Understanding Hussite Iconoclasm 115

Understanding Hussite Iconoclasm 115 Understanding Hussite Iconoclasm Milena Bartlová (Brno) The iconoclasm of the Bohemian Hussites forms one of the most intriguing aspects of their specific contribution to European history: It was the first case of an event which subsequently found its followers, and will undoubtedly find more in the future: a revolutionary gesture of crowds of people that destroy public images. Hussite iconoclasm is set apart from the Byzantine (and the early Christian) ones precisely by its social profile – the earlier occasions of destruc - tion and banishment of images were not carried out by common people, who have, on the contrary, rather acted the parts of the protectors facing and fight - ing the iconoclastic programme devised and enacted by the elites. On the other hand, the followers of Hussite iconoclasm include not only the sixteenth-cen - tury Reformation, but also the French Revolution and the Taliban in Afghanis- tan. All these revolutionary gestures share the need to denounce conventional social values through a radical visual demonstration, and to clear the terrain for the building of a new, ideal society. Iconoclasm is being studied from two access points – as an historical event, and as a topic in art history (as far as the objective of the latter is conceived as the field of visual images, which comprises not only pictures, sculptures and spaces, but also their creators, donors and users, their mutual relationships and activities involved 1). In historical research written inside the country, in Czech or in German, the interpretation of Hussite iconoclasm has not transcended the frame formulated by the fifteenth century reports. From the historical point of view, iconoclasm has remained the brand-mark impressed on Hussites by their opponents, and embraced positively by those segments of the later six - teenth century Utraquists who employed at least parts of the earlier radical rhetoric (a rhetoric sometimes difficult to distinguish from actual activities) as a means of their own identification. 2 Hussite iconoclasm acquired the charac - ter of a topos which soon covered a much wider area of meaning than can be fathomed by keeping close to the period reports. In the common knowledge, both an auto-stereotype of the Czechs and a hetero-stereotype of their neigh - bours, Hussite iconoclasm is credited with the loss of medieval artworks – with - out any regard to the fact that much more was destroyed by later campaigns which range from Re-catholicisation of the country to secularization and sub - 1Ifind extremely useful the concept of “field” as devised by Pierre Bourdieu. 2 For more detail and bibliography, see my argument in Milena Bartlová. Poctivé obrazy. Deskové malířství v Čechách a na Moravě 1400-1460 . [Devotional images. Board painting in Bohemia and Moravia 1400-60] (Prague, 2001) 44-50. 116 Milena Bartlová sequent waves of aesthetic modernisations during the seventeenth to nine - teenth centuries, and that some of these problems were shared by other coun - tries. Truly, the conservative Hussites’ opponents can count the result as their complete victory over the revolution and first reformation movements, because most of the modern historians have taken their interpretations as a reliable account of past events. The sole example of a more insightful approach is the historical analysis writ - ten “outside”, i.e. by a German historian of the middle generation, namely, the dissertation by Norbert Schnitzler published in 1996 which deals with Hussite iconoclasm in the context of later Reformation events of banishment of sacred images. 3 Schnitzler set up the necessary distinctions which make a more bal - anced and effective framing of the Hussite iconoclasm possible: he distin - guishes between religious and military iconoclastic actions, as well as between theory and actual events themselves. In this respect, he took up the important work done already in the 1960s-70s by Czech philologist and church historian Jana Nechutová in her studies with which she accompanied the important edi - tions of fourteenth- and fifteenth- century theological texts composed in Bohemia. She suggested the term “iconophobia” to denote the theoretical phase of Hussite iconoclasm and to distinguish it from the physical destruc - tion of images. Notably, also the term “iconoclasm” is not a period one: neither the Hussites nor their opponents conceived of the acts of destruction as sub - sumed under a singular concept. 4 The key question of research on Hussite iconoclasm is to understand cor - rectly the mutual relationship between theory and practice: How did the com - mon people understand the preaching, and how did the preaching relate to the scholastic disputes? The question has been introduced only by Schnitzler but he did not deal with it in detail himself. In distinction from most previous research, Schnitzler has argued that the majority of the reported Hussite destructions of artwork is to be included in the category of damage caused by the civil war and guided rather by the logic of military operations than by the logic of iconoclasm. The same solution has been suggested independently by 3 Norbert Schnitzler, Ikonoklasmus – Bildersturm. Theologischer Bilderstreit und ikonoklastisches Handlen wäh erend des 15. a und 16. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1996) on Hussites see esp. 51-60. See also idem , “Faules Holz – Toter Stein. Thesen zum Bilderkult des Mittelater aus ikonoklastischer Perspektive,“ in: Picture quasi fictura: die Rolle des Bildes in der Erforschung von Alltag und Sach - kultur des Mittelaters und der frühen Neuzeit (Vienna, 1996) 175-190. František Šmahel provided a careful, but extremely brief survey of the topic in his Husitské Čechy. Struktury – procesy – ideje . [Hussite Bohemia. Structures – processes – ideas] (Prague, 2001) 349-350. 4 N. Schnitzler, Ikonoklasmus 34, cites Thomas Netter / Waldensis (ca 1420) using the words “ icon - oclastes, id est imaginifragi ”. The absence concerns the Czech-written texts, as the relevant Old- Czech words are not to be found in Staročeský slovník 9 (Prague, 1977). Josef Jungmann, Slovník česko-německý 2, (reprint Prague, 1990) 793-795, knows the Old-Czech words “ obrazoborce, obra - zotepec, obrazorušec ” but his examples do not antedate the seventeenth century. Understanding Hussite Iconoclasm 117 Karel Stejskal in his latest publications on the topic. 5 While this approach clearly is correct as far as most of the reported cases are concerned, namely the destructions of monasteries including their decorations, the case on which Schnitzler has based his evaluation does not, in my opinion, fit the category at all. The Hussite radicals are reported by Vavřinec (Laurence) of Březová to have taken the figure of Christ riding the donkey, which was used for Palm Sunday performances, put it high on the as yet unfinished cathedral tower and demanded, “if you are the Christ, then bless Meissen”. When the sculpture did nothing, they derided it as only a piece of dead wood and threw it down to be smashed on the ground. 6 Schnitzler follows Vavřinec’s explanation: the clearly irrational movement was a symbolic expression addressed towards the Bishop of Meissen who was an important ally of King Sigismund. I am convinced, con - versely, that asking a sculpture to perform an act was not framed by a political context, but by a context of sacred images in late medieval society. The involve - ment of this specific iconographic type may reflect the fact that “ the ritual of destruction was conceived as a symbolic inversion of existing popular devotional rituals ,” as Sergiusz Michalski has noted in his inspiring book. 7 It remained the task of art historians to relate reports of destructions to the material testimony of extant artworks. In their approach they have, however, left aside the specific topics related to the field of medieval visual culture, or to role and status of sacred images, and dealt with Hussite iconoclasm on the ter - rain demarcated by the historical approach instead. The topic of iconoclasm has long been understood as a strange one for art history – demolition and renouncement of artworks can hardly be a legitimate subject of the field which is devoted to beaux-arts . Czech art history can be said to have been rather forced to deal with iconoclasm because of the key importance attributed to the Hussite revolution in the prevailing concept of Czech national history, as it was construed in the first half of the nineteenth century and enlivened again by the instrumentalisation of the Hussites by the Communist regime since the 1950s. Because Byzantine art history has also long been left out of the scope of the field, and because the fact of a massive destruction of Antique artworks in the early centuries of the Christian era was intentionally suppressed and over - looked, Czech art historians dealing with iconoclasm were left with little methodological support and inspiration. It is remarkable that the miscellany 5 Karel Stejskal, “Ikonoklasmus českého středověku a jeho limity,” [Iconoclasm of the Bohemian middle ages and its limits] Umění 48 (2000) 206-217; idem , Karel Stejskal, “Ikonoklasmus a náš památkový fond,” [Iconoclasm and our patrimony] Husitský Tábor 13 (2002) 71-110 (Schnitzler’s book is not cited by Stejskal). Unlike N. Schnitzler, Ikonoklasmus , Stejskal’s argument is rather diffuse and is not anchored in an analyses of the documented events. 6 Vavřinec (Laurence) of Březová, Chronicon in: FRB 5, 329-534, here 484. 7 Sergiusz Michalski, The Reformation and the Visual Arts. The Protestant Image Question in Eastern and Western Europe (London – New York, 1993) c. 3, esp. 91-92. 118 Milena Bartlová from a conference devoted to the topic in 1985, where the most important Czech studies concerning Hussite iconoclasm have been published, represents the first (and, for some decades to come, also the last) case of citing such pro - ponents of critical theory as Keith Moxey or Craig Harbison – who were among the generation which started to be interested in the Netherlandish Reformation iconoclasm in their early research in the 1970s.

Load more