysshiye Khudozhestvenno-Tekhnicheskiye Masterskiye (Higher Art and Technical Studios. 2. Stankovizm sculpture — sculpture for offi ce and personal space. 3. From VKhUTEMAS to Marchi. 1920–1936 (p. 95). (Moscow, 2005). 4. Marchi museum, H. Kovarskaya archive. 5. Many of the documents and photos were presented at the “VKhUTEMAS Sculpture” exhibition which was presented by the VKhUTEMAS gallery (Marchi museum) in Dec. 2009 — Jan 2010. I’m grateful to the Marchi president, vice-president and academic secretary of the Fine Arts department and Art critique department at the Russian Academy of Arts, full-member of the British Academy, full-member of the Russian Academy of Architecture and Building Sciences, honorary member of the antiquities society, Doctor of Fine Arts, professor of the Sorbonne — D. Shvidkovskiy and president of the MAchI museum L. Ivanova-Vien for the help in the work with the archives.

REFERENCES 1. Adaskina, N. 1979. Propaedeutic course of VKhUTEMAS 1920–1926. Vol. 1. 2. Khan-Magomedov, S. О. 1995. The development of the N. Ladovsky’s psychoanalytic method on the VKhUTEMAS-VHUTEIN Main Department. 3. Khan-Magomedov S. О. 2000. VKhUTEMAS. 4. Khan-Magomedov S. О. 2001. Soviet avant-garde architecture. Vols 1, 2. 5. Melodinskiy, D. 1998. Vladimir Feodorovich Krinskiy. Moscow. 6. Smolenkova, J. 2010. VKhUTEMAS’ Sculpture Department. Burganov House. The space of culture, 3. 7. Zhadova, L. 1970. VKhUTEMAS — VKHUTEIN. Pages of History USSR Decorative Arts, 11.

— 42 — Rusina Shikhatova. Stroganov School of Sculpture. VKhUTEMAS period

Fig. 3. Towards Socialism. Diploma sculpture by E. Kovarskaya

— 43 — Rusina Shikhatova. Des bibliothèques de Strasbourg : la contribution russe

Rusina Shikhatova Diplômée de la faculté d’histoire de l’Université Dostoïevski d’Omsk, actuellement doctorante à l’Université de Strasbourg, Ecole Doctorale des Humanités, Strasbourg, France [email protected] DES BIBLIOTHÈQUES DE STRASBOURG : LA CONTRIBUTION RUSSE1

Summary: This thesis is focused on the history of Strasbourg Russian language library stock. The article is the fi rst publication on Russian-language stock in libraries of Strasbourg and provides an introduction to the problems of the study. Keywords: russian librairies, France, emigration. Depuis la chute de l’URSS, le sujet des fonds russes des bibliothèques étrangères a été traité par de nombreux chercheurs. Les recherches américaines y sont les plus connues, notamment celles de Patricia Kennedy sur la bibliothèque Tourguenev à Paris et de Harold M. Leich sur le fonds russe de la bibliothèque du Congrès des Etats-Unis. En France, des sujets connexes sont explorés par les chercheurs de CNRS et d’ENSSIB de Lyon. Mais Strasbourg, n’étant pas parmi les plus grands centres d’immigration russe, représente un cas particulier pour la recherche car l’existence des fonds russes dans ses bibliothèques n’est connue de nos jours qu’au nombre de personnes restreint. Ainsi est apparue l’idée d’une recherche visant à retracer l’histoire de ces fonds et à créer par la suite un catalogue spécialisé des ouvrages imprimés en russe présents à Strasbourg. Néanmoins, nous n’allons pas pouvoir décrire toute la pluralité des ouvrages présents, mais nous allons essayer de nous limiter des acquisitions faites entre 1780 et 1980. Le choix de cette période est justifi é par l’histoire des bibliothèques strasbourgeoises elles-mêmes, telles sont la Bibliothèques Nationale Universitaire et la Médiathèque André Malraux. Nous n’excluons toutefois pas des incursions vers la période antérieure.

— 44 — Rusina Shikhatova. Des bibliothèques de Strasbourg : la contribution russe

La ville de Strasbourg est connue pour son intérêt envers les livres et l’imprimerie. Selon les sources historiques, la première collection de livres, apparue en 1340 au monastère de la Chartreuse, ne contenait que d’ouvrages religieux2. Cette collection était pour sa plupart constituée d’œuvres manuscrites fabriquées dans le monastère même où les moines passaient leurs journées de repos en faisant des copies de livres utiles3. En ce qui concerne des premières collections privées, elles aussi ont été infl uencées par l’église et ne contenaient que des livres de liturgie et de droit4. Quant aux ouvrages laïques, leurs collections apparaissent seulement l’invention de l’imprimerie : les gens s’intéressaient au vaste monde que révélaient les voyages de découvertes5. Depuis ses origines, Strasbourg, ayant été une ville germanique, française, allemande et alsacienne, a pu connaître toute une complexité des processus historiques. C’est aussi une des plus grandes diffi cultés de la recherche car tous ces processus ont trouvé leur refl et dans la formation des fonds en langues étrangères, notamment en russe. Quant à l’apparition des premiers livres russes à Strasbourg, il n’est pas facile de donner une réponse défi nitive. Nous avons essayé d’étudier le complexe des processus historiques qui auraient pu favoriser la venue et l’accroissement de la présence russe dans la région : des médecins, des étudiants, des immigrés mais aussi des voyageurs. Pour mener à bien ce travail, des recherches ont été effectuées autour des fonds en question. Tout d’abord, des recherches ont été réalisées à partir des ressources des bibliothèques. Par la suite, afi n d’approfondir ce travail, des consultations des documents aux Archives Municipales de Strasbourg ainsi que des rencontres de professionnels, ont permis d’acquérir de plus amples renseignements et de soulever des questions connexes. Aujourd’hui, des livres en langue russe présents à Strasbourg sont repartis entre les trois fonds importants : la Bibliothèque Nationale Universitaire, la Bibliothèque Slave de l’Université et la Médiathèque André Malraux.

— 45 — Rusina Shikhatova. Des bibliothèques de Strasbourg : la contribution russe

Livres russes : contexte historique

Après une étude des sources historiques, nous avons des raisons d’estimer que des évènements historiques majeurs ayant pu favoriser l’acquisition des fonds en langue russe ont eu lieu dans des années 1870-1880. La nuit du 23 au 24 août 1870, une grande partie des collections de la bibliothèque strasbourgeoise a été réduite en cendres. La bibliothèque publique, établie dans le chœur de l’édifi ce [de la cathédrale], devint aussi la proie des fl ammes et toutes les richesses accumulées dans ce sanctuaire d’étude et la prière, furent anéanties en cette nuit de lamentable souvenir6. Dès 31 août 1870, le recteur de l’Académie de Strasbourg, Zeller, évoquait la possibilité de recréation. Il envisageait à cette fi n de solliciter les réserves de livres des ministères français, les doubles des bibliothèques publiques, les spécimens des écrivains et éditeurs. Au 12 novembre 1870, 72 collectionneurs de 48 points du globe s’étaient déjà manifestés. 160 comités scientifi ques, les gouvernements de la plupart des Etats d’Allemagne, nombre d’universités et d’académies se dirent prêts à participer au mouvement par l’envoi de leurs publications. Entre 1871 et 1872, d’après une estimation de 1971, 1632 donateurs, originaires de 32 pays différents, ont envoyé 17376 volumes au total7. Entre 1871 et 1912, le don de la Russie et des pays Nordiques compte environ 400 ouvrages. Ce sont des envois de Dorpat8 (surtout botanique et zoologie), Moscou (médecine, histoire naturelle, écoles d’ingénieurs), Tifl is (astronomie), Finlande9 (botanique et géologie) et Caucase, essentiellement10. Ainsi, Strasbourg reçoit de nombreux titres relatifs à la slavistique, et, suite à la reconstruction lancée, c’est deux nouvelles bibliothèques qui apparaissent. La nouvelle bibliothèque de Strasbourg a été inaugurée le 9 août 1871. Installée au Château des Rohan, elle bénéfi ciait de l’appui sans réserve du gouverneur général Bismarck-Bohlen, du Commissaire civil von Kühlwetter et par la suite de celui de von Mohler et von Sybel, professeurs à l’Université. Le maire Kuss pousse à donner un caractère universitaire à un nouvel établissement. La Bibliothèque sera donc universitaire de type allemand et régional11.

— 46 — Rusina Shikhatova. Des bibliothèques de Strasbourg : la contribution russe

Au même moment, la ville de Strasbourg commence à développer une idée de la bibliothèque publique : en 1872, la Bibliothèque Municipale est créée. L’idée a été lancée par un comité groupant entre autres le maire Lauth et Rodolphe Reuss. Ce comité adresse un appel au monde et bientôt 550 donateurs se sont manifestés. L’opposition allemande qui s’était manifestée au début prit fi n lorsqu’on fut arrivé à un accord portant sur le but de chaque institution et la nécessité de ne pas égarer les donateurs. Cette bibliothèque se spécialisera dans les alsatiques et la littérature et deviendra ainsi un utile complément de l’Universitaire12. Entre 1871 et 1897, elle recevra le fonds Schnitzler ou Collectio Rossiaca. Selon la fi che descriptive de ce fonds, il est spécialisé sur l’histoire et la géographie de la Russie et de la Pologne jusqu’en 1917 environ13. D’autres ouvrages ont complété ce fonds, postérieurs à Schnitzler, et, de nos jours, on y dénombre 113 ouvrages en langues russe et polonaise14. Durant la période allemande, entre 1870 et 1918, la ville de Strasbourg connaît une affl uence particulière d’étudiants russes. Dès son ouverture le 1er mai 1872, la nouvelle Université a pour ambition d’acquérir une envergure internationale et d’étendre son recrutement bien au-delà des frontières du Reich wilhelmien. Pendant les deux premières décennies de son fonctionnement, la proportion des étudiants étrangers oscille entre 5 et 10 % des inscrits15. L’abondance des russes y est telle que les contemporains parlent d’une ville russe en miniature: « À l’autre extrémité du Reich, à Strasbourg, la colonie est une sorte de ghetto, un Minsk ou Gomel en miniature qui satisfait presque les besoins de sociabilité de ses membres ; ceux-ci apprennent à peine l’allemand, ne se familiarisent pas avec la vie culturelle du pays, ne fréquentent pas les Allemands qui le leur rendent bien, choqués de ce que les Russes ignorent les différences de classe, parce que, selon eux, un pauvre n’a pas à faire des études »16. Une telle affl uence étudiante a été fortement provoquée par une loi russe limitant l’accès des jeunes à’ l’enseignement supérieur17. Ainsi, des livres russes apparus à Strasbourg grâce aux étudiants se portaient essentiellement sur les études de médecine et des langues : allemande et française.

— 47 — Rusina Shikhatova. Des bibliothèques de Strasbourg : la contribution russe

Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire

Parmi les sources propre de la bibliothèque, nous avons pu explorer le cahier des registres, le catalogue systématique ancien et les archives internes. Le catalogue systématique, notamment, présente des lacunes dans le domaine de la philologie et des littératures slaves. Un seul tiroir a été conservé sur ces disciplines. Il comprend les rubriques « Grammaires », « Dictionnaires » et « Histoire littéraire ». Pour le domaine des langues et de la linguistique slaves, nous disposons de chiffres plus précis : 426 titres au total. Il s’agit pour la plupart, d’éditions du XIXe siècle (317 titres), les documents publiés de 1900 à 1918 arrivant en deuxième position (72 titres). Toutes les langues slaves sont traitées au sein de ce fonds. En ce qui concerne les langues de publication, un peu plus de la moitié des titres sont en allemand, 30% environ de ceux- ci ayant été édités en Autriche-Hongrie. Les publications en langues slaves (toutes langues confondues) représentent 125 titres. Parmi les textes en langues slaves, le russe occupe la première place (33 titres). Les travaux des codifi cateurs des langues slaves modernes sont représentés par plusieurs titres comme Rossijskaja grammatika de Mikhaïl Lomonosov (Saint-Pétersbourg, 1755). Parmi les 110 titres des dictionnaires slaves, on peut citer Slovar’ Akademii Rossijskoj (Saint-Pétersbourg, 1805-1822). Parmi des méthodes de langue russe, on peut distinquer Der Russische Sprachmeister de Carl von Lange (Königsberg, 1810), qui, sous un forme du livre de conversation allemand-russe, présente des récits de la vie quotidienne d’un noble russe du début du XIXè siècle. Le domaine de l’histoire littéraire comporte 147 titres, dont 41 sont les publications en langues slaves. Si l’on examine plus particulièrement le cas de la littérature russe, on peut noter, pour la période 1730-1825, qui correspond aux débuts de la littérature russe moderne, la présence de textes de Mihail Lomonosov (9 titres), Gavriil Deržavin (2 titres), Catherine II (10 titres), Nikolaj Karamzin (9 titres) ou encore Ivan Krylov (3 titres). A signaler, également, le périodique Russische Bibliothek, zur Kenntniss des gegenwärtigen Zustandes der Literatur in Russland (Bibliothèque russe,

— 48 — Rusina Shikhatova. Des bibliothèques de Strasbourg : la contribution russe l’état actuel de la littérature en Russie) publié par H. L. C. Bacmeister (Saint-Pétersbourg, Riga et Leipzig ), dont la BNU possède les volumes 1 (1772) à 11 (1787) . Pour la période 1825-1917, il convient tout d’abord de citer les écrivains ayant joué un rôle fondateur pour la littérature russe : Aleksandr Puškin (11 titres, dont une édition russe en 7 volumes des œuvres, parue à Moscou en 1882), Mikhaïl Lermontov (7 titres) et Nikolaj Gogol’ (5 titres). D’Aleksandr Gercen (Herzen), on dénombre 12 titres, dont une édition des œuvres en 10 volumes (Genève ; Lyon, chez H. Georg, 1875- 1879). Les grands noms du roman russe sont représentés par Lev Tolstoj (93 titres), F. Dostoevskij (16 titres), Ivan Turgenev (12 titres). De Lev Tolstoj, il convient de signaler une édition en russe de Résurrection (Voskresenie), parue à Berlin (izd. Stura, 1901) et dont la couverture annonce qu’elle comporte tous les passages censurés en Russie. Une autre source importante est un dossier sur les dons provenant de Russie (Tit XXI lit 23) qui se trouve dans les archives internes de la BNU. Les documents présents dans ce dossier sont relatifs à des dons faits dans la période allemande (1871-1912) et avec l’exclusion particulière des dons provenant de Saint-Petersbourg. Dans un cahier de correspondance, on trouve : Bibliothèque Impériale Publique St-Petersbourg, Dorpater Naturforscher Gesellschaft, Naturforscher Gellerschaft — Universitat Dorpat, Société de Géographie d’Helsinki et Ecole Impériale des ingénieurs. Il s’agit principalement de dons d’ouvrages à caractère périodique ou d’échanges de publications scientifi ques.

Médiathèque André Malraux

Le fonds patrimonial de la Médiathèque municipale André Malraux abrite aujourd’hui la collection Schnitzler connue comme Collectio Rossiaca. Jean-Henri Schnitzler, historien alsacien né en 1802 et mort en 1871, s’est passionné pour la Russie, le pays encore mal connu en Occident. Il a voyage à travers l’Empire russe pendant les règnes

— 49 — Rusina Shikhatova. Des bibliothèques de Strasbourg : la contribution russe d’Alexandre Ier, Nicolas Ier et Alexandre II. Il participait également aux sociétés scientifi ques ou littéraires de Russie, notamment à l’Académie impériale des Sciences de St-Pétersbourg, et La Société impériale de Géographie de Russie. La bibliothèque de cet homme a été léguée à la Bibliothèque Municipale de Strasbourg en 1872 et constitue un fonds indépendant. Ces 2000 volumes, consacrés à la Russie et aux pays qui entrent dans la constitution de son empire, sont en langue française, allemande ou russe. Selon la fi che descriptive de ce fonds, il est spécialisé dans l’histoire et la géographie de la Russie et de la Pologne jusqu’en 1917 environ. D’autres ouvrages ont complété ce fonds, postérieurs à Schnitzler, et, de nos jours, on y dénombre 113 ouvrages en langues russe et polonaise.

Personnalités à l’origine des fonds en langue russe

L’étude des personnalités est un instrument important de la recherche. Les documents des archives, la correspondance entre les bibliothécaires et les donateurs joue ici un rôle important. Il convient de citer : Christophe-Guillaume Koch (1737-1813), recteur et bibliothécaire de l’université de Strasbourg. Karl August Barack, bibliothécaire des princes de Fürstenberg, lance un appel aux dons le 30 octobre 1870 — Entre 1871 et 1912, les dons de la Russie et des pays Nordiques comptent environ 40000 ouvrages. Jean-Henri Schnitzler (1802-1871), professeur au séminaire protestant de Strasbourg. Le fonds Schnitzler ou Collectio Rossiaca a été légué à la Bibliothèque Municipale de Strasbourg entre 1871 et 1897. Boris Unbegaun (1898-1973) est maître de conférences (1937) à l’université de Strasbourg. Pendant l’occupation, Unbegaun se réfugie à Clermont-Ferrand avec ses collègues universitaires strasbourgeois. Il enseigne après la guerre à l’université de Strasbourg, qui lui doit de posséder une des bibliothèques slavistiques les plus riches de France. Il convient également de citer les noms d’André Mazon, professeur à l’université de Strasbourg (1919-1924), et Lucien Tesnière, enseignant

— 50 — Rusina Shikhatova. Des bibliothèques de Strasbourg : la contribution russe

(à partir de 1924) de langues et littératures slaves de la faculté des lettres à l’Université de Strasbourg. L’histoire de la slavistique française croise donc le présent sujet de recherche, Unbegaun, Tesnières et Mazon étant des personnalités importantes de l’histoire. De la slavistique française. L’histoire des fonds slaves de Strasbourg est donc également partiellement une contribution à l’histoire de la slavistique, qui est un champ de recherches actuellement en plein essor.

Conclusion

Les fonds présents dans les bibliothèques strasbourgeoises de nos jours ne peuvent donner qu’une appréciation approximative des premières collections d’ouvrages en langue russe. D’une part, l’apparition de ces collections a été étroitement liée avec la présence russe, l’émigration étudiante. D’autre part, ce sont des processus historiques européens qui ont favorisé les échanges culturels. Mais aussi, c’est le développement des liens économiques et culturels avec la Russie qui avait infl uencé l’intérêt des européens envers sa langue et culture.

ENDNOTES 1. Le terme « russe » s’entend ici au sens de rossiïskiï, c’est-à-dire, sujet de l ‘Empire russe; un russophone, quelle que soit la nationalité. 2. Schmidt C., « Livres et bibliothèques à Strasbourg au Moyen-Age », Revue d’Alsace, 1877, p. 79-85. 3. Gerson, Jean. De laude scriptorium, ed. Spencer-Smith. Rouen, 1841, p. 1. 4. Schmidt C., op. cit. 5. Chrisman M., « L’Imprimerie et l’évolution de la culture laique à Strasbourg, 1480-1599 », Revue d’Alsace, 1985, p ; 77-87. 6. Liblin J., « Chronique de Sébald Buehler », Revue d’Alsace, 1872, p. 90. 7. Kudryashov D., « Le Fonds slave de la Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg », L’Alsace et la Russie, Revue russe, no 35, 2011, p. 153-160. 8. Le nom actuel de la ville est Tartu (Estonie). 9. Selon le traité de Fredrikshamm de 1809 entre la Russie et la Suède, et jusqu’à sa déclaration d’indépendance de décembre 1917, la Finlande a fait partie de l’Empire Russe sous le nom du Grand-Duché de Finlande.

— 51 — Rusina Shikhatova. Des bibliothèques de Strasbourg : la contribution russe

10. Compte rendu du projet de l’inventaire des fonds imprimés anciens allemands . 11. Dubled H., Histoire de la Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg, publication de la société savante d’Alsace et des régions de l’Est, 1973, p. 13. 12. Ibid., p. 14. 13. On distingue les ouvrages de la bibliothèque de Schnitzler et ceux qui ont été acquis après 1897 pour compléter le fonds d’origine. Ils ont été soit hérités ou achetés, ou intégrés à la collection plus tardivement. 14. Voirand M., Fonds Schnitzler ou Collectio Rossiaca, Bibliothèque Municipale de Strasbourg, 2005. 15. Tikhonov Sigrist, N. « La vocation Internationale de l’Université impériale de Strasbourg », L’Alsace et la Russie, Revue russe, no 35, 2011, p. 91. 16. Correspondance de S. Gordin in Zagranicnye Otkliki, n 1/31, 5.01.1913. 23.13.1912 17. « Cirkulâr o kuharkinyh detâh » de 1.07.1887 limitait l’accès à l’enseignement secondaire et supérieur aux jeunes issus des milieux populaires. Roždestvenskij S. V., Istoričeskij očerk deâtelnosti Ministerstva narodnogo prosveŝeniâ, Saint-Pétersbourg, 1909.

REFERENCES 1. Schmidt, C. 1877. Livres et bibliothèques à Strasbourg au Moyen-Age. Revue d’Alsace. 2. Chrisman, M. 1985. L’Imprimerie et l’évolution de la culture laique à Strasbourg, 1480-1599. Revue d’Alsace. 3. Liblin, J. 1872. Chronique de Sébald Buehler. Revue d’Alsace. 4. Kudryashov, D. 2011. Le Fonds slave de la Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg. L’Alsace et la Russie, Revue russe, 35. 5. Dubled, H. 1973. Histoire de la Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg, publication de la société savante d’Alsace et des régions de l’Est. 6. Voirand, M. 2005. Fonds Schnitzler ou Collectio Rossiaca, Bibliothèque Municipale de Strasbourg. 7. Tikhonov, Sigrist, N. 2011. La vocation Internationale de l’Université impériale de Strasbourg. L’Alsace et la Russie, Revue russe, 35.

— 52 — Ekaterina Matveeva. Re-reading the Concept of Culture in a Social Context

Ekaterina Matveeva Master of Arts, Affi liated researcher of investigation group “Galabra” in Santiago de Compostela Universita degli studi di Bergamo Bergamo, Italy [email protected] RE-READING THE CONCEPT OF CULTURE IN A SOCIAL CONTEXT

Summary: This article covers the topic of social-cultural studies. The author re-reads the concept of culture through the prism of recent researches in the fi eld of sociology, examining culture in a social context, where differences are understood through the interactive creation of various communicative repertoires. Keywords: culture, communication, social context, inter-cultural couple, interculture. When touching a topic regarded as intercultural a researcher needs to, somehow, defi ne culture, or at least fi nd some common ground to base his ideas on and to lay the foundations for a shared understanding. Anthropologist Edward B. Taylor offered a broad defi nition, which considered to be a classical one, stating that culture is “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society’’ ( Tylor 1889, 1). Then many scholars tried to defi ne it in other ways, but there has never been full agreement or one all-embracing defi nition. I try here to present a few key ideas about the concept of culture in order to show how I am going to use the very concept of culture. The notion of culture appeared as a concept to cover the description of isolated traditional communities (Agar 2002). However, this cannot be valid any more as culture is not a completely closed space. Especially in this globalized world, taking into account the blurring state borders and worldwide migration, culture cannot be explained in the same ways it used to be. As for traditions, they have not disappeared but they have entered into strange and new combinations with all the other ideas,

— 53 — Ekaterina Matveeva. Re-reading the Concept of Culture in a Social Context phenomena and activities fl oating around the planet. If what used to be named culture is gone, then culture has to name something else. Now it is taken to explain differences by hooking them to a common human denominator, to similarities, to the human bridge between us and them (Agar 2002, 123). One of the traditional and most popular defi nitions of culture goes as follows: Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behaviour acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiment in artefacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other, as conditional elements of future action.1 Besides the various defi nitions of culture, diverse researchers have presented dichotomous and contrastive approaches to and frameworks for culture, as Bennett (1998) talking about high versus low and etic versus emic; or Bolten (1997) about narrow versus wide; or Hall (1976) with the notions of monochronic versus polychronic and high-context versus low-context. Other researchers have offered cultural orientation frameworks, such as the cultural orientation framework of Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck (1961), and the fi ve dimensions of Hofstede (2001, 2009). These earlier ways of conceptualizing culture supposed that culture could be considered as a source of inevitable misunderstanding. These approaches can be labeled traditional since culture was analyzed from a contrastive viewpoint which resulted in merely summing up differences between different cultures. Also, it was assumed that people from different cultures would misunderstand each other when they came into contact, since they tend to interpret things on the basis of different cultural backgrounds (Busch 2003, 1). Blommaert (1999, 3–4) doubted these traditional ideas of culture, as well as Hall’s well-known idea that culture is communication (1959) and Knapp & Knapp-Pothoff’s (1987) claim that everything in communication is culture, on the grounds that they impose a linear and static grid on empiry, and as cultures are usually associated with groups of people that bear a name: nationalities or known

— 54 — Ekaterina Matveeva. Re-reading the Concept of Culture in a Social Context ethnic groups. Also Busch (2003, 13) claims that various researchers, aiming at better operationalization but disregarding the availability of so many different concepts of culture, still succumb to the use of large simplifi cations, such as making cultural difference equivalent to national borders, which means that culture is defi ned in terms of nationality. Thus preference seems to go to horizontal differentiation within and across cultures — differences in terms of nationality, religion, age and gender — rather than to vertical differentiation — differences of power and status, hierarchies (Bourdieu 1979) and degrees of inequality within and between societies (Blommaert 1998, 6; Busch 2003, 13). According to Claes (Claes 2009, 67) culture has been viewed as a source of problems and misunderstandings, a means to explain the problem without solving it, a barrier to interaction and an all-pervading source of confusion. Lately the concept of culture has experienced a linguistic shift as various researchers have posed culture in discourse (Agar, 2002; Blommaert, 1998; Busch, 2009; Claes, 2009; Holden, 2002; Sarangi, 1995; ten Thije, 2003; 2006). They all share certain commonalities. Their main argument is based on the existence of difference. Obviously and inherently the world is full of differences. Differences are not always there, they do not always appear in the same form, and when they appear they are caught in patterns of social evaluations (Blommaert, 1998). Denying, defending or minimizing the inherent issue of difference can never be a starting point to the study of culture. Hence, investigating culture begins in a social context, where differences are understood through the interactive creation of various communicative repertoires. Dynamism is created through context- and situational dependency, and results in discursive interculture. One can say that discursive interculture is the place where meanings and practices are constructed through and within communication itself, and is the ways used to construct group boundaries. It is exactly in this process of conceptualizing culture that this work links up with relationship communication within the area of interpersonal communication. Thus, placing this study in the fi eld of interpersonal communication requires knowledge of the diverse approaches applied to understand

— 55 — Ekaterina Matveeva. Re-reading the Concept of Culture in a Social Context and to explore the fi eld. One approach is to divide interpersonal communication into processes, contexts, developmental stages, or types. Another approach is to look at interpersonal communication in three broad areas: individually centered, discourse centered and relationship centered. Evidently there is a strong connection between communication and relationship. This involves refl ection on relationship research. Interpersonal communication is largely dyadic by nature but also extends to other networks. This can be interpreted that persons are connected and interdependent, hence the actions of one person have consequences for the other person. Because of this interdependency partners’ communication is inevitably and essentially relational in nature; communication impacts and defi nes the relationship. (Devito, 2009.) The once somewhat radical idea of viewing relationships as “ongoing conversation”2 has become more commonplace. The interwoven nature of and communication also refl ects the infl uence of the relationship on communication and vice versa. Sigman (1998) states that a social relationship and a communication relationship, both constructed in communication, are based on different orders or organizing rule systems. Social relationships such as friendship and romantic relationships infl uence the social order, whereas communication relationships such as the speaker and the hearer, the questioner and the answerer, are based on the interaction order of communication processes. That is why they are called interaction relationships. But we should recognise that a social and an interaction relationship are not the same, even if they may be closely intertwined with one another. Sigman also believes that the notion of continuity is an important factor in defi ning a social relationship (Sigman 1998). This train of thoughts is similar to the concept of relationship, which consists of a certain continuation and reciprocal knowledge about each other, or special expectations about the behaviour of the other and oneself, which are largely the result of repetitive communication processes (cf. Valo, 2000; Gerlander, 2003). However, communication and relationship can also be conceptualized from a dialectical perspective

— 56 — Ekaterina Matveeva. Re-reading the Concept of Culture in a Social Context

(Baxter & Montgomery, 1996): “communication is signifi ed by a dialogic, multivocal communication being laced with contradictions; a relationship is marked by dialogical multivocal communication that takes place between the parties, and exists in its own contradictions, also called dialogical complexity” (Baxter, Montgomery 1996, 235). In everyday talk a relationship means the state of being related or interrelated. In addition it signifi es a romantic or passionate attachment; it also means a link connecting or binding the participants in a relationship; and it indicates the state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings. According to Goodwin (Goodwin 1999, 7) a personal relationship denotes interaction between two or more individuals within the context of wider societal and cultural forces which brings us to a few conclusions about the very notion of culture. Being on the same ground with Claes (Claes 2009, 73) I bring this work to the end with the main points mentioned in the six commonalities: Culture is not considered a static set of norms and values (materialized in artifacts and behaviour) within or for a specifi c group or nation or state, but as the dynamic social or group capacity to fi nd solutions to recurrent societal needs and standard problems. Culture is interactively produced and reproduced in the perception, understanding and formation of reality. It creates an intercultural discourse that shapes a common cognitive ground, facilitates exchanging ideas, knowledge sharing, and mutual learning. Thus discourse about intercultural encounters has ceased merely presenting and contrasting difference and has become a way of analyzing the dynamic relationship between communication, language and culture, and of examining the way mutual understanding is achieved in discourse and the emergence of discursive interculture.

ENDNOTES 1. Kroeber & Kluckhohn, 1952: p.181; cited by Adler 1997, 14. 2. Berger & Kellner, 1964, p. 3.

— 57 — Ekaterina Matveeva. Re-reading the Concept of Culture in a Social Context

REFERENCES 1. Adler, N. S. 1997. International dimensions of organizational behavior. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing. 2. Agar, M. 2002. Language shock. Understanding the culture of conversation. New York: Perennial. 3. Baxter, L. A. & Montgomery, B. M. 1996. Relating: dialogues and dialectics. New York: The Guilford Press. 4. Bennett, M. J. ed., Basic Concepts of Intercultural Communication: Selected Readings. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press, 1998. 5. Berger, C. R. Interpersonal communication: Theoretical perspectives, future prospects. Journal of Communication 55 , p. 415–447, 2005. 6. Blommaert, J., ed. 1999. Language Ideological Debates. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 7. Bolton, R., N. 1998. A Dynamic Model of the Duration of the Customer’s Relationship witha Continuous Service Provider: The Role of Satisfaction. Marketing Science, 17 (1), 45–65. 8. Bourdieu, P. 1979. La distinción. Criterio y bases sociales del gusto. París, Ed. de Minuit. 9. Busch, S. D. 2003. A comparison of exemplary, recognized, and acceptable schools rated on the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills and school climate. Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 3008 148 1. Doc. diss., The University of Houston). 10. Claes, M-T. 2009. The linguistic shift in cross-cultural studies: culture in discourse, European J. Cross-Cultural Competence and Management, 1. 11. Goodwin, R., 1999. Personal Relationships across cultures. Routledge. 12. Hall, E. T. 1976. Beyond culture. Garden City, NY: Anchor. 13. Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 14. Kluckhohn, F. R. & Strodtbeck, F. L. 1961. Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson, . 15. Knapp, K. & Knapp-Potthoff, A. 1987. Instead of an Introduction: Conceptual Issues in Analyzing Intercultural Communication. In Analyzing intercultural communication. 16. Sarangi, S. 1995. Perspective on intercultural communication, 309–13. 17. Sigman, M., Whaley, S. E. 1998. The role of nutrition in the development of intelligence. In The rising curve: long-term gains in IQ and related measures. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. 18. Tylor, E. B. 1889. Primitive Culture 1. London, John Murray.

— 58 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture

Ilya Pechenkin PhD, Senior lecturer of Russian State University for the Humanities Moscow, Russia [email protected]

TO THE ORIGINS OF “RUSSIAN STYLE” OF 19TH CENTURY ARCHITECTURE: BETWEEN EAST AND WEST

Summary: The article is dedicated to the earliest stage of revival of national Russian aesthetics what took place in course of general “historical” trend of XIX. One of the main questions was connected to the foreign origins of style of Russian medieval arts and architecture. There was no the common opinion on this subject between Russian art-historians and archeologists. However this dispute got especial pungency thanks to the book written by famous French architect, restorer and resercher Eugene Emanuel Viollet-le-Duc and published in Paris in 1877 (the Russian edition appeared a little later). French author tried to show what despite of having Byzantian source Russian art during the Middle Ages received strong Oriental infl uences — at fi rst from Persia and Caucasus, and afterwards from Middle Eastern countries and even from India. This theory has broken up Russian art-historians’ community more evidently. Ones (e.g. Count S. Stroganov and Professor F. Buslaev) protested against the attempt “to push out Russia from Europe”, simultaneously others (e.g. V. Butovsky) were grateful to Viollet-le-Duc for his underlining of Russians’ difference from Europeans and gave a respect to him. Keywords: architecture, historicism, XIXth century, Russian Style, S.G. Stroganov, E. Viollet-le-Duc, historiography, history of art.

Disintegration of the classical architecture’s system what had appeared in Europe since the late 18th century and discovery of a human history both made a basis for a wide stylistic palette of historicism. At fi rst sight educational public was interested in a multitude ways for making unusual, exotic architectural images. There are strongly anti- classical medieval forms (gothic revival), rediscovered multicolored architecture of Ancient Ellada (neogreek), and also number of oriental traditions (Moresque, Indian etc.).1 At the same time historicism woke

— 59 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture

up some other stylistic motifs, particularly Renaissance, Baroque and Rococo. But the process of assimilation of historical forms was not untidy. It was directed by the idea of national style that should be selected for each country and nationality. Therefore in the 19th- century England we can see neogothic, in Germany for the some stage — neogreek, in united Italy —“Stile Umberto I” (a sort of more general neorenaissance)2 and so on. We have to note a peculiarity of situation which can be observed in Russia. European common trend to expression of national type in architecture, fi ne-arts and crafts had combined here with spirit of knowledge of native “antiquity”— pre- petrine cultural tradition. So it is possible to compare this period in a history of Russian culture to European Renaissance inspired by memory of Ancient Rome.3 Though Russian intellectuals’ evaluations of the past were highly different. Essence of the polemics was a question on originality of native artistic tradition: is it rightful to believe that this one was independent absolutely or maybe it was just a line of vary imitations and outside infl uences? Doubtless, this disorder of opinions was a detail of more fundamental debate amongst the “Westernizers” and the “Slavophiles”. Philosophical content of the dispute overcomes the exact epoch and geographical area. Today we can consider this opposition to be an example of fi ghting between adherences of Europocentrism with its unconditional respect for Western civilization and advocates of Russia’s cultural and political independence who believed in native country’s especial historical mission. Already in the beginning of 19th century the risk of imitation of any Western forms and experiences was clear because of terrible features of the French Revolution. It forced to think on Russia’s “special way” that had been forgotten in course of forcible westernization provided by Peter the First. These thoughts for example exist in the “Notes on Old and New Russia” written by historian N. M. Karamzin at 1811. Finally, the War of 1812 made Russian nobility believe in these patriotic ideas. The most frankly expression was given by count and Moscow commander-in-chief F. V. Rostopchin who exclaimed: “What’s disaster that Peter the First had shaved us and Shuvalov4 had made us speak the impious French language.” (Tikhonravov 1898, part 4.1, 366). It

— 60 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture

seemed to many, Russia’s successful future would be achieved as result of fi nding of national sources of native culture. Later this point arises in the famous formula invented by count S. S. Uvarov (“Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality”), which looks like an ideological standard for all fi nal stage of history of Russian Empire. It is true that the earliest experience of national style in Russia appeared during the reign of Nicholas the First (1825–1855). Relentless estimate to this Emperor’s culture activity was given by N. N. Vrangel who wrote: “Self-confi dent patrons who had got a smattering of nobleness made incomparable vandalisms, and what a pity they were made not by power of darkness, but exactly by that who was able and should save but not destroy. This historical role had been given to Emperor Nicholay Pavlovich, a man who had done so much for greatness of Arts but was not enough educated for solution of questions in which he believed he was competent and which he (with his self- importance) decided fast, destructively and irreversibly” (Vrangel 2001, 156). However it is impossible to ignore the positive facts that marked his time in the cultural sphere. Let’s note that one of the earliest documents signed by Nicholas the First was the edict from 1826 named “On the collection of information about remains of ancient buildings at the towns, and on prohibition to destroy them.” It contained an instruction to take plans and façade of architectural pieces and to provide archival research for each object. In 1830 was published the fi rst code of national architectural heritage based on the collected materials —“The Atlas of Plans, Façade and Sections of ancient buildings in Novgorod and Archbishop’s Rusticated Chambers, House of Marpha Posadnitsa, and of the fi rst-rate big Kirillo-Belozersky monastery …” (Schenkova 2002, 44–5). Attention to the national architectural heritage woke up in 1800s when different ways of expression of interest to the past can be noticed. It was collectors’ activity (by N. P. Rumiantsev and others), experiences for description of antiquities by metropolitan Eugeny Bolkhovitinov, archeographical expedition provided by the President of Academy of Arts A. N. Olenin in 1809–1810. But only Emperor’s edict from 1826 opened a history of systematic scientifi c research of pre-petrine

— 61 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture architecture and arts. This process was also caused by a necessity of looking for sources for the national style that started from the 1830s when the fi rst churches designed by K. A. Ton appeared. Therefore the main role in the studying of monuments belonged to architects and artists, among them it is enough to call the names of A. M. Gornostaev, F. G. Solntsev, P. S. Maxiutin, F. F. Rikhter. However in the second third of 19th century the interest to the Old Russian architecture could have more theoretical and general quality. Undoubtedly, that moment it came to be a peculiar part of the whole scientifi c knowledge. The earliest examples of theoretical interpretation of collected facts may be noticed in 1840s. One of these cases is fi xed with count Sergiy Stroganov (1794–1882), remarkable art collector, founder of Emperor’s Archeological Commission and a chairman of Moscow University’s Society of Russian History and Antiquities. Stroganov’s biography is enough known. Having received home education, he graduates Institute of the Case of Engineers of Means of Communication, join the army and takes part in Patriotic War and abroad campaign of 1813–1814, then he holds the post of aide-de-camp of Emperor Alexander the First, in Turkish campaign of 1828–1829 he becomes a general, afterward is the temporary military governor of Riga and Minsk, in 1859–1860 — the Moscow governor-general, a member of the State Council (since 1856). In spite of liberal’s reputation, Stroganov in fact appears at us like “one of a few favorites of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich” (Gartvig 1901, 81) and the convinced opponent of famous Peasant Reform of 1861. But all the same Stroganov’s biggest project was a foundation (for his own credits) of “School for Drawing in Application to Arts and Crafts” in 1825. Later it was renamed as “Stroganov School for Technical Drawings”. For all his life the count made to progress of native educational system: at fi rst as a participant “Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions”, then as a trustee of Moscow School District (1835– 1847), as a Great Princes’ tutor and active participant of a number of discussions in the fi eld of Russian education (Isaev 2004, 18–9). In Stroganov’s case the carrying for “antiquities” which became in fi rst half 19th century a kind of an original fashion of nobles, has outgrown to serious scientifi c interest. F. I. Buslaev, who was a founder

— 62 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture of native tradition of History of art and the count’s friend,5 wrote that Stroganov “didn’t belong to number of those ordinary judges graceful which, concerning a work of art as to a pleasant entertainment, are able to estimate its qualities only by personal taste” (Gartvig 1901, 90). The main subject for Stroganov as an archeologist was icon-painting, speaking more precise pieces created for his forefathers (so-called “Stroganov School” of late 16–17th centuries). Count S. G. Stroganov was one of the biggest collectors and experts of Old Russian art, alike Fig. 1. Title page of the book Dmitrievsky M. P. Pogodin, D. A. Rovinsky, sobor (na Kliaz’me) (Мoscow, 1849) written by count Sergiy Stroganov I. M. Snegiryov (Vzdornov 1986, 70–1). However his scientifi c outlook was spread strongly beyond of his own art collection seizing fi eld of monumental church architecture. In 1849 was published Stroganov’s book devoted to St. Dmitry Cathedral in Vladimir. Before depicting this text and its author’s views, let’s throw our look at the monument as such and say a few words on its role in the described historical era. New page of Cathedral’s story began in 1800s, when was organized sizeable repair caused by building’s decrepitude. That moment Cathedral’s composition that had already lost its original medieval face was changed in accordance to contemporary trend: in place of old bell-tower with tent-shaped roof that had been rising above northern gallery was erected classical one crowned by a spire; the similar one was building in the southern side, so western façade became exactly symmetrical. Simultaneously, there were made some operations aimed to reconstruction of facades’ ancient temper: they received authentic arched gables in the top. Despite of some fantastic inventions (e.g. roof having cupola form but not

— 63 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture

covering vaults) described alteration of the Cathedral may be named true restoration, the earliest in Russia (Schenkova 2002, 60). But shortly after this moment St. Dmitry Cathedral was found as an object of restoration again because of Monarch’s personal interest. Being in Vladimir, Nicholas the First observed the monument and “had His Highest wish … that all extensions placed in course of later times will be removed and that the Cathedral will fi nd its true look”.6 In absence of any precise information about the building’s original architecture a question on its “primordial” view came as too diffi cult. But on the other hand a special Commission having included local architect and other state offi cers had to pay attention to Emperor’s opinion much strongly. As a result it was decided to destroy all the outer structures in order to the best accordance to thoughts spoken out by Nicholas the First. Only in the second half of 20th century using results of archeological researches N. N. Voronin could discover that extensions having surrounded central body were “a gallery that had been erected simultaneously with the Cathedral or maybe a bit later” (Voronin 1961, 423). So restorers, unfortunately, came to be destroyers. It is worth to add that in course of new restoration pieces of original frescoes were found underneath the later plastering. Usually mural-painters of M. L. Safonov’s artel that worked on the new inner decoration of the Cathedral since 1843 had been removing old frescoes without any doubts. However a piece of painting found under choirs (in a western part of interior) occupied too huge area, so Safonov was forced to give a report to church chiefs. F. G. Solntsev, famous painter and archeologist who was called to Vladimir, described these murals as fragments of the “The Last Judgement” and, appealing to Old Russian annals, defi ned the time of its creation — 12th century. He also decided to renew this mural work in the ‘ancient style’, but fulfi llment of this task was charged to the same Safonov (Vzdornov 1986, 30–1). Rather strange stylization ‘like Old Russian icons’ that had been created by his artel was refuted by serious researches in 1918. Stroganov’s book is in a sense a presentation of upshots of this restoration. The text volume has here minor place comparatively with

— 64 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture

Fig. 2. St. Dmitry Cathedral after the restoration of 1830s (Stroganov 1849)

— 65 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture

the graphic tables executed by F. Dmitriev, art teacher of the Vladimir grammar-school. The fact of monarchical attention to a reconstruction of original forms of the Cathedral and the publication which has followed it testify to the importance of this monument for the esthetic program of “national revival” in Russian architecture. This point was marked by Stroganov: “supporting … an opinion on value and infl uence of the Vladimir churches for modern with them and later our architecture, we believed that at the present aspiration to an establishment of Russian architecture, the description of one of these ancient monuments will attract attention of admirers of Archeology and have given priority to the St. Dmitry Cathedral as having lots of different features, in hope its edition are able to benefi t History of our Architecture.” (Stroganov 1849, 2, Preface). It was not casual that Stroganov dedicated his work about St. Dmitry Cathedral to academician K. A. Ton, founder of offi cial “Russian-Byzantian” style. Thus in the fi rst half of 19th century Vladimir churches came to be models for all national architecture again, like in the Middle Ages. Stroganov’s thinking about building story of St. Dmitry Cathedral allows to see him as a follower of conception of borrowings, that had already been underlined by some authors.7 The Old Russian architecture was realized by Stroganov and his adherents as a conglomerate of various forms whose national nature could be discovered by means of comparison with foreign samples. Formal similarity was unconditionally regarded as the certifi cate of genetic continuity, and Russian architecture acted exclusively as an object of infl uences. The thought on secondaryness of Russian architecture, and culture as a whole should become inevitable result of such approach. It is necessary to tell that Stroganov was one of the most categorical supporters of this conception, denying originality of domestic architectural school. We will come back to the theme later, and at the moment let’s return to St. Dmitry Cathedral which has been used by Stroganov as a pretext for conversation on the Vladimiro-Suzdal art as a whole. Art of the Vladimiro-Suzdal princedom (remained in its “primordial simplicity and severity”) was opposed by Stroganov to art of the Byzantian Empire (enduring in 11–12th centuries crisis of a creative

— 66 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture

Fig. 3. Detail of the portal of St. Dmitry Fig. 4. Detail of the portal of basilica Cathedral in Vladimir S. Michele Maggiore in Pavia ingenuity). Already blossoming of architecture at courts of Andrey Bogolyubsky and Vsevolod the Third as such serves for Stroganov as the fi ne illustration of non-participation in it of the Greek masters. He writes quite certainly: “Vladimir ancient stony churches are built by not Byzantine architects.” (Stroganov 1849, 1) Further, referring on V. N. Tatischev’s historical fundamental work, Stroganov mentions on Andrey Bogolyubsky’s builders that had been sent by German King Friedrich the Barbarossa, because Andrey and him “were in friendship” (Tatischev 1964, 295). This details on European masters, in aggregate with formal features of white-stony the decorative carving reminding the North-Italian models, lead the researcher to an unequivocal conclusion: Vladimir 12th century monuments are “products of second epoch of Romanesque (Lombardian) architecture” (Stroganov 1849, 2). Stroganov’s conclusion about an accessory of the Vladimir monuments to Romanesque style is extremely interesting. Firstly, it seems startlingly out of place in context of imagination on “Russian-

— 67 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture

Byzantine” cultural mythology which was an offi cial trend of Russian Empire. Suddenly it was discovered that Vladimir, this “cradle” of Russian autocratic statehood, had not been created by Orthodox Greeks but on the contrary — by Catholics. And this idea was not only the count’s personal thinking based on the appointed Tatischev’s words. If Lavrent’evskaya Annals narrates on builders of Andrey Bogolyubsky very unclearly (“God brought to him (i. e. to Andrey — I. P.) workers from all the nations”, Lavrent’evskaya letopis’ 1926, Column 351.) later written source tells on North-Italian engineer Aristotel Fioravanti who had visited Vladimir before he built Moscow Uspensky Cathedral (1470s) and said looking at stony churches of 12th century: “It’s made by some our foremen.” (PSRL 1853, 200). In the 20th century, explorers of medieval Vladimir architecture could confi rm a true of this note: exactly in Lombardian architecture of the middle of 12th century (e.g. in Modena Cathedral, 1099–1184) the receptions amazingly similar to receptions of artel which worked in Vladimir are found out.8 Having returned to Stroganov’s text we can discover that the researcher felt a contradiction between the thesis about “Romanesque” sources of Vladimir church architecture and necessity to save opinion on relations of Russian art with Byzantine traditions. Trying to soften this confl ict, Stroganov wrote on a possible genetic relation between 12th century Lombardian masters and the Byzantian artists that had left a native land in period of iconoclasm (8–9th centuries) and settled in the West and the South of Europe (Stroganov 1849, 8–9). It is impossible to name attempt successful: the fact of migration of the Greek artists (that is doubtful as such) doesn’t prove stylistic relationship between the Lombardian and the Byzantian art schools, especially, if to mean a wide chronological interval between departure of Byzantines and blossoming of North-Italian Romanesque architecture school. But the thesis about Lombardians as the builders of Vladimir was seemingly absolutely correct. However St. Dmitry Cathedral is not a masterpiece of Bogolyubsky’s time, and so Tatischev’s note cannot be applied to explanation of its genesis. Here we can see Stroganov’s arbitrary merging of two different

— 68 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture

Fig. 5. Title page of Russian edition of E. Viollet-le-Duc’s book (Moscow, 1879)

— 69 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture periods that was called by his wishes to prove a wittingly prepared conclusion. Meanwhile, distinctions between Bogolyubsky’s monuments and Vsevolod’s ones are rather essential, just as serious were divergences between brothers in sense of political sympathies. As for Andrey, with its ambitious dream of own Vladimir metropolitanate, he was indifferent both to Kiev and to Constantinople, and in own life aspired to the western knightly ideal. Vsevolod who was a grandson of Emperor John Komnin, has been expelled from the Vladimiro-Suzdal princedom together with mother and some years have lived at the Byzantian court yard. Educated in tradition of the Byzantian monarchy, Vsevolod after becoming a prince has built system of the government which can be considered as a prototype of the future Russian autocracy. This reorientation wasn’t slow to be refl ected and in culture. Depicting Describing an iconographic system of monumental architecture of Vsevolod’s period, N. N. Voronin underlined that “its leitmotif are the deifi cation of the power, propagation and demonstration of idea of regal splendor and greatness” (Voronin 1961, 462). The St. Dmitry Cathedral that had been constructed as court church of the prince, and monumental “reliquary” for St. Dmitry’s icon brought from Thessaloniki became the manifesto of new state ideology.9 The most signifi cant characteristic of St. Dmitry Cathedral is unusually plentiful sculptured decoration that covers all the façade and drum of the cupola. Exactly in this feature Stroganov sees the main proof that the Cathedral was executed by North-Italians. Calling in question interpretation of the ideological program of reliefs in light of the text of 150th Psalm (“Let everything that has breath praise the Lord”), Stroganov delicately (as the assumption) puts forward other treatment of subject repertoire of façade — connecting it with St. Dmitry Solunsky’s Life (Stroganov 1849, 8–9). Without having possibility to confi rm an existing in the Byzantian art of zoomorphic motifs presented in reliefs of the St. Dmitry Cathedral, Stroganov compares them with their western analogs. It concerns, in particular, images “single-headed eagle” which as Stroganov marks, meets in an external decor of the Italian churches (in Atrani near to Amalfi and in St. Pavel basilica in

— 70 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture

Rome). “There is no doubt,” he develops further his thought, “that especial posing … the eagle has the nearest relation to its introduction in Western emperors’ arms for that time.” (Stroganov 1849, 10). Unsteadiness of Stroganov’s assumptions resulted from the unsuffi cient level of scrutiny of the Byzantian art. However the basic message of the researcher is true and from the point of view of a modern science: really, for traditional Byzantian church architecture St. Dmitry Cathedral wasn’t typical case; the ensembles in which such level of generalization had been reached, were as a rule carried out by means of monumental painting. At the same time, we won’t fi nd so multiple programs in in Romanesque art. In the 20th century A. N. Grabar considered possible to see infl uence of tradition of Constantinople’s secular court art of in such direction of a carved decoration (Grabar 1962, 261-62). On the other hand, extraordinary growth of role of sculptured relief in the church facade (simultaneously with reduction of buildings’ size) is a common tendency across of Christian East on the turn of 12– 13th centuries. Illustrations of this movement are found out, in particular, in architecture of Southern Caucasus.10 Thought on the importance of Oriental art traditions for Russian art’s genesis and evolution was stated by French architect, archeologist and restorer E. Viollet-le-Duc. In a book, especially devoted to the problems of Russian art in the past as well as in the future, he declared his opinion that ornamental decoration of St. Dmitry Cathedral turns to the Syrian, Armenian and Indian samples (Viollet-le-Duc 1877, 63–4). In the polemic developed around the work written by Viollet-le-Duc, Stroganov’s scientifi c views opened the most strongly: he even wrote and published the whole book, however having preferred to stay as anonymous author ([S. G. Stroganov] 1878). In accordance to Russian critics’ unanimous opinion (that was shared by Stroganov, F. I. Buslaev (Buslaev 1879, 2:2–20; 5:1–24) architect and archeologist N. V. Sultanov [Sultanov 1880] and others), Viollet-le-Duc’s main wrongfulness was an exaggeration oriental lines of Russian art behind which the desire ‘to threw out Russia from Europe to Asia’ was looked through (Butovskiy 1879, 14).

— 71 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture

Stroganov’s critical experience opens by general notes on a lack of a chronological order in Viollet-le-Duc’s observation of a subject material and by enumeration of defects of his scientifi c method ([S. G. Stroganov] 1878, 3) But soon comes to be clear the fi rst claim of the critic: he accuses the French scientist of attempt to prove some independence of Old Russian art in relation to the Byzantian one. “The written documents which have reached us and at last monuments,“ Stroganov argues, “Serve, unfortunately, as a refutation against such opinion” ([S. G. Stroganov] 1878, 4). Following of his idea, force of the Greek infl uence fi nds its acknowledgement that Russian art “doesn’t show attributive, independent kinds even after when, having had a rest from the Tatar defeat and the Polish attacks, it starts to renew and again to build the churches” ([S. G. Stroganov] 1878, 5). Naturally, the special attention was paid by Stroganov to Viollet-le-Duc’s interpretation of Vladimiro-Suzdal architecture of 12th century. On the contrary to French author, the count, with his disposition to absolutization of the western infl uence, excludes here any oriental sources of sculptured ornamentation and writes that these monuments “were executed by foreign artists and on the character belong to the Romanesque style which had been blossoming then in all West” ([S. G. Stroganov] 1878, 9). Stroganov’s interpretation of architecture of Cathedral of Intercession on the Moat (of Basil the Blessed) built by John the Terrible is also interesting and curious. He fi nds here only a consequences of customer’s aspiration to the extra and fantastic originality, but not the case of realization of “the Indo-Mongolian type” as Viollet-le-Duc wrote ([S. G. Stroganov] 1878, 13). Denying of an original qualities of Old Russian architecture Stroganov reaches extremely depressing deductions: “Constantly scooping, also it is necessary to add, without the big effort, from Byzantian, Romanesque, Italian and Tatar sources, scooping more often overseas hands, Russian art has not shown in the products of that really it would be possible to name original national style” ([S. G. Stroganov] 1878, 15). It is easy to catch inner similarity of this sentence with thoughts committed to paper by P. Y. Chaadaev: “We so surprisingly stride in time that, in process of the advance, endured vanishes for us irrevocably. This

— 72 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture

Fig. 6. Title page of count S. Stroganov’s Fig. 7. Title page of V. Butovsky’s book book Russkoe iskusstvo E.Viollet-le-Duc Russkoe iskusstvo i mneniya o n’om i architectura v Rossii ot X po XVIII vek E.Viollet-le-Duc’a, frantsuzskogo uchonogo (St. Petersburg, 1878) architectora, i F. I. Buslaeva, russkogo uchonogo archeologa (Moscow, 1879)

natural consequence of the culture entirely borrowed and imitative. We absolutely don’t have the internal development, natural progress; former ideas are put out new because the last don’t occur from the fi rst, and appear at us it is not known whence” (Chaadaev 2009, 43). Thus, a denial of original virtues of Russian art was a feature of mind of “Westernizers”, because both Chaadaev and Stroganov belonged to this philosophy (of course in different ways). That is a reason why Viollet-le-Duc’s opinion on the sources of Russian art tradition could not be excused by Russian intellectuals who preferred to look at themselves as on a part of European culture, even by recognition of own secondaryness. “It would be desirable to know,” asked Stroganov, “Whence took sir Viollet-le-Duc what Western art didn’t get deeply into layers of Russian society?” ([S. G. Stroganov] 1878, 10). Here is an excellent example of paradox thinking: in order of explaining of

— 73 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture native culture, Russian author underlines an importance of exterior factors and doesn’t see anything else. In this light, Russian art appears as weak and casual phenomenon. Therefore V. I. Butovsky, who was Director of “Stroganov School for Technical Drawings” and the main supporter of Viollet-le-Duc,11 gives an answer which seems absolutely reasonable and sounding very actually: “Following this theory, we cannot disprove Western people’s delusion that Russians are barbarians” (Butovskiy 1879, 82). Indeed, in spite of number of incorrect conclusions that Viollet- le-Duc’s book contains, its general idea on importance of oriental infl uences for building of Russian culture must be named very forward- looking and fruitful. Unfortunately, this question is not clear enough up to now, it is only waiting for its explorers. Doubtless, categorical and practically unanimous denial of Viollet-le-Duc’s thoughts that was expressed by Russian scientists could not to enrich of knowledge or to direct its progress. On the other hand, conception of genetic relation between Old Russian architecture and European Romanesque style that obviously had originally been worded by S. G. Stroganov was rightful and allowing to create native version of historicism —“Russian Style” which eclectically absorbed Western Medievalism’s motifs.

Abbreviation: PSRL — Polnoye sobranie russkikh letopisei (Complete collection of Russian Annals) TODRL — Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury Instituta mirovoi literatury Rossiyskoy Academii nauk (Works of Department of Old Russian Literature of Institute of World Literature, Russian Academy of Science)

ENDNOTES 1. See more: Luciano Patetta. L’architettura dell’Eclettismo. Fonti, teorie, modelli 1750–1900. Milano, 1975, 2008; Barry Bergdoll. European Architecture 1750–1890 (Oxford History of Art). Oxford, 2000. 2. See: Carroll L. V. Meeks. Italian Architecture, 1750–1914. New Haven — London, 1966.

— 74 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture

3. See: M. V. Naschokina. Renessansopodobie’ v russkoi architecturnoi mysli XIX — nachala XX veka. In M. V. Naschokina. Naedine s muzoi architecturnoyi istorii. Moscow, 2008. 114–120. 4. Ivan Shuvalov (1727–1797) — one of signifi cant courtiers of the time of Elisaveta Petrovna, Russian educator, founder of Moscow University (1755) and Academy of Arts (1757). 5. During 1839–1841 Buslaev accompanied Stroganov’s family in Italy as a tutor for count’s sons. 6. From the report addressed by Vladimir archbishop Parpheniy to The Sacred Synod, October 18, 1834. See: O. P. Schenkova. 30-e i 40-e gg. XIX v. V istorii restavratsii pamiatnikov architectury // Ibid. P. 117. 7. See: T. A. Slavina. Issledovateli russkogo zodchestva. Russkaya istoriko- architecturnaya nauka ХVIII — nachala XX. Leningrad, 1983, 69–70. 8. A. I. Komech. Architectura Vladimira 1150–1180. Khudozhestvennaya priroda i genesis “russkoi romaniki”. In Drevnerusskoe iskusstvo. Rus’ i strany vizatiyskogo mira, XII vek. SP, 2002; O. M. Ioannisyan. Lombardskie zodchie na Rusi. “Russkaya romanika” XII veka // Pinacoteca, 16–17, pp. 10–19. 9. E. S. Smirnova. Khramovaya ikona Dmitrievskogo sobora. Svyatost’ solunskoi basiliki vo vladimirskom khrame. In Dmitrievskiy sobor vo Vladimire. K 800-letiyu sozdania. M, 1997. 220–294. Dmitry was a Christian name of Vsevolod the Third. 10. See: A. L. Yakobson. Zakonomernosti v razvitii srednevekovoi architectury. Moscow, 1985. PP. 112, 117–118. 11. Russian version of Viollet-le-Duc’s work was published by Stroganov School in 1879.

REFERENCES 1. Buslaev, F. I. 1879. Russian art in the evaluation of the French scientist. The critical Review. 2. Butovskiy, V. I. 1879. Russian art and opinion about it by French scientist and architect E.Viollet-le-Duc, and a Russian archeologist F. I. Buslaev. Moscow. 3. Chaadaev, P. Y. 2009. Philosophical Letters, Apology of crazy. Moscow. 4. Gartvig, A. 1901. 75th anniversary of the Stroganov School. Part 1. Мoscow. 5. Grabar, A. N. 1962. Svetskoe izobrazitelnoe iskusstvo domongol’skoi Rusi i Slovo o polku Igoreve. Moscow-Leningrad. 6. Isaev, P. N. 2004. Stroganovka (Imperial Stroganov Central School of Technical Drawing). 1825–1918: Bibliographical dictionary. Vol. 1. Мoscow. 7. Lavrent’evskaya chronicle. 1926. In PSRL. Vol. 1. Leningrad. 8. PSRL. 1853. Vol. 6. SP. 9. Schenkova, O. P. 2002. Monuments and restoration in the fi rst third of the XIX century. In Architectural monuments in pre-revolutionary Russia. Мoscow, . PP. 44–45. 10. Stroganov, S. G. 1849. Dmitrievsky Cathedral (na Kliaz’me). Moscow. 11. [S. G. Stroganov]. 1878. Russkoe iskusstvo E. Viollet-le-Duc i architectura v Rossii ot X po XVIII vek. St. Petersburg. 12. Sultanov, N. V. 1880. Russian architecture in the western evaluation. Architect, 1, 2, 12.

— 75 — Ilya Pechenkin. To the Origins of “Russian Style” of 19th Century Architecture

13. Tatischev, V. N. 1964. History of Russia. Vol. 3. Moscow. 14. Tikhonravov, S. N. 1898. Gr. F. V. Rostopchin and literature 1812 g. In S. N. Tikhonravov. Writings. Vol. 3. Moscow. 15. Viollet-le-Duc, E. 1877. L’art russe: des origines, des éléments constructifs, son apogée, son avenir. Paris. 16. Voronin, N. N. 1961. Architecture of the North-East of Russia XII—XV. Vol. 1. Moscow. 17. Vrangel, N. N. 2001. Art and The Emperor Nikolay Pavlovich. In Svoistva veka. Stat’i po istorii russkogo iskusstva barona Nikolaya Nikolaevitcha Vrangel’a. St. Petersburg. 18. Vzdornov, G. I. 1986. History of the discovery and study of Russian medieval painting. XIX vek. Мoscow. 19. Zhdanova, D., V. 2009. Holy Trinity Church of the Pochaev Lavra: the problem of religious architecture A. V. Shchusev. Burganov House. The space of culture, 2. 20. Zhdanova, D., V. 2009. Marfo-Mariinsky convent in Moscow: an architectural and artistic embodiment of the ideas of the Orthodox social service. Burganov House. The space of culture, 4.

— 76 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Josef H. Biller Diplomtypograph und Kunsthistoriker, ehem. Lektor für Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte Projekt: Catalogue raisonné der offi ziellen Wappenwandkalender des Hl. Römischen Reiches (1512–1803) München, Germany JOHANN HOLZER ALS KALENDERENTWERFER

Einführung

Wohl erstmals einer breiteren Öffentlichkeit bekannt wurde Holzers Entwurfstätigkeit für einen Wappenwandkalender durch die Monographie von Ernst Wolfgang Mick „Johann Evangelist Holzer (1709–1740). Ein frühvollendetes Malergenie des 18. Jahrhunderts“, die 1984 im Verlag Schnell & Steiner in München erschien. Darin stellte er als „Erstveröffentlichung“ den Jahrgang 1740 des Salzburger Erzstiftskalenders in einer Reproduktion auf S. 95 vor und ergänzte sie mit einer relativ ausführlichen Beschreibung auf den Seiten 94 und 96. So ganz unbekannt war diese Kalenderschöpfung der engeren Fachwelt freilich nicht, denn schon Jacob Wichner hat 1896 auf diese Graphik hingewiesen1 und P. Josef Straßer OSB hat sie in seiner großen Kalenderschau in Salzburg 1920 gezeigt sowie im freilich sehr unzulänglichen Begleitheft – Katalog wäre zu viel gesagt – kurz erwähnt.2 Freilich gebührt Mick das Verdienst, dieses Kalender-Frontispiz wohl erstmals in den Kontext des Graphischen Werks von Johann Holzer3 gestellt und in seiner besonderen Eigenart gewürdigt zu haben. Mit seiner Datierung auf 1739 als Entwurfsjahr (Mick, S. 103) begab er sich jedoch in die Fallstricke der Offi ziellen Kalendergraphik, deren Jahresangaben nur für den einmontierten oder eingedruckten Almanach4 gelten, nicht aber für den Stich des Frontispizes, der Jahre, ja Jahrzehnte

— 77 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

früher liegen kann. Im vorliegenden Falle waren Entwurf, Stich und erster Druck, wie noch unten darzulegen sein wird, 1734 erfolgt und somit der erste Jahrgang für 1735 erschienen. Dieser Nachweis läßt sich in der Regel nur durch das Studium der Archivalien erbringen, die Mick in Verkennung der besonderen Entstehungsbedingungen offi zieller Kalendergraphik offensichtlich nicht herangezogen hat. Im Rahmen seiner seit 1973 laufenden Forschungen zu einem Gesamtkatalog aller Offi ziellen Wappenwandkalender des Heiligen Römischen Reiches beschäftigt sich der Verfasser schon spätestens seit 1975 mit der komplexen Genese und Geschichte der Salzburger Erzstiftskalender und hat darüber wiederholt Teile seiner Forschungsergebnisse publiziert, so 1996 im Katalog zur Ausstellung „Hl. Rupert von Salzburg 696–1996“5 und 1998 im Katalog der Ausstellung „Meisterwerke europäischer Kunst“ aus Anlaß der 1200-Jahr-Feier des Erzbistums Salzburg.6 In beiden Fällen konnte er den Holzerschen Erzstiftskalender in Wort und Bild ausführlich behandeln und anhand der Archivalien zeitlich exakt einordnen. Dieser ob seiner ungewöhnlichen Größe und thematischen Vielfalt, ingeniosen Invention und meisterlichen Stichausführung von den Zeitgenossen hochgeschätzte Salzburger Erzstiftskalender war aber nicht das einzige Beispiel für Holzers Beschäftigung mit dieser Gattung der Großgraphik, die ein Spezifi kum der Stecherstadt Augsburg war. Zwei Jahre zuvor kam er schon mit dieser Kunstaufgabe in Berührung, als er das Kopfstück für den Augsburger Ratskalender entwarf und in einer erfreulicherweise erhaltenen und überdies signierten Zeichnung niederlegte. Jürgen Rapp hat diesem aufsehenerregenden Fund 1990 eine ausführliche Studie gewidmet.7 In der Stichausführung war seine Autorschaft allerdings unterdrückt und nur die Signatur des Auftragnehmers und Werkstattinhabers Johann Georg Bergmüller neben jener des Stechers Hieronymus Sperling angebracht, was lange Zeit zu einer ungerechtfertigten Zuschreibung des Blattes allein an Bergmüller führte. Dies war jedoch keine unlautere Maßnahme des Meisters, da der Schüler weder Beisitz noch Bürgerrecht besaß und somit nicht als selbständiger Stecher fi rmieren konnte.

— 78 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Erst mit dem Umzug Holzers in das Haus von Johann Andreas Pfeffel und damit seinem Übertritt in dessen Verlag 1735/36 änderte sich das, so daß von da ab die Signatur Holzers gleichberechtigt neben jener des Stechers erschien, so auf dem Salzburger Erzstiftskalender (HK 2) und ebenso auch auf den drei Kalenderfrontispizen, die Holzer für die Serie der Historisch- allegorisch-emblematischen Wandkalender Pfeffels (HK 3–5) schuf. Einem äußerst glücklichen Umstand ist es zuzuschreiben, daß noch rechtzeitig zur vorliegenden Veröffentlichung ein Entwurf zum Salzburger Erzstiftskalender auftauchte und hier erstmals der Öffentlichkeit präsentiert werden kann.8 Es handelt sich dabei höchstwahrscheinlich um eine Vorbereitungszeichnung von Jakob Andreas Fridrich d. Ä. nach einer mutmaßlichen Grisaille Holzers, die durch Quadrierung zur Vergrößerung für eine Delineation vorgesehen und dann wegen Programmänderung des Frontispizes nicht verwirklicht worden war (HK 2.1). Dieses Schicksal bewahrte die fl otte Zeichnung vor dem Verschleiß in der Stecherwerkstatt und damit vor dem Untergang. Erstaunen erweckt dabei die heutige Provenienz des Blattes: Es stammt aus der Collection von Don Valentin Carderera y Solano (1796–1880), dessen Sammlung 1867 vom Spanischen Staat erworben wurde, und wird heute in der Biblioteca Nacional zu Madrid verwahrt.9

— 79 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Es ist erstaunlich, wie anpassungsfähig, ja selbstverständlich sich Holzer in die Entwurfspraxis von Wandkalendern eingelebt hat. Das Verdienst daran wird man ohne weiteres Johann Georg Bergmüller zuschreiben dürfen, in dessen Haus und Werkstatt an der Jesuitengasse 18 Holzer von 1730/31 bis 1735/36 aufgenommen war. Und hier war er mit den zuvor von Bergmüller entworfenen Wappenkalendern für das Hochstift Hildesheim (2. Typ 1717, von Johann Andreas Pfeffel gestochen!), das Kollegiatstift St. Martin und Kastulus in Landshut (Entwurf 1720/23) sowie das Hochstift Augsburg (5. Typ 1721, gestochen von Johann Heinrich Störcklin) konfrontiert worden und hatte das Entstehen der Wappenkalender für die Fürstabtei Fulda (1731ff) und den Stadtrat Augsburg (1732), bei letzterem sogar unter tätiger Anteilnahme, und vielleicht auch die ersten Arbeiten am Wappenkalender für die Deutschordensballei Franken (3. Typ 1738, gestochen von Jakob Andreas Fridrich d.Ä.), miterleben können. Darüber hinaus ist er sicher auch mit ähnlichen Werken bekannt geworden, die andere Augsburger Entwerfer und Stecher für geistliche und weltliche Auftraggeber im ganzen Heiligen Römischen Reich geliefert hatten. Aber Augsburg war als „Bilderfabrik Europas“ nicht nur das Zentrum für die Lieferung offi zieller Wappenwandkalender, sondern auch Verlagsort von populären illustrierten Wandkalendern, die alljährlich den Markt überschwemmten und die Nachfrage eines sowohl an den politischen Zeitläuften wie an preisgünstigem Wandschmuck für die Wohnung interessierten Publikums befriedigten. Einer der rührigsten Verleger in diesem Genre war Johann Andreas Pfeffel d.Ä. (1670–1748)10, in dessen Unternehmen die langlebigste, qualitätvollste und wohl auch erfolgreichste Serie von Historisch-allegorisch-emblematischen Wandkalendern ediert wurde. Aus der bisher bekannten Erscheinungszeit von 1717 bis 1747, als von 31 Jahren, sind uns 24 Jahrgänge überliefert, der überwiegende Teil von ihnen als Unikate. Es ist nicht verwunderlich, daß Pfeffel den genialischen Johann Holzer, der ihm wie so vielen anderen Augsburger Patriziern und Honoratioren 1733 das Wohnhaus mit duftigen Fresken verziert11 und dazu noch die Decke des Gartensaals bemalt12 sowie ihn in einem leider verlorenen Bildnis porträtiert hat,13 für die Gestaltung seiner

— 80 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Kalenderfrontispize herangezogen hat. Und dies nicht erst seit der Übersiedlung in sein Haus 1735/36, sondern schon zuvor 1734, als er noch Compagnon Bergmüllers war. Von den drei Inventionen Holzers muß der Entwurf für den Jahrgang 1735 also noch im Hause Bergmüller entstanden sein, während der folgende Jahrgang 1736 vielleicht schon bei Pfeffel Ende 1735 konzipiert worden sein kann. Allerdings ließen die sich häufenden auswärtigen Aufträge für Altarbilder und Fresken das aufstrebende Genie Holzer alsbald immer mehr von Augsburg abwesend sein. Unter diesem Aspekt dürfte es wohl ausgeschlossen sein, daß sich Holzer weiteren Kalenderinventionen hätte widmen können, wenn ihm ein längeres Leben beschieden gewesen wäre. Umso wertvoller müssen uns deshalb seine drei Kompositionen für Pfeffels Kalenderserie sein. Und wie zur Adelung dieses graphischen Vermächtnisses liegen uns diese teilweise sogar in prächtigem Fürstenkolorit vor: wie es keinem sonstigen Augsburger Kalenderprodukt zuteil geworden ist (HK 3, 4). Auch dies ein einmaliger und außerordentlicher Glücksfall bei einem graphischen Kunstwerk, das nicht a priori zur Illuminierung prädestiniert ist. Es ist ein weiterer Glücksfall, daß sich Holzer bei seiner Vielseitigkeit als Ölmaler und Freskant, Zeichner, Delineator, Stecher und Radierer sowie bei seiner Beanspruchung als Inventor und Entwerfer, Porträtist, Altarblattmaler und Deckenfreskant für zahlreiche der anspruchsvollsten Aufgaben der angewandten Augsburger Druckgraphik engagiert hat, für Allegorien, Ornamentstiche, Offi zielle Wappenkalender, Historisch- allegorisch-emblematische Wandkalender und Thesenblätter vom Imperialformat bis zum unübertroffenen Riesenblatt des Salzburger Firmianporträts. Damit sind uns wunderbare Zeugnisse seines Genies erhalten geblieben, die uns angesichts seiner untergegangenen Fresken doppelt wertvoll sein müssen.

— 81 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Katalog der nach Johann Holzers Entwürfen gestochenen Wandkalender

Vorbemerkung. Da der Titel des Kalenders und das Gültigkeitsjahr meist nicht im kupfergestochenen Frontispiz erscheinen, sondern im typengedruckten Einsatzkalender (Almanach), beginnt das Katalogisat erst mit den kalendariografi schen Angaben zum Almanach und dann zum Frontispiz. Die Transkription der in Fraktur gesetzten Texte erfolgt in Antiqua. Dabei werden Originalzitate zur besseren Hervorhebung in Anführungszeichen („“) gesetzt. Maßangaben verstehen sich jeweils Höhe vor Breite.

HK 1 Offi zieller Wappenwandkalender des Rats der Freien Reichsstadt Augsburg, 4. Kupfertyp 1733–1802, 1. Ausgabe mit Porträt Kaiser Karls VI. (1733–1740). Frontispiz nach Entwurf von Johann Georg Bergmüller (Mittel- und Fußteil) und Johann Holzer (Kopfteil), Augsburg 1732, gestochen von Hieronymus Sperling, Augsburg 1732, Exemplar: Jahrgang 1735 mit Porträt Kaiser Karls VI. und einmontiertem evangelischen Almanach des Stadtbuchdruckers Johann Michael Labhart, Typendruck Augsburg 1734. Almanach Titel: „Deß Heil: Röm: Reichs || Stadt Augspurg || Raths=Calender/ || Oder Allmanach auf das Gemeinjahr nach der Gnadenreichen Geburt JEsu Christi || M. DC.CXXXV.“ Drucker und Druckort: Johann Michael Labhart, Augsburg 1734. Impressum: „Augspurg / gedruckt bey Joh: Michael Labhart, Hoch=Fürstl: Bischöffl .: und Stadt=Buchdr. auf U. L. Frauen Thor. A.C.“ Technik und Material: Zweifarbiger Typendruck schwarz und rot, Papier. Frontispiz Entwerfer: Johann Georg Bergmüller, Augsburg 1732 [und Johann Holzer, vgl. HK 1.1]. Signatur (unten links): „JG [ligiert] Bergmüller delin.“ Stecher: Hieronymus Sperling, Augsburg 1732. Signatur (unten rechts): „Hieronymus Sperling Sculpsit Aug. Vindel.“ Technik und Material: Radierung und Kupferstich, Papier.

— 82 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Bogenteile: 2. Platten: 2. Format: 116,3 × 44,7–44,9 cm (Bild), 118,3 × 46,6–46,7 cm (Platten), 145,5 × 61,0 cm (Blatt). Erhaltung: Sehr gut, kräftiger Abzug, breitrandig. Aufbau der Komposition: Kopfteil mit Kaiserbildnis und Allegorien des Augsburger Stadtregiments sowie der in der Stadt ausgeübten Künste. Mittelteil: Almanachfeld mit einmontiertem, separat gedrucktem Einsatzkalender zwischen den Pilastern mit insgesamt 45 eingeklebten Ratsherren-Wappen, davon oben der 2 Stadtpfl eger, darunter der 5 Geheimen, dann der 28 patrizischen Ratsverwandten sowie unten im Fußteil als Bekrönung der Vedute die Wappen der 3 Vertreter der Kaufmannschaft und 7 Angehörigen der Gemein der Handwerkerschaft. Die Kartusche mit der klassischen Ansicht des Stadtzentrums wird fl ankiert von den Allegorien der drei Augsburger Gewässer Lech, Wertach und Singold. A Kopfteil bis zur 3. Wappenreihe (Kopfplatte): Entwerfer: [Johann Holzer, Augsburg 1732]. Signatur: im Stich nicht genannt, im Entwurf [vgl. HK 1.1]: „J. Holzer fecit 1732 / Sub Directione Dñi J. G. Bergmiller.“ Format: 55,7 × 45,0 cm (Bild). Beschreibung: Vor gerafftem Vorhang sitzt oben Mitte auf dem Thron der damals regierende Kaiser Karl VI., der von einer Victorie, mit Tuba in der Rechten, mit einem Lorbeerkranz bekrönt wird. Rechts um die Sitzfi gur der lorbeerbekrönten Concordia Pacis mit Ölzweig, neben sich ein Füllhorn mit Goldmünzen, Geschmeide, Früchten und Ähren, geschart die Allegorie der Reichsgewalt, verkörpert im Kaisertum, mit der alten deutschen Kaiserkrone auf einem Kissen, davor rechts Minerva in antikischem Gewand mit Faszienbündel, dann rechts die Stadtgöttin Cisa mit Mauerkrone14, darunter die Rückenfi gur des Obsequiums, des bürgerlichen Gehorsams, mit dem Buch der Statuten, gewissermaßen der Verfassung, und den Symbolen der Mäßigung, einer Trense, sowie der Gerechtigkeit, einer Waagschale. Im Vordergrund links führt der Gott des Handels und des Gewinns, Merkur mit dem Caduceus, die von Putten gespielten Allegorien der vornehmsten Künste und Handwerke an: Silber- und Goldschmiede, Kupferstich, Uhrmacherei, in der Mitte Malerei und Optik sowie rechts außen Kartographie mit einem Stadtplan Augsburgs. Dieses in der Kartuscheninskription darunter zum Ausdruck kommende Programm beherrschte fast wortwörtlich bereits das Kopfstück des 1676 eingeführten Vorgängertyps von Matthäus Küsell nach Entwurf von Josef Werner. Doch war Werner sicher nicht der Erfi nder des politischen Programms, sondern setzte nur die Vorgaben eines gebildeten Literaten bildhaft um, vielleicht des wiederholt einschlägig tätigen Rektors am evangelischen Gymnasium St. Anna und reichsstädtischen Bibliothekar Philipp Jakob Crophius d.Ä. (1666–1742). Unter der bewegten, illusionistisch aufgezogenen und von hellem Schlaglicht von links beleuchteten Szenerie beginnt eine wohl von Bergmüller inventierte

— 83 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer architektonische Schauwand mit zwei wappenbesetzten Pilastern und ebenfalls wappenbelegten Kapitellen sowie einer verkröpften Gebälkzone, die von den Wappenbildern Augsburgs bekrönt sind: je einem Kapitell mit Pinienzapfen, dem Stadt- Pyr. Zwischen dem obersten Wappenpaar eine von Putten gehaltene Kartusche mit Dedikation an Kaiser Karl. Darunter in der Kapitellzone die Wappen der 5 Geheimen, gefolgt von den ersten Wappenpaaren der Ratsverwandten, die den Auszug des Almanachrahmens fl ankieren. B Mittelteil (auf der Platte in Einheit mit dem Fußteil): Entwerfer: Johann Georg Bergmüller, Augsburg 1732. Signatur (unten links): „JG [ligiert] Bergmüller delin.“ Stecher: Hieronymus Sperling, Augsburg 1732. Signatur (unten rechts): „Hieronymus Sperling Sculpsit Aug. Vindel.“ Format: 60,6 × 44,9 cm (Bild). Beschreibung: Fortsetzung des architektonischen Almanach-Rahmens mit den von je 12 weiteren Wappen besetzten Pilastern, die durch die unteren Wappenpaare mit der hohen Sockelpartie verzahnt werden. C Fussteil (auf der Platte in Einheit mit dem Mittelteil): Diese Verzahnung nimmt die Gruppe der 3 Kaufl eute- und 7 Handwerker- Wappen im Gegensinn auf und fungiert zugleich als Bekrönung der kartuschenartigen Fensteröffnung mit einem illusionistischen Fernblick auf das Zentrum des Augsburger Stadtregiments, das Rathaus mit Perlachturm, eine Ansicht, die auf eine Vedute von Henrich Jonas Ostertag von 1711 zurückgeht. Dem Gestaltungskanon offi zieller Wappenkalender entsprechend fl ankieren die Flußallegorien von Lech (links), Wertach und Singold (rechts) Bemerkungen: Die Tradition des Wandkalenders mit den Wappen der Ratsmitglieder setzt 1643 mit einer Holzschnittausgabe des Formschneiders und Briefmalers Marx Anton Hannas in Augsburg ein, die 1657 durch Wolfgang Kilian von einer Ausgabe in Kupferstich abgelöst wird und 1662 (Elias Küsell) sowie 1676 (Matthäus Küsell nach Josef Werner) eine Neuredaktion erfährt. Der vorliegende 4. Typus von Bergmüller- Holzer und Sperling erschien erstmals 1733 und kostete 700 fl (Baumeisterrechnung 322, Eintrag unter dem 15.5.1733). Er war mit einer Laufzeit von 1733 bis 1802 der langlebigste Ratskalender Augsburgs. In diesen 70 Jahren wurden die Platten 1772 aufgestochen und mit einer Randlinie versehen, welche die Jahrgänge ab 1773 kennzeichnet. Darüber hinaus machte jeder Kaiserwechsel eine Veränderung der Kopfplatte notwendig, da die Gesichtszüge des verstorbenen Herrschers getilgt und durch jene des Nachfolgers ersetzt wurden. Somit ergeben sich 6 verschiedene Ausgaben: 1. Mit Porträt von Kaiser Karl VI. (Jahrgänge 1733–1740), 2. Karl VII. (1741–1745), 3. Franz I. (1746–1765), 4. Josef II. (1766–1790), 5. Leopold II. (1791–1792) und schließlich 6. Franz II. (1793– 1802, nun als Ovalbildnis auf Thronsessel lehnend). Den Almanach lieferte jeweils der amtierende Stadtbuchdrucker, der Augsburger Parität entsprechend alternierend zwischen evangelischen und katholischen

— 84 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Amtsinhabern: 1733–1744 Johann Michael Labhart (kath.), 1745–1779 Andreas Brinhauser (ev.), 1780–1790 Josef Simon Hueber (kath.), 1791–1797 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Späth (ev.), 1798–1802 Josef Anton Hueber (kath.). Auch das Kalendarium besaß zwei konfessionsgebundene Fassungen und war in der Impressumszeile mit „Evang.“ oder „A.C.“ (für : Augsburger Confession) oder mit „Cath.“ bzw. „Cathol.“ bezeichnet. Provenienz und Signatur: Augsburg, Staats- und Stadtbibliothek, Mappe: Graph 32/1735. Weitere Exemplare und Jahrgänge: Von diesem Typus haben sich noch vergleichsweise viele Exemplare erhalten, die Staats- und Stadtbibliothek Augsburg besitzt eine fast lückenlose Folge aller Jahrgänge. Quellen: Stadtarchiv Augsburg, Baumeisterrechnungen. Literatur: Ausführlichste Behandlung bei Rapp 1990 (wie Anm. 7), S. 81–88 mit Abb. 2 und 5 (Detail) und mit weiterer Lit.; zum vorbildhaften Bildprogramm des Vorläufertyps: Jürgen Glaesemer: Joseph Werner 1637–1710. (Oeuvrekataloge Schweizer Künstler 3), Zürich-München 1974, S. 137. – Georg Wilhelm Zapf: Augsburger Bibliothek, Augsburg 1795, S. 902; Adolf Dresler: „Unser Jahresbegleiter Der Kalender (5). In: Graphik, 23. Jg. 1970, S. 34, 62; Max Schefold: Alte Ansichten aus Bayerisch Schwaben. Katalogband. Weißenhorn 1985, Nr. 41306 (Vedute); Alois Epple (Hrsg.): Johann Georg Bergmüller 1688–1762. Zur 300. Wiederkehr seines Geburtsjahres. Ausstellung im Schloß Türkheim. Weißenhorn 1988, S. 12; Karin Friedlmaier: Johann Georg Bergmüller. Das druckgraphishe Werk. Diss.phil.masch. München 1995, Textband S. 87f, Katalogband S. 302, D 291; Tilman Falk (Hrsg.): Staatliche Graphische Sammlung München. Dialog über Jahrhunderte. Erwerbungen und Stiftungen 1990–2000. München 2000. S. 40, Kat. 15 (Jahrgang 1757); Josef H. Biller: Calendaria Augustana illustrata. Augsburg 2009 (im Druck). – Unberücksichtigt bleiben hier die Angebote in Auktions- und Antiquariatskatalogen. – Nicht bei Neustätter 1933 sowie Mick 1958/59 und 1984.

HK 1.1 Johann Holzer: Ausführungsvorlage zur Kopfplatte des Offiziellen Wappenwandkalender des Rats der Freien Reichsstadt Augsburg 4. Typs (1733– 1802) Entstehung: Augsburg 1732. Technik und Material: Feder in Braun, grau laviert, weiß gehöht, Ölfarbe blau- grau, auf bräunlichem Papier. Format: 55,6–56,1 × 45,0–45,6 cm, fast identisch mit dem Bildformat der Kopfplatte 55,7 × 45,0 cm. Signatur (unten Mitte in Kurrentschrift): „J. Holzer fecit 1732 || Sub Directione Dñi. J. G. Bergmiller.“

— 85 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Erhaltung: Sehr gut, knapp beschnitten, seitlich und oben getuschter Rand, Falzspuren unten. Beschriftung: Außer der Signatur Bezifferung 1. bis 5. auf den leeren Wappenschilden des Geheimen Fünferrats sowie 1.und 2. (links) sowie 13. und 14. auf den obersten Schilden der Ratsverwandten. Aufbau und Beschreibung: Vgl. die entsprechenden Ausführungen unter HK 1. Provenienz: Eh. Vaduz, Stiftung Ratjen (erworben 12.3.1983 in der Auktion Christie’s London, Nr. 171, S. 111 mit Abb. S. 110), heute: Washington, National Gallery, Graphic collection, Wolfgang Ratjen Collection 2007. Literatur: Auktionskatalog Christie’s London 1983 (vgl. oben unter Provenienz); Rapp 1990 (wie Anm. 5), S. 86–88 mit Abb. 6; Tilman Falk (Hrsg.): Staatliche Graphische Sammlung München. Dialog über Jahrhunderte. Erwerbungen und Stiftungen 1990–2000. München 2000. S. 40, Kat.Nr. 15. – Nicht bei Neustätter 1933 sowie Mick 1958/59 und 1984. Bemerkung: Eine Delineation im strengen Sinne ist das vorliegende Blatt nicht, da es Lavierungen aufweist und vor allem seitenrichtig statt seitenverkehrt angelegt ist.

HK 2 Offi ziellerWappenwandkalender des Fürsterzbistums und Domkapitels Salzburg. Große Ausgabe, 4. Kupfertyp 1735–1803 Stich und Radierung von Jakob Andreas Fridrich d.Ä., Augsburg 1734, nach Invention und Entwurf von Johann Holzer, Augsburg 1734. Exemplar: Jahrgang 1740. Almanach Titel: „Hoch Fürstlicher Saltzburgischer Ertz=Stüffts Calender, Oder || Allmanach aufs Schalt=Jahr nach Gnaden=reicher Geburt unsers lieben HErrn JESU CHristi || M. DCCXL.“ Drucker und Druckort: Fürstbischöfl icher Hof- und Stadtbuchdrucker Johann Michael Labhart, Augsburg 1739. Impressum (letzte Zeile): „Augspurg, gedruckt bey Johann Michael Labhart, Hoch=Fürstl: Bischöffl : und Stadt=Buchdrucker, auf Unser Lieben Frauen Thor.“ Technik und Material: Zweifarbiger Typendruck schwarz und rot, Papier (separat gedruckt und in Almanachfeld im Format von 43,2 × 21,5 cm einmontiert). Frontispiz Titel: Keiner vorgesehen. Verfasser des Bildprogramms sowie Auftraggeber im Namen des Fürstbischofs und Domkapitels: P. Bernhard Stuart OSB (1706–1755), Universitätsprofessor und Hofbaudirektor. Inventor/Entwerfer: Johann Holzer (1709–1740), Augsburg 1734.

— 86 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Signatur (unten links): „Joannes Holzer invenit et pinxit.“ Stecher: Jakob Andreas Fridrich d.Ä. (1684–1751), Augsburg 1734. Signatur (unten rechts): „Jacob Andreas Fridrich sculpsit Augustæ Vindelicorum.“ Zeichner der Stadtansicht: Ingenieur Balthasar Reitmair, Salzburg 1734. Signatur (über Vedutenrand unten): „Balthasar Reitmair Ingenieur Urb.[em] delin.“ Technik und Material: Radierung und Kupferstich, Papier. Bogenteile: 3. Platten: 3. Format: 191,5 × 83,6–83,8 cm (Bild), Plattenrand und Blattgröße wegen Einrahmung nicht feststellbar, (die Plattengröße des Jahrgangs 1803 beträgt 194,2 × 85,9–86,1 cm; der vollrandige Jahrgang 1767 hat das Blattformat 210,2 × 94,8 cm). Erhaltung: Relativ gut, kräftiger Abzug, Falzspuren, Riß oben Mitte, leicht fl eckig. Aufbau: Im Kopfteil Himmelsglorie mit Heiliger Familie und Bistumspatronen auf Wolkenbänken, darunter im Auszug der Architekturwand (mitgestochen) Bildnis, Titulus und Wappen des regierenden Fürsterzbischofs. Im Mittelteil etwa 2/3 der Schauwand mit Almanachfeld, gerahmt von 2 Pilastern mit paarweise angeordneten (insgesamt 24 eingeklebten) Kapitularwappen, zwischen denen je 6 Szenen aus den einzelnen Jahrhunderten der Bistumsgeschichte eingefügt sind, dazu die 13. und jüngste Szene über dem Bogen das Almanachfeldes. Darüber und in kompositioneller Einheit mit dem Auszug der Kopfplatte die Wappen der 8 Suffraganbistümer. In der Mitte präsentiert der janusköpfi ge Chronos, begleitet von Putten mit den Zeichen der 4 Jahreszeiten, den (einmontierten) Jahreskalender. Außerhalb der Pilaster halten Putten je 2 (mitgestochene) Familienwappen der Inhaber der Erbämter: Links Erbmarschall Lodron und Erbkämmerer Törring, rechts Erbschenk Kuenburg und Erbtruchseß Lamberg. Im Fußteil Fortsetzung der Komposition mit Almanach und Wappenpilastern, die aus niedriger Basiszone wachsen, deren bewegte Profi lierung zugleich den Rahmen für die illusionistische Fernsicht auf die Residenzstadt Salzburg abgibt. Darüber weist ein gefl ügelter Genius mit Hilfe von Putten Symbole der Künste und Wissenschaften vor, während ein anderer Putto, auf gelehrten Folianten lagernd, über der Stadt ein Füllhorn mit Früchten, Geschmeide und Münzen leert. Rechts unten fl ankiert der Flußgott der Salzach mit Geräten des Fischfangs und des Waidwerks samt Jagdbeute sowie Salzkufe und Montanwerkzeug die Vedute, auf die gegenüber Minerva in Amtsrobe hindeutet, zu deren Füßen ein Putto das päpstliche und kaiserliche Universitätsszepter trägt und ein weiterer das Universitätswappen vorweist. Beschreibung: Die 12 Bistumspatrone im Himmel werden auf von Putten getragenen Banderolen benannt, von links nach rechts: Die Heiligen Rupert, Vitalis, Martin, Virgil, Amand, Ehrentrud, Johann Nepomuk, Vinzenz, Hermes, Crisantus, Daria und Maximus. In der Mitte übergibt der Christusknabe Petrus die Schlüssel des Himmelreichs, während rechts Paulus auf diesen Vorgang hinweist. Das Ovalporträt zeigt Fürsterzbischof Leopold Anton Eleutherius von Firmian mit großer Perücke und in Kardinalsrobe, umgeben von Putten mit den Insignien seines geistlichen und weltlichen

— 87 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Amtes. Die gefl ügelte Fama rechts darunter verkündet den Ruhm des Landesherrn und verweist sowohl auf dessen Wappen wie auch die Wappen der Suffragane Brixen, Passau, Regensburg, Freising, Gurk, Chiemsee, Seckau und Lavant. Die Folge der Jahrhundert-Ereignisse beginnt links oben im Kapitell mit „Seculum I von Jahr 582 biß 682“ und führt jeweils alternierend auf linkem und rechtem Pilaster bis zum Ende rechts unten mit „Sæculum XII von Jahr 1682 biß jetzt“. Nachträglich eingefügt wurde (wie in HK 2.2 erläutert) eine 13. Szene mit der feierlichen Translation einer Reliquie des soeben 1729 heiliggesprochenen St. Johann Nepomuk, die Erzbischof Ferdinand von Prag am 4.10.1730 an Erzbischof Leopold von Firmian geschenkt hatte, in die dem neuen Heiligen geweihte, bereits von Franz Anton von Harrach (1709–1733) erbaute Kapelle im Schloß Mirabell. Provenienz: Salzburg, Salzburger Landesarchiv (hängt unter Glas in Rahmen im Ausstellungsraum). Weitere Exemplare: Neben dem vorliegenden frühesten erhaltenen Exemplar sind noch zahlreiche weitere Jahrgänge an verschiedenen Institutionen überliefert: 1742, 1744, 1746, 1758, 1767, 1770–1772, 1777, 1780, 1781, 1784, 1786–1788, 1791–1795, 1797, 1801–1803. Quellen: Salzburger Landesarchiv, Nachlaß Frank (Kasten 5); Hofbaumeisterei.. Literatur: Ernst Wolfgang Mick: Johann Evangelist Holzer (1709–1740). Ein frühvollendetes Malergenie des 18. Jahrhunderts.“München-Zürich 1984, S. 94–96 (mit einigen Irrtümern), mit Abb. von Jahrgang 1740; Jürgen Rapp 1990 (wie Anm. 7), S. 93f mit Abb. 20 (Jahrgang 1740); Ausst.Kat. Salzburg 1991: Salzburg zur Zeit der Mozart, Kat.Nr. II/49 (Jahrgänge 1772 und 1781, ohne Abb.), mit weiterer Lit.; Josef H. Biller: „Der hl. Rupert auf den Wandkalendern des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts“. In: Ausst.Kat. Salzburg 1996: Hl. Rupert von Salzburg 696–1996, S. 141–151, hier S. 142 (Abb. 36: Jahrgang 1758), S. 148 sowie S. 328f, Kat.Nr. 85 mit 2 Detail-Abb.; Josef H. Biller: „Wappenkalender des Fürsterzbistums und Domkapitels Salzburg.“ In: Ausst.Kat. Dommuseum Salzburg 1998: Meisterwerke europäischer Kunst. 1200 Jahre Erzbistum Salzburg, S. 196–203, hier S. 197 (Abb. Jahrgang 1758, nicht 1740 wie irrtümlich angegeben), S. 201–203, Kat.Nr. 113, mit Detail-Abb. S. 203. – Kurze Erwähnungen: Wichner Jakob: „Stift Admont und seine Beziehungen zu den Salzburger Unterrichtsanstalten.“ In: Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde 36/1896, hier S. 251 (Erwähnung der Kalenderjahrgänge 1786, 1789 und 1793, „nach Joh. Holzer gestochen von Jac. Andreas Fridrich“); Salzburger Kalenderschau der Festspielhausgemeinde vom 4. bis 24. August 1920. (Achtseitiges Begleitheft mit summarischer Liste der Exponate, darunter „XVI. Salzburger Wandkalender (Leop. v. Firmian“); P. Straßer Josef OSB: „Das salzburgische Kalenderwesen.“ In: Salzburger Volksblatt, 17.1.1920, S. 5; Derselbe: „Zur Geschichte des alten Salzburger Wandkalenders. (Ein Beitrag zur derzeitigen Kalenderschau in der ehemaligen Winterresidenz.)“ In: Salzburger Chronik 8/1920, S. 192f; F. Martin: „Die Salzburger Universitätsszepter.“ In: Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde, 1923; Max Kaindl-Hönig: „Die Salzburger Universität im Ablauf der Jahrhunderte.“ In:

— 88 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Max Kaindl-Hönig und Karl Heinz Ritschel: Die Salzburger Universität 1622–1964. Salzburg 1964, S. 11ff, hier S. 62f: Ausschnitt aus der Kalendervedute (fälschlich als Thesenblatt bezeichnet, ebenso S. 202, mit weiteren Irrtümern). – Nicht bei Neustätter 1933 sowie Mick 1958/59. Bemerkungen: Es ist durchaus nicht so, daß Micks Ausführungen von 1958 und 1984 eine „Erstveröffentlichung, keine Lit.“ wäre, wie 1984 von ihm behauptet (S. 103, Anm. 66). Die oben angegebene frühere Literatur von Wichner 1896 und Strasser 1920 ist ihm offensichtlich entgangen. Auch enthalten seine Ausführungen eine Reihe von Irrtümern, darunter die Bezeichnung des großen Erzstiftskalenders als „Fürstenkalender“, die auf eine von 1653 bis 1802 nachweisbare Parallelausgabe mit Wappen-Holzschnitten aller Salzburger Fürstbischöfe zutrifft, sowie die fälschliche Datierung der Entstehungszeit des Holzer-Fridrich-Kalenders auf 1739, wozu ihn der Jahrgang 1740 verführt hat, den er – genau so wie schon vor ihm P. Josef Straßer 192015 – offensichtlich in Verkennung der Eigengesetzlichkeit der Wappenkalenderpraxis für den ersten hielt. Die sehr komplexe Salzburger Kalendergeschichte kennt 5 verschiedene Ausgaben mit 21 Typen und 14 Varianten, von denen die vorliegende in die Verantwortlichkeit des Fürsterzbischofs fi el, der neben dem Domkapitel auch einen Teil der Gestehungskosten trug. Leider sind die Salzburger fürsterzbischöfl ichen und domkapitelschen Archivalien nur lückenhaft überliefert, so daß sich der Beginn der Kalenderedition nur aus späterem rückblickenden Bericht der Hofbaumeisterei rekonstruieren läßt. So wird am 1.8.1743 berichtet, „daß der große Stiftskalender mehr denn 2000 fl für Zeichnen und Stechen gekostet, er das erstemal 1735 ausgegangen und damals unter allen Hoch- und Reichsfürstlichen Stiftskalendern für den kostbarsten gehalten wurde, wie durch Zuschriften von Prälaten und anderen Standespersonen an P. Stuart bestätigt worden ist.“16 Und aus den Baumeisterakten wird ersehen, „daß der über Antrag P. Stuarts in Augsburg durch Jakob Andreas Friedrich gestochene Kalender und die Übersendung der Kupferplatten 2224 fl kostete.“17 Daraus geht auch hervor, daß jährlich meist 200 Exemplare – in den ersten Jahren in Augsburg, dann in Salzburg – gedruckt wurden, was bei einer Laufzeit von 69 Jahren 1735 bis 1803 einer Gesamtaufl age von rund 13800 Exemplaren entspricht. Davon haben sich 25 Jahrgänge erhalten, zum Teil sogar doppelt und dreifach, so daß sich insgesamt eine Überlieferung von 36 bisher nachweisbaren Exemplaren ergibt, zu denen noch etwa 6 Fragmente kommen. Diese Zahlen scheinen zwar angesichts der Gesamtaufl age sehr gering, sind aber erfahrungsgemäß sehr beträchtlich im Gegensatz zu anderen Stiften, wo sich nicht selten nur ein oder zwei Drucke erhalten haben, manchmal aber auch gar kein Beleg. Die Platten wurden zweimal aufgestochen, das erste Mal vom Stecher selber, Jakob Andreas Fridrich, in Augsburg,1748, das zweite Mal vom Kupferstecher Joseph Seyr in Freistadt 1764, der sich auf der Platte verewigte: „Joseph. Seyr refecit francopoli.“ Bei dieser Gelegenheit wurde das inzwischen entstandene Neutor in der Vedute nachgetragen.

— 89 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Obwohl die Platten anfangs der achtziger Jahre bereits wieder sehr abgetrieben waren, konnte sich das Erzstift nicht mehr zu einer weiteren Renovierung entschließen, obwohl die Platten zu brechen begannen. Und die Abdrucke der letzten Jahrgänge 1801 bis 1803 waren so fl au, daß kaum mehr die Zeichnung zu erkennen war: So war der Erzstiftskalender, der zuvor den Splendor eines der reichsten Hochstifte des Heiligen Römischen Reiches repräsentierte, zum Menetekel des Untergangs in der Säkularisation von 1802/03 geworden. Was die Komposition des Frontispizes betrifft, so war die Bereicherung der kanonisierten Darstellung mit den Szenen aus der Bistumsgeschichte keine Erfi ndung des unmittelbaren Auftraggebers und Promotors, P. Bernhard Stuart OSB (1706– 1755), sondern hatte im Salzburger Kalenderwesen durchaus Tradition. Bereits unter Fürsterzbischof Max Gandolf von Kuenburg (reg. 1668–1687) wurde der große, seit 1671 laufende Hochstiftskalender 1. Typs mit Szenen aus der Bistumsgeschichte ausgestattet, wahrscheinlich 1682 aus Anlaß der 1100-Jahr-Feier der Ankunft des hl. Rupert. Dieses Motiv wird auch in den 2. Typ, der von 1709 bis 1734 lief, übernommen worden sein. Zugleich machte dieses neue Element Schule und fand Eingang in den Hochstiftskalender 4. Typs von Freising 1724–1802 (Stich von Franz Josef Späth in München nach Franz Josef Lederer, Freising, unter Übernahme des Kopfstücks von 1717, gestochen von Johann Andreas Pfeffel d.Ä. in Augsburg nach Johann Andreas Wolff, München). Mit seiner Entstehung 1734 befand sich der Salzburger Erzstiftskalender an der Schwelle zum Rokoko, dessen namengebendes Ornament, die Rocaille, erstmals 1736 in Augsburg auftaucht. Aus diesem Grunde fi nden wir in der Ornamentik von Holzers Frontispiz bereits weit entwickelte Formen von Muschelrändern, jedoch noch keine echte Rocaille. Dennoch klingen in Holzers Komposition durchaus Elemente an, wie sie den späteren Rokoko-Kalender auszeichnen: Großes, bis zu zwei Metern ansteigendes Format, im Gegensatz dazu das äußerst reduzierte Almanachfeld, eine Fülle der Motivik, die bis zum Horror vacui reicht, das Changieren zwischen den Bedeutungsebenen und schließlich der Illusionismus in der Himmelsszenerie und vor allem im Fußteil, wo das architektonische Fundament der Schauwand durch einen real gedachten Fernblick auf die Bistumsstadt durchbrochen wird. Diese Eigenschaften sichern Holzers grandiosem Kalenderblatt einen einzigartigen Rang in der Geschichte der offi ziellen Wappenwandkalender.

HK 2.1 Unausgeführter Entwurf für den Salzburger Erzstiftskalender Unsignierte Zeichnung wahrscheinlich von Jakob Andreas Fridrich nach Johann Holzer, Augsburg 1734. Technik und Material: Feder und Pinsel in Braun und Schwarz, Lavierung in Grau und Braun, Rötel, braune und schwarze Tinte, Quadrierung in Rötel; Papier, auf Karton aufgezogen, deshalb kein Wasserzeichen erkennbar. Format: 57,9 × 26,8 cm.

— 90 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Erhaltung: Relativ gut, knapp beschnitten, geringe Fehlstellen am Rand; aufgezogen auf Karton, der rückseitig die Kreidezeichnung eines weiblichen Brustbildes aufweist. Provenienz: Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, Signatur: Dib/14/48/26. Erworben 1867 vom Staat aus der Sammlung Don Valentin Carderera y Solano (1796–1880). Literatur: Frits Lugt: Les Marques de Collections de Dessins et d’Estamps. Amsterdam 1921, S. 77, Nr. 432; Mus.Kat. Barcelona 1906: B-9726; Ausst.Kat. Madrid 17.9.-22.11.2009: „Dibujos de arquitectura y ornamentación del siglo XVIII.“ – Nicht bei Neustätter 1933 sowie Mick 1958/59 und 1984. Bemerkungen: Es lag nahe, dieses Blatt angesichts seiner zeichnerischen Qualität und seiner eindeutigen Verbindung mit dem Salzburger Erzstiftswappenkalender Johann Evangelist Holzer zuzuschreiben. Doch kommt nach Urteil von Jürgen Rapp, einem ausgezeichneten Kenner Holzerschen Zeichenstils, dessen Hand nicht in Betracht. So bleiben nur zwei Möglichkeiten für die Urheberschaft dieser Zeichnung. Entweder war hier ein unbekannter Delineator eingeschaltet oder Jakob Andreas Fridrich betätigte sich selber als solcher. Dieser letzteren Möglichkeit wird hier die größere Wahrscheinlichkeit eingeräumt, denn Fridrich war nicht nur als ausführender Stecher und Verleger tätig, sondern wiederholt auch als Inventor und Vorlagenzeichner, wie Karin Friedlmaier nachgewiesen hat.18 Leider liegt uns bisher keine Zeichnung vor, die qua Signatur nachweisbar als eigenhändiges Werk Fridrichs ausgewiesen wäre und zum Stilvergleich herangezogen werden könnte. Doch erscheint es plausibel und naheliegend, daß Fridrich hier nicht einen Dritten für eine Zeichenaufgabe eingeschaltet hat, die er selber bestens zu bewältigen imstande war. Auf Grund dieser Überlegungen mutmaßen wir Fridrich als Urheber dieser Zeichnung. Und wenn das Format nicht der zeitgemäßen Übung entspricht und entweder in voller oder halber Größe der späteren Ausführung angelegt, sondern etwa größer als ein Drittel bemessen war, so vermuten wir, daß die – vielleicht ziemlich spontan hingeworfene („pinxit“!) – ursprüngliche Ölskizze oder Grisaille Holzers dieses ungerade Format aufgewiesen hat: Das Verhältnis beträgt in der Bildhöhe 57,9 cm zu 194,0 cm. Durch die Quadrierung ist das Blatt für die Vergrößerung zur originalformatigen Delineation vorbereitet. Wenn man aber nun die Details der Zeichnung mit der Stich-Ausführung vergleicht, stellt man fest, daß sich hier zahlreiche größere und kleinere Abweichungen ergeben. Die folgenreichste Änderung fi ndet sich über dem Halbrund des Almanachfeldes, wo die ursprünglich vorgesehenen vier Wappen für die Erbamtsinhaber nun durch eine weitere, zusätzlich eingeführte Historienszene ersetzt sind. Diese 13. Historie zeigt die Translation einer Reliquie des erst kürzlich 1729 heiliggesprochenen Johannes Nepomuk in die dem neuen Heiligen geweihten Kirche von Schloß Mirabell im Jahre 1731. Dieser Vorgang war ein Vorspiel zur 1250-Jahrfeier der Ankunft des hl. Rupert in Salzburg 582, die von Fürsterzbischof Leopold Anton von Firmian besonders festlich begangen wurde. Zugleich auch begründete dieses Jahr der Ankunft Ruperts und damit der Bistumsgründung den Jahrhunderttakt für die historischen Szenen auf dem Frontispiz des großen Salzburger Erzstiftskalenders, dessen 11. Säkularfest von Fürsterzbischof Max Gandolf von Kuenburg 1682 gefeiert wurde und damit das 12. Säkulum einläutete, das nach dem Szenentitel auf dem Kalender als „Saeculum XII von

— 91 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Jahr 1682 biß jetzt“, nämlich 1735, bezeichnet wird. Die Tatsache, daß die Translation der Nepomuksreliquie und die Ausrufung des böhmischen Heiligen zum Patron des Erzbistums Salzburg ein Jahr vor der 1250-Jahrfeier erfolgt ist, mag auch mit dazu beigetragen haben, daß der regierende Fürsterzbischof Leopold Anton von Firmian wohl eine Neuredaktion des Erzstiftskalenders angeregt hat, so wie er andererseits auch das Jubeljahr zum Anlaß nahm, den Einfl üsterungen seines Kanzlers Hieronymus Cristani von Rall nachgebend die evangelischen Untertanen aus seinem Land zu vertreiben. Es verlohnt, die Bildlegende unter der neu eingefügten 13. Historie wörtlich zu zitieren, welche die weitreichende Änderung des Frontispizkonzepts veranlaßte: „Ferdinand Erz- Bischoff zu Prag verehret den 4. Octobris 1730, dem Erz-Bischoffen Leopold einen || theil des Genick-Beins von dem Leib des Hl. Martyrers Joannis Nepomuceni, welcher denselben den 16. || May 1731, in einer Solemnen procession nach der von seynem Vorfahrer Francisco Antonio zu || Ehren dises Heyligen in Mirabell erbauten Kirchen persohnlich transferirt, und alldort zur öffentlichen Verehrung außgesetz: auch disen Wundermann zu einem Schutz Patron des ganzen Lands || angenommen hat.“ Als der Wunsch wohl des Fürsterzbischofs – dem erfahrungsgemäß sparsamen Domkapitel wird man diesen Vorschlag weniger zutrauen wollen – nach Berücksichtigung dieses Ereignisses im geplanten Erzstiftkalender virulent wurde und die Änderung des bereits vorhandenen Entwurfs veranlaßte, ist die bereits weit gediehene und zur Vergrößerung in eine Delineation mittels Quadrierung vorbereitete Zeichnung obsolet und verworfen worden. Damit war die Notwendigkeit gegeben, eine neue Entwurfszeichnung – wahrscheinlich wieder bei Holzer – in Auftrag zu geben, in der die gewünschte Einfügung der neuen Szene an einer geeigneten, die Gesamtkomposition nicht allzu sehr störenden Stelle vorgenommen wurde. Dem Zeichner gelang es, diese Änderung in relativ homogener Weise durchzuführen, indem er die Erbämterwappen in die ornamentierte Wandzone am Rande der Komposition versetzte und durch Putten präsentieren ließ. Mit dieser geschickten Modulation gelang es dem Entwerfer sogar, aus der Not eine Tugend zu machen und die vordem tote Randzone zu vitalisieren und in die Pilasterkomposition miteinzubeziehen. Doch diese Änderung blieb nicht die einzige. Sei es, daß der Entwerfer selber sich um weitere Verbesserungen bemühte, oder daß das Domkapitel gezielte Änderungswünsche vorbrachte, wie man das auch von anderen Stiften kennt: Jedenfalls wies der neue Entwurf, der schließlich in den Stich umgesetzt wurde, eine Unzahl weiterer, teils kaum erkennbarer, teils markanter Änderungen auf. Zu den letzteren zählt insbesondere die Erweiterung der zentralen Gruppe in der „Glorie“, wie man die Himmelsszenerie damals nannte, nämlich von Maria mit dem Jesusknaben, durch Einbringen des Hl. Josef zur Heiligen Familie. Damit bereichert der Salzburger Erzstiftskalender den traditionellen Gestaltungskanon dieses wichtigen Bildthemas um eine ganz neue Variante, die kurz darauf nur ein einziges Mal an anderer Stelle auftauchen sollte, nämlich im Osnabrücker Hochstiftskalender 4. Typs von Friedrich Wilhelm Brandshagen von 1738.19 Auch die Gruppe unter dem Almanachfeld erfuhr eine Uminterpretation, wobei der Genius eine Lorbeerkrone erhielt, ähnlich wie die Minerva unten links nun einen Helm bekam. Die tubablasende Fama im Auszug richtet ihr Instrument nicht mehr dem

— 92 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Beschauer entgegen, die Patrone links oben sind anders gruppiert, und die Vasen auf den Pilastern sind nun fülliger geworden und ähneln jenen Vasen auf dem Fassadenentwurf von etwa 1736 im Museum Ferdinandeum in Innsbruck.20 Nicht zu stören braucht uns aber, daß viele Stellen, vor allem die Wappenschilde und Szenenfelder leer geblieben sind, da deren Vorlagen von anderer Seite geliefert zu werden pfl egten, ebenso das große Vedutenfeld unten, dessen Vorlage meist von einem Feldmesser oder Vedutisten bezogen wurde. Auffallend dagegen ist die Bezifferung von drei Wappenschilden, die uns an den von Holzer signierten Entwurf zum Kopfteil des Augsburger Ratskalenders (HK 1.1) erinnert, wo ebenfalls Ziffern in Wappenschilden auftauchen, die zwar nicht alle ganz identisch, aber von gleichfalls sehr geübter Hand schwungvoll geschrieben sind. Am meisten Affi nität zueinander haben die Ziffern 3.

HK 3 Historisch-allegorisch-emblematischer Wandkalender auf das Jahr 1735 nach Johann Holzers Entwurf und Delineation gestochen von Philipp Gottfried Harder, verlegt von Johann Andreas Pfeffel d.Ä., Augsburg 1734 Almanach fehlt [Im Coburger Exemplar enthalten mit folgendem Text:] [Titel: „Allmanach auf das Gnaden-reiche Jahr 1735. Unsers HErrn und Heylandes JESU Christi.“ (Evangelische Fassung).] [Drucker und Druckort: Unbekannt, Augsburg 1734.] [Impressum: Fehlt.] [Technik und Material: Zweifarbiger Typendruck schwarz/rot, Papier; einmontiert in Almanachfeld und die darunter befi ndliche Bilddarstellung verdeckend.] [Verleger: Kaiserlicher Hofkupferstecher und Verleger Johann Andreas Pfeffel d.Ä., Augsburg 1734.] [Verlagsadresse: „Augspurg / verlegts Johann Andreas Pfeffel.“] Frontispiz Titel: „Mißlicher Zustand Vergangener || und auf gerechte Waffen und eifriges Gebet gegründete Hoffnung || künfftiger Zeiten || in einem Emblematischen Wand Calender auf das Jahr Mdccxxxv. || entworffen von Johann Andrea Pfeffel || Ihro Röm. Kayserl. und Königl. Cathol. Maj. Hof Kupferstecher in Augspurg.“ Inventor/Entwerfer: Nicht genannt, aber wohl Johann Holzer. Delineator: Johann Holzer, Augsburg 1734. Signatur: „Ioh. Holzer delin.“ (unten links). Stecher: Philipp Gottfried Harder, Augsburg 1734. Signatur: „P. G. Harder sculps.“ (unten rechts).

— 93 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Verleger: Kaiserlicher Hofkupferstecher und Verleger Johann Andreas Pfeffel d.Ä., Augsburg 1734. Adresse: Im gestochenen Titel: „Johann Andrea Pfeffel || Ihro Röm. Kayserl. und Königl. Cathol. Maj. Hof Kupferstecher in Augspurg.“ Privilegshinweis: „Cum Priv. Sac. Caes. Maj.“ (unten Mitte). Technik und Material: Radierung und Kupferstich, Papier. Bogenteile und Platten: 1. Format: 64,5 × 49,8 cm (Blatt). [Das vollrandige Coburger Exemplar mißt 65,7 × 49,2–49,4 cm (Bild), 67,7 × 50,8 cm (Platte), 80,7 × 60,7 cm (Blatt).] Erhaltung: Gut, kräftiger Abzug, knapp beschnitten, ohne Almanach (jedoch mit Klebespuren), handschriftliche 1 unten Mitte, Fürstenkolorit. Aufbau: Über dem nun relativ großen Fußteil mit Almanachfeld und Kommentarkartusche, fl ankiert von Kronos und der in Krieg verwickelten Germania, oben vor architektonisch gegliederter Wand auf dreistufi gem Podest bewegte Gruppe der Germania umgeben von 8 Allegorien. Beschreibung: Die wesentlichen Themen des Bildprogramms sind im Kommentar in der Breitkartusche unten Mitte erläutert. Dieser Bezifferung folgend beginnt das Programm oben Mitte, wo unter dem Auge Gottes das Deutsche Reich (1) mit Krone und Doppeladlerszepter thront, beraten von der links stehenden Staatsklugheit (2), während rechts Mars (3) zum Schlag ausholt gegen Frankreichs Genius (4), der die Reichsstände (mit verschiedenen Kroninsignien) zu trennen versucht, indem er einzelne Stäbe aus dem Liktorenbündel zieht und bricht. Rechts davon mit gesenktem Hoffnungsanker Pandora (5), aus deren übergroßer Büchse das Unheil quillt in Form von Fackel, Fessel und Ketten sowie von kampfeslustigen fesseltragenden gallischen Hähnen (6), gegen die der Reichsadler (7) mutig anfl iegt. Ob dieses vor allem am Rhein herrschenden Kriegsgetümmels gerät rechts darunter selbst der Flußgott Rhenus (8) in Schrecken. Am Fuß der Thronstufen schläft Fortuna (9) und wird vergeblich von der blinden Justitia (10), links davon mit Waage und Schwert, zu wecken versucht. Trotz Einholung klugen Rats, symbolisiert durch ein Ovalbild mit Dreigesicht (11) rechts oben, und trotz Betens, ausgedrückt durch ein gefl ügeltes Herz (12) im Bild gegenüber, drücken doch die Waffen – Gewehr, Mörser, Kanone, Säbel, Bombe und Kugeln, die Germania rechts unten bereithält (13) – die Friedenspalmen und Ölzweige nieder, während ein behelmter Putto (14) darüber ein Fahnentuch zu raffen versucht. Gegenüber befi ndet sich Kronos (15) zwischen Furcht (16) und Hoffnung (17), visualisiert durch eine labile Wippe auf einer Kugel, auf deren Enden ein Hase sitzt (Furcht) und ein Anker hängt (Hoffnung). Die Motive 18 (Waage), Frieden (19: Pax mit Palme) und Krieg (20: Mars), Gott (21: Göttliche Vorsehung), Seufzer (22: Kniende mit Rauchfaß) und Hoffnung (23: Spes mit Anker), ausgedrückt durch ein Schiff in Seenot (24), rechts neben dem Almanachfeld, und die sich zeigende Sonne (24) gegenüber befi ndet sich im Bildfeld unter dem Almanach.

— 94 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Historie: Das Bildprogramm nimmt Bezug auf den Polnischen Erbfolgekrieg, der durch die Vertreibung des vom polnischen Adel unter französischem Einfl uß am 13.9.1733 gewählten Königs Stanislaus Leszczinsky durch den am 5.10.1733 erwählten Gegenkönig August III. (Kurfürst Friedrich August von Sachsen) provoziert und von Frankreich als Affront betrachtet wird, da König Ludwig XV. Leszczinskys Schwiegersohn ist. Am 14.10.1733 begannen mit der französischen Belagerung Kehls die Kampfhandlungen, die sich auch auf Lothringen und Italien erstreckten. Erst Mitte Januar 1734 ringt sich der Regensburger Reichstag zur Erklärung des Reichskriegs gegen Frankreich durch, dem sich allerdings die frankophilen Wittelsbacher Kurfürsten von Bayern, Köln und der Pfalz nicht anschließen. Die zahlenmäßig schwache Reichsarmee unter Oberbefehl des alternden Prinzen Eugen muß am Rhein wie in Italien ständig Niederlagen durch die Franzosen und die mit ihnen verbündeten Spanier hinnehmen. Erst der Vorfriede von Wien am 3.10.1735 nährt die Hoffnung auf Frieden, den die Völker Europas seit 2 Jahren herbeisehnen: Dies wird das Thema des folgenden Kalenderjahrgangs sein. Provenienz und Signatur: München, Staatliche Graphische Sammlung, Bestand Flugblätter, Inv. Nr. 210 038 (knapp beschnitten, Blattformat 64,5 × 49,8 cm; ohne Almanach, mit Fürstenkolorit). Weitere Exemplare: Coburg, Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg, III, 239,2 mit Almanach; ebenda, ohne Almanach, III,239,3. Literatur: Biller 2009, KS 67. – Nicht bei Neustätter 1933 sowie Mick 1958/59 und 1984. Bemerkungen: Mit dem Jahrgang 1735 beginnt Pfeffels Zusammenarbeit mit dem Zeichner und Maler Johann Holzer, der seit 1730 in der Werkstatt Johann Georg Bergmüllers einstand und spätestens 1736 in das Haus von Johann Andreas Pfeffel am Weinmarkt umzog, dessen Fassade er auch bemalte. Diese Zusammenarbeit währte bis mindestens 1737 oder Anfang 1738. Ende 1738 verpfl ichtete Pfeffel wieder den bewährten Johann Andreas Thelott als Delineator für den Jahrgang 1739, bevor ihn 1739 Lorenz Haid ablöste. Für Holzer war die Entwurfsarbeit für Wandkalender keine neue Erfahrung, da er schon 1732, wie wir wissen, für Johann Georg Bergmüllers Entwurf zum reichsstädtischen Ratskalender das Kopfblatt entworfen hatte. – Der Wechsel des Entwerfers schlägt sich deutlich in der Faktur des Frontispizes nieder: Die Verteilung der Personengruppen vor relativ ruhiger Hintergrund-Architektur wird kompositorisch gesteigert, die handelnden Figuren fi nden sich in ihren gegenseitigen Bezügen dramatisch intensiviert, auf die Beigabe von Emblemen (entgegen dem gestochenen Titel!) und kommentierenden Texten, Motti und Devisen wird verzichtet und damit die Bildwirkung homogener. – Es ist ein Charakteristikum der Pfeffelschen Kalenderserie, daß das Almanachfeld auch szenisch gestaltet ist und somit der Stich als Kunstblatt und Wandschmuck verwendbar war. Zum Gebrauch als Kalender konnte ein mitgelieferter Almanach auf dieses Feld aufkaschiert oder locker am oberen Rand angeklebt werden, dessen Reste nach Abreißen des Almanachs noch auf manchen Exemplaren sichtbar sind. Aber selbst ohne Almanach verschwieg das Blatt nicht

— 95 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer seine eigentliche Funktion als Kalender, wie die eingestochenen Titelzeilen verraten. – Die Ausfertigung der Pfeffelschen Wandkalender erfolgte in zwei Varianten und zeugt von der Geschäftstüchtigkeit des Verlegers. Im Normalzustand besitzt das Frontispiz keinen Almanach und zeigt in dem dafür vorgesehenen Feld in der unteren Hälfte historisch-allegorische Szenen, die sich mit ihrer Numerierung in das Gesamtkonzept des Kalenderbildes einfügen. Auf diese Weise fungiert das – auch im eingestochenen Titel so bezeichnete – Kalenderblatt weniger als Jahresbegleiter denn als dekorativer Wandschmuck und gewissermaßen zeitloses Kunstblatt, wenngleich in der Bildthematik dezidiert auf historische Ereignisse eines bestimmten Jahres angespielt wird. Zur Verwendung als Kalender wurde wie üblich ein Almanach im Typendruck gefertigt und entweder den Käufern des Stiches zum Einkleben in das illustrierte Kalenderfeld lose mitgegeben oder von Verlagsseite einmontiert und damit zum gebrauchsfertigen Jahreskalender vervollständigt. Dem Nachteil, mit der Überklebung den Bildinhalt des Almanachfeldes unsichtbar zu machen, entging man dadurch, daß das Almanachblättchen nur am oberen Rand angeklebt wurde und damit aufklappbar blieb. Aus der Reihe der überlieferten Jahrgänge der Pfeffel-Kalender fi nden sich alle drei Varianten: Frontispize ohne Almanach, mit voll einmontiertem Almanach und mit angeklebtem Almanach, der in manchen Fällen abgerissen ist, aber noch die Spuren der Kopfzeile aufweist.

HK 4 Historisch-allegorisch-emblematischer Wandkalender auf das Jahr 1736, gestochen von Philipp Gottfried Harder nach Johann Holzers Entwurf und Delineation 1735, verlegt von Johann Andreas Pfeffel d.Ä., Augsburg 1735 Almanach fehlt. [Im Berliner Exemplar enthalten mit folgendem Text:] [Titel des Berliner Exemplars: „Allmanach auf das Gnaden-reiche Jahr 1736. Unsers HErrn und Heylandes JESU Christi.“ Drucker und Druckort: Unbekannt, Augsburg 1735. Impressum: Fehlt. Verleger: Johann Andreas Pfeffel d.Ä., Augsburg 1735. Verlagsadresse: „ Ev. Augspurg / verlegts Johann Andreas Pfeffel.“ Technik und Material: Zweifarbiger Typendruck schwarz/rot, Papier (separat abgezogen und einmontiert in Almanachfeld, die darunter befi ndliche Bilddarstellung verdeckend).] Frontispiz Titel: „Dreyerley Arten und Mittel, || wie unter und durch || der Güldene Friede, || biß auf Göttliche Ratifi cation || könne zuwege gebracht und erhalten werden, || in einem Emblematischen Wand-Calender || auf das Jahr MDCCXXXVI vorgestellt ||

— 96 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer von || Johann Andreas Pfeffel, || Ihro Röm: Kayserl: und Königl: Cathol: Maj: || Hof- Kupferstecher in Augspurg.“ Inventor/Entwerfer: Nicht genannt, jedoch wohl Johann Holzer, Augsburg 1735. Delineator: Johann Holzer, Augsburg 1735. Signatur: „I. Holzer delin.“ (links unten). Stecher: Philipp Gottfried Harder, Augsburg 1735. Signatur: „P. G. Harder sculp.“ (rechts unten). Verleger: Kaiserlicher Hofkupferstecher und Verleger Johann Andreas Pfeffel d.Ä., Augsburg 1735. Adresse in Titel integriert: „ ... Johann Andreas Pfeffel, || Ihro Röm: Kayserl: und Königl: Cathol: Maj: || Hof-Kupferstecher in Augspurg.“ Privilegsvermerk: „Cum Priv: Sac: Caes:. Maj.“ (unten Mitte). Technik und Material: Radierung und Kupferstich, Papier. Bogenteile und Platten: 1. Format: 64,5–64,7 × 49,0–49,5 cm (Blatt). [Das vollrandige Berliner Exemplar mißt 66,0 × 50,4 cm (Bild), 68,2 × 51,5 cm (Platte), 73,9 × 57,1 cm (Blatt).] Erhaltung: Gut, kräftiges Druckbild, hart beschnitten, untere Rahmenleiste rekonstruiert, handschriftliche 1 unten Mitte eingefügt, Fürstenkolorit. Aufbau: Im Fußteil ein hoher, fast die Hälfte der Darstellung einnehmender Sockel mit verkröpftem Gesims auf großen, mit Blütengehängen verzierten Konsolen, die das Almanach-Bildfeld rahmen, darunter eine breit ausladenden Kartusche mit 2spaltigem, jeweils 12 Zeilen umfassendem Bildkommentar mit 18 Erklärungen. Darüber die fi gurenreiche Komposition um die in der Mitte unter der auf Wolken erscheinenden göttlichen Vorsehung thronende Allegorie des Staatswesens vor einem ruinösen, als Friedenstempel deklarierten Doppelsäulen-Halbrund. Über dem Almanachfeld ein architektonischer, oben von Flügelgesims bekrönter Aufsatz mit dem ausführlichen Frontispiztitel. Beschreibung: Die wesentlichen Themen des Bildprogramms sind im Kommentar in der Breitkartusche unten Mitte erläutert. Der Bezifferung folgend beginnt das Programm rechts oben mit dem Doppelsäulenrund des noch unvollendeten Friedenstempels (1), in dessen Interkolumnie die Herme einer Fortuna mit 2 Füllhörnern erscheint, die von Putten bekrönt und bekränzt wird. In der Mitte thront Germania als Verkörperung des Staates (2) mit dem Szepter in der Linken und mit der Rechten nach oben auf die göttliche Vorsehung (5) deutend, die unter der Devise „Huius Auspicio“ die 3 Wege zum Frieden weist: einmal durch Waffengewalt, wie sie links darunter Mars (3) mit Schwert in der Rechten und der Brandfackel in der Linken mit dem Motto: „Armato Brachio“ ausübt, dann durch Heirat, wozu rechts Juno (4) mit Füllhorn sowie zwei Pfauen an der Leine den Ehering präsentiert und auf der Weltkugel das Wort „Connubio“ erscheint, schließlich auch durch Klugen Rat „Consilio“, den Justitia (5) rechts mit Waage in der Linken und Motto in der Rechten: „Delibera- || tiones || et || Tractatus ||

— 97 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Pacis.“ bereithält. Dazu gewährt der Putto mit Anker links davon (6) die Hoffnung, während die Gerechte Sache in einem Schild mit Schwert und Waage (8) und dem Motto „Tandem bona causa triumphat.“ erscheint und auf einem zweiten Schild die Beständigkeit (9) mit der Devise Kaiser Karls VI.: „Constantia et Fortitudine.“ Fama (10) mit ihren widersprüchlichen Friedensverheißungen „Quietem nuntio“ schwebt oben halbrechts, die Tuba in der Rechten und einen Ölzweig in der Linken, dem die beiden Kriegsgenien links oben (11) mit Fanfare, Schwert und Horn widersprechen: „Ad pugnam concito“. Die Motive 12 bis 18 sind im Almanachfeld enthalten: 12 (Portal), 13 (Mars); 14 (Freiheit mit Palme), 15 (Kriegsgerät), 16 (Chronos), 17 (Geduld), 18 (Hoffnung) und 19 (Genius mit Schlüsseln). Historie: Das Bildprogramm illustriert die unsichere politische Lage des Jahres 1735, da im Polnischen Thronfolgekrieg (1733–38) das österreichische Heer zunächst ohne militärische Erfolge operiert, obwohl im August ein russisches Hilfskorps den Österreichern zu Hilfe kommt. Erst am 20. Oktober gelingt es Feldmarschall Heinrich von Seckendorf , die Franzosen unter Marschall Coligny bei Klausen nahe der Mosel entschiedend zu schlagen, ein Sieg, der aber von den Kaiserlichen strategisch kaum genützt wird. Doch war nun Frankreich zum Einlenken bereit. Inzwischen war auch am 3. Oktober zwischen Frankreich und Österreich der Vorfriede von Wien geschlossen worden, der allerdings erst am 18. November 1738 ratifi ziert wird. Provenienz und Signatur: München, Staatliche Graphische Sammlung, Bestand Flugblätter, Inv.Nr. 210039 (1921 vom Bayerischen Nationalmuseum überstellt). Weiteres Exemplar: Berlin Staatsbibliothek Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Inv.Nr. Einblatt-Druck YB 5420 (gr.), mit Almanach. Literatur: Biller 2009, KS 68. – Nicht bei Neustätter 1933 sowie Mick 1958/59 und 1984. Bemerkungen: Zweites der insgesamt drei von Johann Evangelist Holzer entworfenen und delineierten Frontispize, das mit seinem Verzicht auf die früheren neben dem Almanachfeld eingefügten Embleme kompositorisch einheitlicher und im Sockelbereich verfestigter und monumentaler erscheint, wenngleich mit der Einfügung kommentierender Sinnsprüche in der Figurenszene ein Rückgriff auf die Lösung eines früheren Kalenders von 1731 erfolgt.

HK 5 Historisch-allegorisch-emblematischer Wandkalender1737, gestochen nach Johann Holzers Entwurf und Delineation von Philipp Gottfried Harder 1736, verlegt von Johann Andreas Pfeffel d.Ä., Augsburg 1736 Almanach Fehlt (abgerissen). [Der Titel dürfte gelautet haben: „Allmanach auf das Gnaden-reiche Jahr 1737. Unsers HErrn und Heylandes JESU Christi.“ (Reste der ersten fünf Worte noch sichtbar). Drucker und Druckort: Unbekannt, Augsburg 1736.

— 98 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Verleger: Kaiserlicher Hofkupferstecher und Verleger Johann Andreas Pfeffel d.Ä., Augsburg 1736. Verlagsadresse wohl: „Augspurg / verlegts Johann Andreas Pfeffel.“ Technik und Material: Zweifarbiger Typendruck schwarz/rot, Papier.] Frontispiz Titel: „Historisch und Emblematischer || Wand Calender || auf das || verhoffentlich der Christenheit. || Friedens Ruhe Bringende || MDCCXXXVII. Jahr || vorgestellt und herauß gegeben || von || Johann Andreas Pfeffel || Ihro Röm: Kayserl: u: Königl: Cath: || May: Hoff Kupfferstecher || zu Augspurg.“ (in Kartuschenfeld über dem unteren Bildfeld). Inventor/Entwerfer: Nicht genannt, aber wohl Johann Holzer, Augsburg 1736. Delineator: Johann Holzer, Augsburg 1736. Signatur: „I. Holtzer [sic] delin:“ (unten links). Stecher: Philipp Gottfried Harder, Augsburg 1736. Signatur: „P. G. Harder sculps.“ (unten rechts). Verleger: Kaiserlicher Hofkupferstecher Johann Andreas Pfeffel d.Ä., Augsburg 1736. Adresse: „…Johann Andreas Pfeffel || Ihro Röm: Kayserl: u: Königl: Cath: || May: Hoff Kupfferstecher || zu Augspurg.“ (in Frontispiztitel integriert). Technik und Material: Radierung und Kupferstich, Papier. Bogenteile und Platten: 1. Format: 64,7 × 49,4 cm (Bild), 65,7 × 49,4 cm (Blatt). Erhaltung: Verhältnismäßig gut, unter Verlust des Plattenrandes knapp beschnitten, kräftiger Abzug, vergilbt, randrissig. Aufbau: Über dem architektonisch gestalteten, mehr als ein Drittel der Höhe einnehmenden Sockel, vor dem sich das illustrierte Almanachfeld und die Kommentarkartusche appliziert fi nden, leitet ein aufwendig inszenierter architektonischer Aufsatz mit Titelkartusche in auffallend manieristischer Rahmung zur frei komponierten, reich fi gurierten illusionistischen Szenerie mit Himmelserscheinung über. Beschreibung: Die wesentlichen Themen des Bildprogramms sind wieder im Kommentar in der Breitkartusche unten Mitte erläutert. Der Bezifferung folgend beginnt das Programm oben mit der göttlichen Vorsehung (1), die in der Linken ein Dreifaltigkeitsszepter, in der Rechten aber den Kreuzknauf zur Vollendung des Friedenstempels links darbietet mit der Devise: „Haec fi rmat pacta coronis.“ Dahinter in der Mitte die wolkenlos strahlende Friedenssonne. Rechts oben im Eck aus den Wolken weisend Kronos: „2: u: 3. Ad nutum || signa dabo.“ Unterhalb des Tempels sitzend Pax mit einem Instrument samt Kronensiegel in der Linken: „4. || Pacem || feret || ista || Corona.“ Links daneben Spes mit Anker, dem oben ein Ölbäumchen entsprießt, begleitet von dem Text: „5. Recitans virescit oliva.“ Die Flußgötter von Rhein und Po

— 99 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

(in deren Gebiet der Polnische Erbfolgekrieg wütet), aus deren Urnen Wasser strömt und Ölbäumchen bewässert: „6. Pro hastis gramina fl orent.“ Rechts neben Pax die Dame (Frankreich, 7), die mit dem Schwert den Ölzweig verweigert und nach der Krone greift, die von einem Putto dargeboten wird. Wieder rechts davon Mars, der sein Heer aus dem Reich gen Osten führt und auf dem Banner die Devise trägt: „8. Orientis aperta Palaestra.“ Darüber die beiden Siegeszeichen mit den Wappen Rußlands und Persiens und dem Motto: „9. Virtutis || praemia justa.“, welche beide Staaten ein Bündnis gegen die Türken schließen: „10. Tres in damnum quaero.“ Darüber die „trübe Luft“, welche des Halbmondes Licht verdunkelt: „11. Fatali ordine gentis.“ Rechts darunter Donau und Euphrat, deren Fluten „von Krieges Flammen funkeln“: „12. Martis furore fl umina fumant.“ Im großen Bildfeld unten kommen vor der Stadtsilhouette Konstantinopels links Gerechtigkeit und Glück sowie Mars den Russen zuhilfe: „13. || Vincit faventi- || bus istis.“ Rechts erscheint Neptun mit Dreizack in einem von 4 Pferden gezogenen Muschelboot und verweist auf die Waage mit dem „Friedens-Werk“: „14. In fl uctibus fl uctuat aequum.“ Darunter die Schildkröte, die das Sprichwort lehrt: „Gut Ding braucht lange Weil“ mit dem Motto: „15. Sat cito si sat bene.“ Die nächsten beiden Anspielungen erscheinen zu Seiten des Bildfeldes, links der Adler (Österreich), der sich mit den Lilien (Frankreich) vergleicht: „16. Mirabilis Sympathia.“, rechts vor einem Globus ein Putto, der auf einer Karte neue Grenzen zieht: „17. Mutato || limite || signat.“ Historie: Das äußerst komplexe Programm spielt auf die wechselnden Bündnisse und Verträge der europäischen Staaten und die daraus erwachsenden Länderverschiebungen sowie den grotesken Kronenschacher in Polen an. Noch im Vorfrieden von Wien am 3.10.1735 war Kurfürst Friedrich August III. von Sachsen als König von Polen anerkannt worden, der den erst am 13.9.1733 unter französischem Druck von den Ständen gewählten König Stanislaus Leszczynski mit russischer Hilfe kurz darauf vertrieben und am 5.10.1733 seine eigene Wahl durchgesetzt hatte. Leszczynski darf aber nun den Ehrentitel eines „Königs von Polen“ führen und erhält das Herzogtum Bar sowie die Exspektanz auf Lothringen, das Österreich gegen den zu erwartenden Erwerb der Toskana nach Tod des letzten Großherzogs Gian Gastone von Medici (1737) an Leszczynski abtreten wird. Am 18.5.1736 verzichtet deshalb der Reichstag auf die Zugehörigkeit des Herzogtums Lothringen zum Deutschen Reich. Zugleich wurde vereinbart, daß nach Leszczynskis Tod (1766) die Herzogtümer Bar und Lothringen an Frankreich fallen sollen, des weiteren gelangt Neapel und Sizilien an Don Carlos von Spanien, der als „König von Sizilien“ anerkannt wird, während Österreich an Stelle Neapels und Siziliens Parma und Piacenza erhält sowie die Anerkennung der Pragmatischen Sanktion durch Frankreich durchsetzt. Mitte 1736 bricht schließlich der Russisch-Türkische Krieg aus, in den Kaiser Karl VI. gemäß einem Beistandspakt von 1726 auf Seite Rußlands eintritt, aber am 18.7.1736 bei Banja Luka eine schwere Niederlage hinnehmen muß, die jedoch am 28.9. durch den Sieg bei Radojowacz wieder wettgemacht wird. Das wechselnde Kriegsglück und die damit verbundenen schwankenden Friedenshoffnungen, auf die das Bildprogramm anspielt, werden allerdings erst am 18.11.1738 durch den Frieden von Wien zwischen Österreich und

— 100 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

Frankreich sowie am 18.9.1739 durch den Frieden von Belgrad zwischen Österreich und Rußland einerseits und der Türkei andererseits erfüllt werden. Provenienz und Signatur: Coburg, Kunstsammlungen der Veste Coburg, Inv.Nr. III, 239,3. Literatur: Biller 2009, KS 69. – Nicht bei Neustätter 1933 sowie Mick 1958/59 und 1984. Bemerkungen: Gegenüber der beruhigteren Komposition des Frontispizes von 1736 erfährt die Lösung für 1737 wieder ein fi gurenreicheres und komplexeres Programm, dem die Vergrößerung des Kopfteiles Rechnung trägt. Auffallend die vier Flußgötter, mit denen Holzer ein typisches Bildmotiv der Offi ziellen Wappenwandkalender in das Historisch-allegorische Genre einbringt. Die nun zum wiederholten Male verbliebenen Papier- und Textreste des offensichtlich nur leicht am Kopf angeklebten Almanachs lassen auf diese besondere Vertriebsform des Kalenders schließen. – Dieser Kalenderjahrgang 1737 ist der letzte der 3 von Holzer für Pfeffel entworfenen Frontispize. Die Beanspruchung mit Aufträgen in Münsterschwarzach seit Juli 1737 bis 1740 und dazwischen im Winter 1738/39 in Eichstätt sowie im Herbst 1739 in Partenkirchen ließen ihn nicht mehr für Pfeffels Kalenderserie zur Verfügung stehen. Sein früher Tod in Clemenswerth am 21.7.1740 machte die große Hoffnung auf weitere Werke zunichte.

ENDNOTES 1. Jacob Wichner: „Stift Admont und seine Beziehungen zu den Salzburger Unterrichtsanstalten.“ In: Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Salzburger Landeskunde 36/1896, S. 251, unter Hinweis auf die im Stift vorhandenen Jahrgänge 1786, 1789 und 1793. 2. „Zur Geschichte des alten Salzburger Wandkalenders.“ In: Salzburger Kalenderschau, Ausstellung 4. – 24. August 1920 im Carabinierisaal der Residenz. – Auch P. Straßer stützte sich auf die nicht ganz fehlerfreie Auswertung der vorhandenen Exemplare und hat die archivalischen Quellen nicht herangezogen. Diese hat jedoch Adolf Frank zumindest teilweise durchgesehen und exzerpiert, jedoch nicht veröffentlicht. Seine Notizen liegen im Nachlaß Frank im Salzburger Landesarchiv. 3. Die erweiterte Vornamensform Johann Evangelist fi ndet man nach Mick 1958, S. 42, “nur bei seinen Biographen, denn weder er selbst, noch die … Taufmatrikel geben uns an, ob – wie üblich – der Täufer Johannes oder der Lieblingsjünger zu seinem Patron erklärt worden war. Immerhin mochte sich für ein am Heiligen Abend geborenes Kind als erster Name des Heiligen-Kalenders nach den zwei Weihnachtstagen „Johannes der Evangelist“ anbieten. Hinzu kommt, daß schon einer der beiden älteren Söhne Holzer auf den Namen Johann Baptist getauft worden war.“ 4. Bei druckgraphischen Einblattkalendern bezieht sich der Begriff „Almanach“ auf das meist in Typen gesetzte und in Buchdruck in ein ausgespartes Feld eingedruckte oder separat abgezogene und in das Almanachfeld eingeklebte Jahreskalendarium.

— 101 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

5. Josef H. Biller: „Der hl. Rupert auf den Wandkalendern des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts“, S. 141–151, hier S. 142 (Abb. 36: Jahrgang 1758), S. 148 und 328f, Kat. Nr. 85 (Jahrgang 1758) mit 2 Detailabb. 6. Josef H. Biller: „Wappenkalender des Fürsterzbistums und Domkapitels Salzburg“, S. 196–203, hier S. 197 (Abb. Jahrgang 1758), 198, 201–203, Kat. Nr. 113 mit Abb. 203 (Ausschnitt). 7. Jürgen Rapp: „`J. Holzer fecit sub Directione Domini J. G. Bergmiller.´ Johann Evangelist Holzer arbeitet für Johann Georg Bergmüller.“ In: Pantheon, 48/1990, S. 81–109, hier S. 81–84 mit Abb. 6. 8. Der Verfasser verdankt dessen Kenntnis Herrn Oberkonservator Dr. Achim Riether von der Staatlichen Graphischen Sammlung München, der ihm die an ihn gelangte Anfrage zur Beantwortung übergab und die Verbindung herstellte zu Señora Isabel Clara García-Toraño Martínez von der Sección de Dibujos, Servicio de Dibujos y Grabados der Biblioteca Nacional Madrid und dem Bearbeiter des Zeichnungskatalogs, Universitätsprofessor em. José María Prados Garcia in Madrid. Beiden dankt der Verfasser bestens für ihre bereitwilligen Auskünfte zu Herkunft und Ikonografi e der Zeichnung. 9. Frits Lugt: Les Marques de Collections de Dessins et d’Estamps. Amsterdam 1921, S. 77, Nr. 432. 10. Da das genaue Geburtsdatum Pfeffels bisher unbekannt war, hat sich der Verfasser darum bemüht und kann es nun hier erstmals benennen: Geboren am 19.10.1670 und getauft in der ev. Pfarrkirche von Bischoffi ngen (Baden-Durlach); begraben am 14.5.1748 in der ev. Barfüßerkirche Augsburg. 11. Vgl. dazu Ernst Wolfgang Mick: „Joannes Holzer 1709–1740. Beiträge zur Monographie unter besonderer Rücksicht auf ikonographische Fragen.“ In: Cultura Atesina, XII/1958, S. 31–118 mit Abb. 1–112, und XIII/1959, S. 16–54 mit Abb. 113– 171; hier Mick 1959, S. 33–38. Die an der Universität Frankfurt.a.M. unter Prof. Dr. Harald Keller entstandene Dissertation 1958 auch als unvollständiger Separatdruck mit dem Titel: „Ikonographische Studien zu Joannes Holzer 1709–1740“ erschienen, der nur den ersten Teil aus der Cultura Atesina 1958 ohne die Abbildungen, aber mit Lebenslauf auf S. [120] wiedergibt; dieser bibliographisch nur selten zitierte Teilabdruck verwahrt in der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek in München unter U 60.2530. Die inzwischen untergegangenen Fresken sind überliefert in den Radierungen von Johann Esajas Nilson U, V, W, Y und Z. 12. Ebenda S. 38; Nilson Blatt X. 13. Mick 1959, S. 33, unter Berufung auf einen Zeitungsartikel von Andreas Dipauli aus den Jahren 1830 und 1834; vgl. Mick 1958, S. 35. 14. Zur Genese der Allegorie der Stadtgöttin aus der antiken Natur- und Erdgottheit der mit Mauerkrone versehenen Kybele vgl. Peter Grau: Antiker Mythos bei Johann Evangeliost Holzer (1709–1740). ‚Flora und Aurora’ in der ehem. fürstbischöfl ichen Sommerresidenz zu Eichstätt“, Eichstätt 1988, S. 11–14. 15. P. Josef Straßer: „Zur Geschichte des alten Salzburger Wandkalenders. (Ein Beitrag zur derzeitigen Kalenderschau in der ehemaligen Winterresidenz.)“ In: Salzburger Chronik 8/1920, S. 193. 16. Salzburger Landesarchiv, Hofbaumeisterei Nr. 8, Brief von Kupferdrucker Jakob Bendele und Kupferstecher Paul Brandl vom 1.8.1743.

— 102 — Josef H. Biller. Johann Holzer als Kalenderentwerfer

17. Ebenda, Nr. 14: Extrakt aus dem Protokoll der Hofkammerratssitzung vom 15.6.1748. 18. Karin Friedlmeier: „Materialien zu einem katholisch/evangelischen Entwerfer- Stecher-Team. Johann Georg Bergmüller (1688–1762) und Jakob Andreas Friedrich d. Ä. (1684–1751). In: John Roger Paas (Hsgb.): Augsburg, die Bilderfabrik Europas. Essays zur Augsburger Druckgraphik der Frühen Neuzeit. Augsburg 2001, S. 99–108, hier S. 106 (1712), 101 (1717), 106 (1717, 1727/28, 1747,vor 1751). 19. Einziges überliefertes Exemplar von 1742 in der Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen Anhalt in Halle. 20. Mick 1959, S. 27, Abb. 135 auf Tf. XLVI: Scheinmalerei eines Giebels für ein Haus an der unteren Maximilianstraße, Federzeichnung, 17,0 × 16,0 cm.

— 103 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro

Alberto Milano Laureato alla Università Bocconi di Milano, presidente della commissione internazionale di Bildlore / SIEF, vice-presidente dell’ associazione BILD DRUCK PAPIER Milano, Italy

L’IMMAGINE DELLA RUSSIA NELLE STAMPE EUROPEE E IN QUELLE EDITE DA DAZIARO

Le Prince: i venditori ambulanti di Mosca e San Pietroburgo

Quando negli anni tra il 1764 e il 1768 l’artista francese Jean-Baptiste Le Prince (1734–1781) pubblicò le sue tre serie di sei incisioni ciascuna che raffi gurano i venditori ambulanti che si potevano incontrare per le vie di Mosca e di San Pietroburgo, si trattava di una importante novità1. Infatti ben poco era disponibile a quell’epoca sul mercato delle stampe con un simile soggetto russo a parte una raccolta pubblicata a Cassel qualche anno prima2. E invece il genere dei cosiddetti “gridi” o mestieri ambulanti per le strade delle varie città europee era ben affermato da secoli. Si può dire che avesse fatto parte dell’assortimento degli stampatori orientati ad una produzione a larga diffusione sin dagli albori della stampa in Europa e poi sempre di più dal XVIII secolo, a Roma, a Parigi, a Venezia, a Londra e nelle città tedesche ed olandesi. Le stampe dei venditori ambulanti avevano avuto le loro massime espressioni in Italia con le fi gure inventate da Ambrogio Brambilla per Roma nel 1582, da Annibale Carracci nel 1646 e Giuseppe Maria Mitelli nel 1660 per la città di Bologna3, in Inghilterra con le serie di Marcellus Laroon (1653–1702) “The Cryes of the City of London” nel 1687 poi ristampate fi no al 17194, e in Francia con quelle di Edme Bouchardon (1698–1762) “Les Cries de Paris” edite tra il 1737 e il 1746 in cinque serie di dodici stampe ciascuna5.

— 104 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro

Fig. 1. Le Marchand de Limonade. Jean Baptiste Le Prince. Parigi 1765, incisione in rame 215 ×175 mm/rame, (Coll. Privata, Milano).

— 105 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro

Le immagini dei venditori nella strada si rivelano molto utili per ricostruire la vita quotidiana dei secoli passati, ma la Russia, per molte ragioni, non aveva potuto godere di una tradizione simile a quella delle altre nazioni europee. Erano mancati fi no agli ultimi decenni del XVIII secolo sia gli stampatori che potessero intraprendere, dal punto di vista delle capacità tecniche, edizioni costose che richiedevano un programma ben defi nito e incisori specializzati, sia il pubblico di acquirenti, costituito da viaggiatori stranieri interessati ai costumi e ai modi di vivere delle nazioni visitate e da una borghesia locale amante delle proprie tradizioni. Le Prince aveva iniziato la sua carriera artistica da allievo del celebre pittore François Boucher (1703–1770) dimostrando qualità e talento sia nella pittura che nella incisione in rame. Nel 1758 aveva deciso di partire per la Russia e vi aveva viaggiato per cinque anni spingendosi fi no alla Finlandia, Lituania e Siberia. Tornato a Parigi alla fi ne del 1763 aveva portato con sé oltre ad una esperienza diretta dei luoghi e delle persone anche una notevole quantità di disegni presi sul posto che gli servirono di base per la sua intensa attività successiva6. Mettendo a confronto i fogli dei venditori ambulanti russi incisi da Le Prince con la serie di dodici incisioni intitolata “Les Cris de Paris” disegnata dal suo maestro Boucher nel 1737 circa7 ci si può rendere conto delle innovazioni introdotte da Le Prince. Trattandosi di artisti di due generazioni differenti rientra nella normalità il fatto che il gusto ancora “rocaille” di Boucher si sia evoluto in Le Prince con alcune premonizioni di tipo neoclassico. Ma oltre allo stile incisorio è più importante rilevare la nuova posizione di osservatore di costumi sconosciuti, quelli russi, presa da Le Prince per raffi gurare i suoi personaggi. Boucher che aveva a che fare con i venditori delle strade di Parigi e quindi parte della sua esperienza di tutti i giorni, pur evitando l’aspetto unicamente pittoresco disegnò le sue fi gure inserendo in esse una forte idealizzazione. Basta osservare i volti delle graziose venditrici e dei bambini per rendersi conto che poco hanno a che fare con la realtà di una vita durissima. Le Prince invece incomincia a vedere i suoi soggetti da un punto di vista più obiettivo, scientifi co, cercando di rappresentarli nei loro abiti

— 106 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro tradizionali, nei loro usi e nelle loro attività così come li aveva visti durante la sua permanenza nei luoghi. Per meglio ottenere il suo scopo inserisce le fi gure in un ambiente costituito da persone, costruzioni, paesaggi, circostanze e avvenimenti che servono a delineare un contesto realistico nel quale agiscono i suoi venditori. Nella maggior parte dei casi vengono ricreate vere e proprie scene di genere in cui non manca un’attenzione sicura per l’aspetto decorativo (Fig. 1). Le serie di stampe di Le Prince ebbero un ruolo fondamentale nel creare una immagine della Russia e dei suoi abitanti agli occhi del pubblico europeo che della Russia ignorava quasi tutto8. L’esotismo dei costumi e degli ambienti contribuirono al successo e alla diffusione di queste stampe perchè rispondevano bene al nuovo interesse di matrice illuminista per la conoscenza degli usi e costumi dei popoli di tutto il mondo. Anche se per soddisfare questa moda furono spesso utilizzate immagini che ben poco avevano di realistico e a volte erano solo riproposizioni di fantasia tratte da più antichi testi. Non è comunque un caso che una riedizione di tutte le incisioni di Le Prince venne approntata dall’editore parigino Basan in un corpus unico pubblicato subito dopo la sua morte nel 1782 e che di molti di questi fogli si conoscano copie eseguite in controparte e semplifi cate, poiché attestano una richiesta e una distribuzione nel mercato europeo delle stampe. Le incisioni di Le Prince non sono esse stesse esenti da alcune note di esotismo di maniera, specialmente nella produzione più tarda in cui più evidente è il compromesso tra la descrizione oggettiva e la deformazione di genere un po’ sullo stile degli interni olandesi del seicento che erano allora molto richiesti come elementi della decorazione delle stanze. Ma quanto meno aprirono una fi nestra costituendo un riferimento diretto alla vita delle popolazioni russe negli ultimi decenni del XVIII secolo e furono prese a modello per molte immagini stampate successivamente. Tanto che alcune delle invenzioni formali e delle scene create dall’artista francese dovevano avere una lunga vita perchè adottate persino nel Lubok, cioè nelle stampe a più larga diffusione popolare russe del secolo successivo. Ad esempio l’incisione intitolata “Les Nouvellistes”, una acquatinta del 1768 (British Museum, Londra, registration number 1853,1210.680) che raffi gura tre

— 107 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro

paesani russi seduti in conversazione attorno ad un tavolo all’interno di un casolare rustico, può essere considerata dal punto di vista della impostazione della scena il possibile modello di alcuni fogli russi come “Il ritorno al paese da Pietroburgo”, “Il ritorno del cittadino di Jaroslav”, “A Pietroburgo non c’è posto”9. Oppure quella dal titolo “Le cabaret livorien” (Br.Museum, Londra reg. n.1859,1210.107) del 1765 circa, in cui una paesana russa è seduta con un bimbo in braccio in un interno rustico, che ha un diretto riscontro in fogli popolari quali “Veglie rurali delle nubili” e “Fila o mia fi latrice”10. Non deve sorprendere questo passaggio di motivi e quanto meno di impostazione tra tipi di stampe destinati a pubblici differenti; da sempre le immagini hanno contribuito a dar vita ad altre immagini, magari distanti nel tempo e nello spazio in un processo di scambio estremamente vario e inaspettato e per questo non facilmente rintracciabile. Ma è evidente che il potersi basare su una stampa già esistente, anche dal punto di vista economico, fondamentale in una produzione di basso costo, facilitava di molto la creazione di nuove stampe che magari dell’originale conservavano ben poco. Un aspetto di questo passaggio da immagini ad immagini, per quanto riguarda i soggetti a larga diffusione delle stampe russe in rapporto a quelle europee, è stato più volte evidenziato ma non sempre sono state colte le ragioni storiche collegate alla produzione e alla diffusione delle stampe che stan dietro al fenomeno.

Georgi: descrizione della Russia

Sempre per venire incontro ad un pubblico interessato ai vari aspetti della vita delle popolazioni più lontane nel 1776–1780 J. G. Georgi, geografo e botanico che aveva partecipato a due spedizioni in Siberia nel 1770, pubblicò a San Pietroburgo la raccolta “Beschreibung allen Nationen des Russichen Reiches”11. Nei quattro volumi illustrati da 95 incisioni vennero descritti i modi di vita, le abitazioni, il vestiario delle tante popolazioni della Russia. L’opera ebbe grande risonanza, specialmente per quanto riguarda l’apparato illustrativo che venne più

— 108 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro

Fig. 2. La Russie. Parigi, Gale Fils, circa 1820, incisione in rame colorata, 130 ×80 mm / foglio, (Coll. Privata, Milano). volte copiato in Francia e in Inghilterra. A Londra, nel 1803, S. Gosnell pubblicò un “The Costume of the Russian Empire, illustrated by a series of Seventythree engravings. With descriptions in English and French” le cui tavole riprendono in dimensioni ingrandite quelle pubblicate da Georgi12. Nell’Inghilterra degli anni della coalizione con la Russia, l’Austria e la Prussia contro la Francia di Napoleone poteva avere successo questa descrizione di un popolo ancora considerato lontano

— 109 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro ma legato da vicende politiche e militari, anche se il volume originale risaliva a più di vent’anni prima. Le immagini degli abitanti delle regioni russe riprese da quelle pubblicate da Georgi furono riproposte anche a Parigi alcuni anni dopo, nel 1815–1820 in un formato più piccolo e in astuccio adattate a carte per un gioco di società (Fig. 2). Il caso appena esaminato è interessante perchè permette di seguire attraverso le nazioni europee, lungo un intervallo di tempo di alcuni decenni, e sotto forme diverse gruppi di immagini che dovevano inevitabilmente rimanere impressi contribuendo a formare le idee visive sulla Russia. O se vogliamo a dare vita ad una serie di stereotipi con la ripetizione delle stesse immagini. La ripetizione delle immagini va vista non solo in senso negativo perché alla loro base c’erano state comunque esperienze dirette da parte degli autori stessi, ma da quelle esperienze erano poi trascorsi troppi anni per non rischiare di diventare inattuali.

Atkinson: i costumi della Russia

Anche per la serie di 100 incisioni di John Augustus Atkinson con il commento di James Walker pubblicata a Londra nel 1803–1804 si verifi cò un’analoga situazione di riproposizione delle stesse immagini della Russia in diverse nazioni europee14 (Fig. 3). Atkinson, nato a Londra nel 1775 e ivi morto nel 1833, aveva messo a frutto una sua permanenza in Russia negli ultimi anni del XVIII secolo per eseguire numerosi disegni sulla vita e sui costumi della popolazione15. Tornando in patria nel 1801 da questa esperienza erano nati i tre volumi in folio contenenti le tavole colorate. Queste incisioni furono prese a modello da Armand Gustave Houbigant (1789–1862) che pubblicò a Parigi da F. Didot il suo “Moeurs et costumes des russes, représentés en 50 planches coloriées exécutées en litographie” nel 181716. Houbigant nel foglio di presentazione della sua opera fa espresso riferimento, “... il y a déja quelques années que cette collection a paru en Angleterre...”, al successo avuto da queste immagini. Una loro rielaborazione per il pubblico francese è spiegabile con la fi ne delle guerre napoleoniche e l’avvento della Restaurazione.

— 110 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro

Fig. 3. Golubtza. John Augustus Atkinson. Londra, 1804, incisione in rame colorata, 185 ×245 mm / rame , (Coll. Privata, Milano).

Le immagini pubblicate da Houbigant sono solo 50 rispetto alle originali 100 di Atkinson e, signifi cativamente, sono eseguite in litografi a, la tecnica di stampa messa a punto proprio in quegli anni, invece che in incisione all’acquatinta sicuramente di migliore qualità ma molto più costosa. Nel riprodurre le immagini inglesi Houbigant lasciò i personaggi più o meno nella stessa posizione modifi cando però sensibilmente gli elementi del paesaggio circostante. Si conosce una ristampa dell’edizione di Houbigant eseguita nel 1821 a Strasburgo. Sia la serie inglese che quella francese, con le loro elaborate scene di vita quotidiana nei villaggi russi, con i divertimenti popolari ed i costumi riprodotti in immagini attraenti e colorate costituirono un’altro signifi cativo apporto alla più generale visione della Russia che doveva infl uenzare la produzione successiva di stampe sia russe che europee. Anche in questo caso si può notare come la costruzione del Lubok degli anni attorno al 1850 sia spesso debitrice di queste immagini europee

— 111 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro dell’inizio del secolo17. Il soggetto può essere anche mutato, perchè la caratteristica del Lubok era il racconto di una storia più che l’aspetto decorativo, ma l’impostazione dell’immagine è strettamente legata agli esempi che circolavano correntemente ed erano disponibili nei negozi di Mosca e San Pietroburgo.

Orlowski: la litografi a in Russia

Nel 1809 l’editore londinese Edward Orme18 pubblicò un album con otto tavole incise da James Godby e John Swain tratte da disegni eseguiti in Russia da Orlowski. Il frontespizio dell’album raffi gura una slitta trainata da cavalli, un’immagine immancabile come riferimento alla Russia, mentre le tavole hanno come soggetti venditori ambulanti di pane, caviale, the, liquore, acqua ecc. con titoli in russo e in inglese. Alexander Orlowski (Varsavia 1777, San Pietroburgo 1832) fu artista di talento che dopo varie esperienze si trasferì in Lituania e nel 1802 a San Pietroburgo dove visse trent’anni. Godette in Russia, ma anche nel resto d’Europa, di stima e apprezzamento specialmente per i suoi quadri e disegni di scene militari, di battaglie del periodo delle guerre napoleoniche, e di ritratti spesso di soggetto russo. Nel 1816 Orlowski fu tra i primi in Russia ad utilizzare la nuova tecnica litografi ca con la quale tra 1825 e 1826 eseguì una serie di tavole di mestieri ambulanti russi forse edita proprio a San Pietroburgo (Fig. 4), dove una serie analoga di 16 tavole era stata pubblicata nel 182319. Delle fi gure di Orlowski si conoscono copie anche in controparte e i suoi disegni vennero spesso utilizzati quali modelli per la decorazione di piatti, vasi in ceramica e oggetti laccati20. La sua fama arrivò anche in Italia e nelle pagine della celebre rivista letteraria L’Antologia pubblicata a Firenze da Giovan Pietro Vieusseux nel 1826 trovò posto un’ampio resoconto dei grandi miglioramenti introdotti in Russia nella tecnica litografi ca, principalmente ad opera proprio di Orlowski, tanto che per l’esecuzione di certe stampe in Russia non era più necessario l’intervento di artisti stranieri ed anzi gli stessi editori stranieri potevano utilizzare artisti russi21.

— 112 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro

Fig. 4. Une nourrice et un soldat russes. Alexander Orlowski. (San Pietroburgo ?) 1826, litografi a colorata, 260 ×190 mm/foglio, (Coll. Privata, Milano).

— 113 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro

Tessari e Lemercier

Negli anni tra il 1830 e il 1850 la tecnica litografi ca per la produzione di immagini stampate fu progressivamente affi nata da parte di stampatori parigini quali Lemercier. Ed a Lemercier principalmente si rivolsero gli editori tesini per la stampa delle loro serie non solo di soggetto russo. Rose-Joseph Lemercier era nato a Parigi nel 1803 e dopo aver lavorato presso alcuni stampatori litografi ottenne il brevetto per esercitare la professione nel 182822. L’indirizzo della stamperia era in rue de Seine 57 a Parigi e gli anni fra il 1840 e il 1860 furono quelli che videro un’enorme sviluppo della sua attività. Nel 1849 lo stabilimento litografi co Lemercier occupava 120 operai producendo annualmente 1.800.000 stampe tra cui ritratti, paesaggi, scene di genere, raggruppati in serie e in album. Dopo la sua morte nel 1887 quando il nipote e successore vendette il fondo della ditta vi erano conservate ben 46.000 pietre litografi che disegnate con i più diversi soggetti decorativi o commerciali. Lemercier lavorò con gli editori di tutto il mondo e non solo europei, è comprensibile quindi che anche gli editori tesini si siano rivolti a lui per ottenere immagini stampate sulla cui qualità a livello internazionale si potesse senz’altro contare. L’editore tesino Tessari, che aveva sede a Parigi in Quai des Augustins 55 e in rue du Cloitre Notre Dame 4, fu verso il 1840 in ottimi rapporti d’affari con Lemercier23, affi dandogli l’esecuzione delle sue serie di stampe. Un esempio della qualità di questa collaborazione, di soggetto russo, è la serie di dodici fogli di grande formato24 (Fig. 5) “Souvenirs de Russie, dessinés et litographiés par Eduard Swebach”. In questi fogli sono raffi gurati diversi tipi di carri, carrozze, veicoli da trasporto, un soggetto molto richiesto appunto negli anni attorno al 1840. Un’altro esempio, questa volta di soggetto non russo, è costituito dalla serie con il titolo “PASSE-TEMS” disegnata e litografata dal prolifi co artista Victor Adam (Paris 1801 — Virofl ay 1867)25 che realizzò in litografi a ben 4000 fogli diversi, con soggetti di costume e specialmente di caccia e di cavalli. Le tavole di questa serie sono caratterizzate dalla presenza di una decina di piccoli schizzi separati fra loro, quindi non da un’unica immagine. Si tratta di fi gure singole, di gruppi di persone, di animali,

— 114 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro

Fig. 5. Traineau de poste. Leonard Swebach. Imp. Lemercier, Tessari et C.ie, Parigi , 1840 circa, litografi a colorata, 380 ×540 mm / foglio, (Coll. Privata, Milano). disposti in modo da coprire lo spazio del foglio fornendo una varietà di immagini, una miscellanea. Le vignette hanno un denominatore comune ma abbastanza generico, si tratta di soggetti esotici e romantici che ebbero in questa forma un indubbio successo e furono ampiamente copiati.

Daziaro: i «Croquis russes»

Anche Daziaro, che a Tessari era fortemente legato da stima e lavoro, pensò di seguire il gusto delle tavole composite affi dando a Heinrich Detlef Mitreuter (1817—1844), e poi alla sua morte ad altri artisti, una serie di tavole intitolata “Croquis russes” (Fig. 6). Su questi fogli sono infatti raccolti una decina di schizzi di diverse dimensioni e fi nitura, singole teste, fi gure intere, scene della vita quotidiana, tutti presi, quasi catturati, nell’immediatezza della realtà russa. Daziaro in questo caso

— 115 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro affi dò l’esecuzione delle tavole a litografi e di San Pietroburgo, mentre per serie più impegnative si servì sempre di Lemercier a Parigi. Un esempio della collaborazione tra Daziaro e Lemercier è una serie di soggetto analogo a quella edita da Tessari: “Attelages russes”, i disegni di Mitreuter sono datati 1842 e rappresentano diversi tipi di carrozze. Un’altro esempio sono le tavole per la serie “Album Russe” che rappresentano scene e fi gure tipiche della vita russa con didascalie in russo e francese, di qualche anno successive e disegnate da vari artisti attorno al 1850. E’ pure databile alla metà del secolo la rara raccolta, un esemplare è conservato presso la Library of Congress di Washington, di 24 litografi e dei mestieri di Mosca e San Pietroburgo edita da Daziaro e fi rmata da Leon Henri Antoine Loire (1821–1898)26. Tra i venditori ambulanti vi sono quelli di biscotti, cipolle, latte, stampe, meloni, fi ori, guanti, pesci, vestiti ecc., tutta una umanità colta nelle strade delle due città russe. Daziaro, attraverso l’ampia gamma di stampe da lui edite, dimostrò di essere perfettamente al corrente ed aggiornato su quella che era la produzione europea del genere decorativo, con particolare riguardo ai temi russi. In questo era pure erede della tradizione degli editori tesini che sin dagli ultimi anni del XVIII secolo si erano specializzati in questo settore e avevano saputo adattare al luogo eletto a loro residenza le tematiche più richieste sul mercato delle stampe. Da Vienna a Berlino, da Parigi a Londra nella prima metà del XIX secolo l’interesse per le scene della vita russa era vivo e gli editori delle varie città attivamente proposero singole stampe o gruppi di stampe di questo soggetto. Daziaro seppe inserirsi in questa moda fi gurativa riuscendo a sviluppare un mercato interno russo fi no ad allora solo saltuariamente seguito dagli altri editori e solitamente propenso ad acquistare stampe prodotte in altre nazioni.

Per circa un secolo, fra 1760 e 1860, artisti europei e russi, incisori e litografi europei e russi si trovarono accomunati nel dar vita ad una immagine della Russia che doveva rimanere poi ben viva sia nell’immaginario degli abitanti delle altre nazioni che nella visione che i russi avevano di sé stessi. Infatti anche le immagini considerate russe

— 116 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro

Fig. 6. Croquis russes. H. Mitreuter. Lith. U.Steinbach, DAZIARO, Mosca e San Pietroburgo, 1842 circa, litografi a, 305 ×445 mm/foglio, (Coll. Privata, Milano). per eccellenza, il Lubok nel XIX secolo, molto devono alle incisione stampate specialmente in Inghilterra nei primi anni del secolo. A conferma del fatto che le immagini non hanno frontiere e che non voler vedere le loro relazioni, sempre esistite, è conseguenza di pregiudizi o di scelte ideologiche che nulla hanno a che vedere con la ricerca storica.

NOTE 1. Il riferimento bibliografi co più completo, anche se ormai piuttosto datato, per le serie di stampe dei venditori ambulanti é: Karen F.Beall, Kaufrufe und Strassenhaendler, Hamburg, 1975. Le serie di Le Prince sono descritte al Rif. R 2 “Premiere (2me, IIIe) suitte de cris et divers marchands de Petersbourg et de Moscou. Dessinés d’après nature (1764–1768). La prima serie reca nel frontespizio la dedica al pittore Chardin, la seconda a Boucher maestro di Le Prince. 2. “Habillements Moscovites et Crieurs à St.Petersbourg. Invent et faits à l’eau forte par Aug.Dahlsteen à Cassel chez W.C.Mayr graveur de la cour”, 18 tavole incise, circa 1750–1760; vedi Beall, 1975 op.cit. rif. R 1.

— 117 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro

3. Il più recente contributo dedicato alle immagini dei venditori ambulanti, specifi camente olandesi ma con ampio esame anche di quelle europee è: Leontine Buijnsters-Smets, Straatverkopers in Beeld, Nijmegen, 2012. I riferimenti bibliografi ci italiani a queste serie sono molto limitati tanto che è ancora da citare, pur nella sua incompletezza, l’articolo di Achille Bertarelli, I Gridi di piazza ed i mestieri ambulanti italiani dal secolo XVI al XX, in: Il Libro e La Stampa, anno I, Milano 1907. 4. Vedi per le serie dei gridi di Londra: Sean Shesgreen, Images of the outcast, the urban poor in the cries of London, Oxford, 2002. 5. Sui Cris de Paris, con completa bibliografi a vedi: Vincent Milliot, Les cris de Paris ou le peuple travesti, Paris, 1995. 6.Vedi su Le Prince: M.Mervaud, D.Bakhuys, M.Pinault Sorensen, Jean-Baptiste Le Prince, Le voyage en Russie, Cabinet des dessin, Musée des Beaux Arts, Rouen, 2004. 7. Beall, 1975, op.cit. Rif. F 14, p.228. 8. Una raccolta molto ampia delle stampe di soggetto russo di Le Prince è conservata presso la Kunstbibliothek di Berlino, vedi: Katalog der Freiherrlich von Lipperheide’schen Kostuembibliothek, Berlin, 1896-1905; le diverse serie sono raggruppate sotto il n.1339 (Divers Ajustements et Usages de Russie, 1764-Divers Habillements des Pretres de Russie,1764-Premiere,2me,IIIe suite des cris et divers marchands de Petersbourg et de Moscou, 1765–68); in generale sulla Raccolta Lipperheide vedi: Adelheid Rasche, Uebersicht zur Sammlungsgeschichte, in: Die Kultur der Kleider, herausgegeben von Adelheid Rasche, Berlin, 1999. 9. Per i riferimenti al Lubok ora fi nalmente disponibili con una specifi ca ed aggiornata ricerca anche in Italia, vedi: Maria Chiara Pesenti, Alberto Milano, Il Lubok, Stampe russe tra Ottocento e Novecento, Milano 2011, le stampe citate sono quelle con i numeri di catalogo: 4.1.7 del 1888, 4.1.8 del 1878 e 4.1.9. del 1888. 10. Pesenti, Milano, 2011, op.cit. le stampe sono illustrate nel catalogo con i numeri 2.12 datata 1882 e 2.13 del 1888. 11. Lipperheide, 1896–1905, op.cit. n.1337. Johann Gottlieb Georgi (1729–1802), geografo, chimico e botanico tedesco si recò a San Pietroburgo nel 1769 e partecipò a due spedizioni in Siberia, il suo principale compito era di carattere cartografi co, divenne poi accademico a San Pietroburgo. Una seconda edizione della sua opera fu pubblicata nel 1783. 12. Lipperheide, 1896–1905, op.cit. nn.1341 e 1342. 13. Il gioco di società è costituito da un astuccio contenente carte in cui è raffi gurata una singola fi gura femminile o maschile appartenente alle varie regioni della Russia. Le regole del gioco non si sono conservate, ma di solito lo scopo di questi giochi didattici era quello di memorizzare le informazioni e saper riconoscere le fi gure. 14. “A Picturesque Representation of the manners, customes, and amusements of the Russians, London, 1803–1804, by W.Bulmer and co., Lipperheide, 1896–1905, op.cit., n.1343. 15. La permanenza in Russia di Atkinson si prolungò tra il 1784, quando aveva solo 9 anni, fi no al 1801, in questo periodo si dedicò al disegno e alla illustrazione, i riferimenti sono tratti da: Dictionary of National Biography, 1885–1900, by Ernest Radford, volume 2, alla voce Atkinson, John Augustus. 16. Lipperheide, 1896–1905, op.cit. n.1352; Bibliothéque Nationale de France, Paris, Réserve des livres rares M-1194.

— 118 — Alberto Milano. L’immagine della Russia nelle stampe europee e in quelle edite da Daziaro

17. Vedi: Pesenti, Milano, 2011, op.cit. n.2.10 “Raccomandazioni dei genitori alla giovane recluta”, l’impianto formale del Lubok è molto simile a quello della Fig. 3 anche se dalla scena di genere si è passati nel Lubok ad un racconto aneddotico. 18. “Russian Cries in correct portraiture from drawings done on the spot by G. Orlowski”, Lipperheide,1896–1905, op.cit. n.1347; Beall, 1975, op.cit. R7. 19. “Collection de cris et costumes de St. Petersbourg, Dessinés et coloriés d’après nature, par divers artistes, St.Petersbourg au dépot lithographique chez Alexandre Pluchart, 1823”, Beall, 1975, op.cit. R8. 20. “Muenchen bey J. M. Hermann 1826”, Beall, 1975, op.cit. R9. 21. L’Antologia, Rivista scientifi ca, economica e letteraria fondata e diretta a Firenze da G.P.Vieusseux, pubblicata dal 1821 al 1833. Luglio, Agosto,Settembre 1826, p.136 “... disegnate per la più parte da Orlowsky artista distinto, che ha mostrato in esse la più rara abilità. Noi siamo già lungi da quel tempo in cui i russi avevano d’uopo di mani straniere, non dico per disegnare in pietra che allora non costumavasi, ma per disegnare in fogli e quindi incidere in metallo le carte dé vari paesi. Oggi voi lo vedete gli stranieri stesi adoprano la mano de’ russi...”. 22. Le informazioni sull’attività di Lemercier sono tratte da: Corinne Bouquin, Rose- Joseph Lemercier e la stampa litografi ca nel XIX secolo, in: Carte Dipinte, esotismo e intimismo nell’ottocento francese, a cura di Marilena Mosco, Firenze, 1989, pp. 95–112. 23. Vedi: Pierre Louis Duchartre, René Saulnier, L’Imagerie Parisienne, Paris, 1944 p. 239. I due autori, fra i maggiori studiosi e collezionisti d’Imagerie Populaire francesi, a proposito della ditta Tessari et C.ie han scritto: “Sa production très variée est tout à fait celle des imagiers de la rue Saint-Jacques”. 24. Lipperheide,1896–1905, op.cit. n.1355; questa serie fu edita in collaborazione con l’editore di Londra Gambart, Junin & c. secondo un modo di lavorare tipico degli editori tesini che in questo modo riuscivano a ridurre i rischi e i costi delle edizioni. 25 Su Jean Victor Adam vedi: Alberto Milano, Per la datazione delle ultime Xilografi e edite dai Remondini, in: Rassegna di Studi e di Notizie, Vol. XXXIII, Anno XXXVII, Milano, Castello Sforzesco, 2010 pp. 93–94. 26. Beall, 1975, op.cit. R10.

— 119 — Art and Literature Scientifi c and Analytical Journal Texts has a humanitarian nature. Articles are published in French, English, German and Russian languages. The focus of the journal is a research papers of the theory, history and criticism of art, literature, fi lm, theater, and music. The Journal is published four times a year. Its electronic version will be publicly available via the website. The Journal is also published in paper format inasmuch as reading texts on paper is a historical tradition and an integral part of European culture. We would like this new Journal would become a common intellectual platform for researchers from different countries and contribute to the development of scientifi c, creative and friendly connection.

Full electronic version available at www.art-texts.com

Cover photo: Sculpture. Saint George Cathedral in Yuryev-Polsky, Russia. White stone, 1230–1234.

Our Address in Bruxelles: Belgique, Bruxelles, 1000, rue de la Tête d’Or, 7 tel.: +34 483 09 10 64 [email protected]

Our representation in Moscow: Address: Bolshoi Afanassyevsky Pereulok 15 str. 9 119019, Moscow, Russia tel.: +7 495 695-04-19 [email protected]

Circulation: 500 Published: 4x/yr