Download Printable version

Friedrich Nietzsche in the National Theatre in Prague
Jan Bažant
Above the proscenium arch of the National Theatre in Prague there is a tympanum
with a personification of the arts, who is placing a wreath on the heads of the theatre muses
Thalia and Melpomene (fig.1-2).1 Greek gods accompany these muses, next to the muse of
comedy we see Donysos and next to the muse of tragedy, Apollo. The proscenium arch and
tympanum were created by Czech sculptor Bohuslav Schnirch (1845-1901).2 On October 18,
1883, when the theatre definitively opened its doors, his work did not surprise the Czech
audience. Schnirch’s classicizing style was in perfect harmony with the general conception of
the National Theatre as a temple to Apollo and muses, which returned to the roots of
European culture in its architectonic form. The „Königliche Oper“ built in Berlin between
1741 and 1742 by the Prussian king Frederick II, as an imitation of an ancient temple, was an
archetype of all later „national theatres.“3 This idea further developed another Berlin theatre,
„Schauspielhaus“ (1818-1821), which not only resembled an ancient temple, but also quoted
the Athenian Acropolis, unquestionably the most famous temple complex, constructed in the
second half of the 5th century BC.4
The National Theatre in Prague was constructed during a heavy shower of stone
theatres, which poured down over Central Europe between 1870-1914. In almost every larger
city, it left theatre buildings evoking classical antiquity, this inspiration being as a rule the
stronger, the greater were ambitions of the builder.5 These theatres and their decoration often
evoked classical Athens in its double function, as a cultural center par excellence, and as a
city in which at this period, the theatrical genre was created. This connection was perhaps
expressed most openly in the Copenhagen „Det kongelige Teatre“ opened in 1874, where the
theatre curtain depicted Athenian Acropolis, at the time, when theatre performances were first
produced in this city.6 As we shall later see, Schnirch also created the tympanum in the
National Theatre in Prague to evoke classical Athens.
The middle European theatres constructed between 1870 and 1914 had, besides
classical inspiration, also other features in common. Nationalistic and local-patriotic feelings
The building according to plans of Josef Zítek, realised between 1867 and
1881, after the fire of August 12 1881, Josef Schulz reconstructed the
theatre along original lines of Zítek. From a rich bibliography the most
useful are: Matějček, Wirth 1948; Matějček 1954; Vybíral 1999; Prahl 1999a;
Prahl 1999b. On the nationalistic legend of the National Theatre, cf.
Bartoš 1934; Stloukal 1935; Bartoš 1935. For the help during the work on
this essay I would like to thank to the staff of the following
institutions: „Studovna hudebního oddělení Národní knihovny,“ „Divadelní
oddělení Národního muzea,“ „Oddělení časopisů Knihovny Národního muzea,“
„Archiv Národního muzea,“ „Archiv University Karlovy“ and „Archiv Národní
galerie.“
2 There is no monographic study devoted to Schnirch, cf. Květ 1953; Ličková
1992.
3 The architect was Georg Wenzeslaus von Knobelsdorff (1699-1753), cf.
Kurth 1953; Carlson 1989, 73-75.
4 Petersen 1919, 73: „Akropolis des deutschen Schauspieles,“ the two
pediments of the „Schauspielhaus“ evoked the most important features of the
Acropolis, the Parthenon and the Propylaea, as seen from the city of
Athens. The architect was Karl Friedrich Schinkel, cf. note 10.
5
Cf. Carlson 1989, 186.
6 By C.F.Aagaard, O. Bache. The inscription over the proscenium is also
interesting: „Ei Blot Til Lyst“ (Not only for pleasure). Cf. The Royal
Theatre. Past and Present, Copenhagen 1967.
1
1
often motivated their construction and in the National Theatre in Prague, this extra-theatrical
function was very pronounced.
This was in no way exceptional. “The physical theatre,” stresses Carlson, “has rarely if ever
been solely a space for the confrontation of audience and performance. It has almost always
served a great variety of other social and cultural functions, all of which have added to the
complexity of both its external and its internal signifying systems.”7 The National Theatre in
Prague was presented as a manifestation of the unity of the Czech people, whose contributions
supposedly made up the whole construction budget. It was simultaneously also presented as a
demonstration of the high level of Czech engineering, architecture, sculpture, painting and
decorative arts. In contrast to many other Central European metropolies, Prague was able to
boast with a tradition of classical architecture going back as far as the 16th century, and the
Czech press did not fail to remember this local classical tradition. We can read that the
National Theatre was built: „entirely in the local style, the style which was transmitted from
the land of arts, namely Italy, to the local territory, receptive for anything beautiful. This style
is, in fact, nothing but a resurrection or renaissance of the building art of ancient Greeks and
Romans, who are, and forever will be, a source of all beauty in architecture.“8
The National Theatre was to evoke not only classical antiquity and Renaissance Italy,
but also the Czech buildings of past centuries. The National Theatre had to consider not only
common European cultural roots, but also a glorious Czech past. Under the tympanum in
classical style and depicting figures from classical mythology there was a Czech inscription
“NÁROD SOBĚ” (Nation to itself), which was upgraded as a state symbol by its position
between the Czech royal crown and the emblems of the historical Czech lands, Bohemia,
Moravia and Silesia. The content of the inscription did not correspond with its classicizing
frame, but instead with the painted curtain under it.9 Vojtěch Hynais on this curtain depicted
not only representatives of the Czech nation collecting money for their National Theatre, but
also artists and craftsmen, who erected and decorated it. Also represented are Czechs working
on Czech repertoires for their new theatre and Czechs preparing to perform them. The curtain
did not look, consequently, backwards, but heralded the magnificent future of the resurrected
Czech nation, into which the audience will enter, through the proscenium arch crowned by the
tympanum.
According to the original plans, the national iconography, similar to that of the curtain,
was also to decorate the proscenium arch.10 After the National Theatre burned down in 1881,
however, the new architect heightened the ceiling and a blank space between it and the
proscenium arch had to be masked.11 In “Národní listy” (The National papers) from February
25, 1883, we can read: „As concerns the proscenium, the sculptor Mr. Schnirch created an
instructive model. It shows a richer decoration as compared with its predecessor, above all the
figural decoration of the tympanum, the heightening of the frieze with the inscription “Nation
Carlson 1989, 163.
Národní listy 1865 (quoted in: Matějček 1934, 49). Cf. Marek 1995, 182;
Haiko 1998.
9 Cf. Prahl, Bissel 1996.
10 Protocol of the “Board of the Committee to build the National Theatre”
from December 18, 1876, cf. Archive of the Committee in the “Divadelní
oddělení Národního muzea v Praze,” (Theatre department of the National
museum in Prague) A XXIV. The competition announced at April 15, 1877, cf.
the fond Rieger, “Archiv Národního muzea” (Archive of the National museum)
131/1. Because up to the given date (December 13, 1878) no entries arrived,
the Board announced a new competition at February 20, 1879. The entries
arrived at July 15, 1879, the Board chosed none and announced the third
competitions at October 10, 1879. On these competitions in general, cf.
Prahl 1999a, 107-108.
11 Originally, the proscenium was to have a painted decoration.
7
8
2
to itself,” widening of the inner face and splendid framing add a mighty tone to the whole,
which is desirable in case of a proscenium opening.“
The tympanum brought about a change in proscenium iconography, because this
architectural element called for a classical theme. Since it was a theatre building, Schnirch
could choose between Dionysos and Apollo, but he, following the new trend, represented
them both. In the above mentioned king’s opera in Berlin the main and exclusive protagonist
was Apollo, to whom Frederick II consecrated the whole building with an inscription over the
portico: FRIDERICUS APOLLINI ET MUSIS. The ceiling of the Imperial theatre of Vienna
(1704) showed Apollo’s victory over the forces of darkness and we see the sun god in a
similar role on the ceiling of the Versailles court theatre (1767). “Such subject matter,”
underlines Carlson, “celebrated the general baroque theme of the triumph of authority over
rebel powers.”12
In the extremely rich sculptural decoration of the Berlin „Schauspielhaus,“ Apollo
dominates, but here we find also Dionysos, who also found his way into the decoration of the
proscenium arch.13 In the first three quarters of the 19th century, Dionysos appears repeatedly
in decoration of theatres, but Apollo retained his exclusive position as the main patron of
theatre.14 The building of „L’Opéra“ in Paris crowned a bronze sculptural group of Apollo
and muses of dance and music (1869-1870). 15 This example proves the case, not only because
it concerns perhaps the most famous opera building ever built, but also because dance and
music were later mostly connected, as we shall see, with Dionysos. The turning point was
represented in the second opera in Dresden from 1871-1878. Above its porch, we see a
triumphal quadriga of panthers with Dionysos and Ariadne, which released a victorious
advance of the god of wine through European theatre buildings.16
With only a slight delay, Dionysos also arrived in Czech lands, where he appears for
instance in the sculptural decoration of the tympanum over the main entrance to the German
theatre in Brno from 1882.17 Dionysos’ supporters in Prague even wanted to place a statue of
this god on a chariot drawn by four panthers on side pylons of the main façade of the National
Theatre. Miroslav Tyrš, professor of history of art at Charles University in Prague, disagrees
with this suggestion (Národní listy, March 20, 1883), but it follows clearly from his
argumentation that he was not principally against Dionysos’ presence at the exterior of the
National Theatre.18 It is to be noted that Dionysos pushed himself through also in the German
Carlson 1989, 182.
Goralczyk 1987, 154-164.
14 The new popularity of Dionysos was a consequence of the interest in
primitive and uncultivated aspects of ancient Greek culture in the German
Romantic movement, cf. Schoene 1982, 109-230.
15 Aimé Michelet (1819-1891), plaster model is in the Musée d’Orsay in
Paris, inv. no. DO 1983-205, Cf. Pingeot 1986, 200. Cf. also Garnier 1870;
Mead 1991.
16 Based on the plans of Semper, his son built the theatre. The sculptor of
the group of Dionysos and Ariadna was J. Schilling. Cf. Hänsch 1986;
Bartnig, Neidhardt, Krull, 1995; Magirius 2000.
17 From Theodor Friedl. Cf. Hoffmann 1966, 90-91; Hilmera 1999, 38-39; press
reports: Zatloukal 1997, 104 note 288.
18 „Eight panthers in the National Theatre – we confess we can be hardly
agree with this thought. Moreover, we do not think that a figure so
individualistic as Dionysos should appear twice in the theatre, and to this
we may add, that the myth of Dionysos is already present in the high
frieses of the main façade. In the Dresden theatre which is much bigger,
the quadriga with panthers only appears once.“
12
13
3
theatre in Prague.19 At the pylons of the façade, we see carriages drawn by panthers. On the
left, the she-charioteer points to Dionysos. She is holding a shepherd’s crook and a sistrum
suggesting Dionysos’ patronage of mystery cults. The she-charioteer on the right holds the
attributes of Apollo, a wreath and a torch.20
In 1880, František Ženíšek painted the first curtain for the National theatre in Prague.
It represents the Nike with a wreath blessing the personification of music and the
personification of theatre characterised by a tragic mask and a thyrsus pointing to Dionysos.21
Schnirch’s tympanum with Apollo and Dionysos over proscenium of the Czech National
Theatre followed to a large degree this design of Ženíšek. In 1882, Schnirch made plaster
models for the proscenium arch of the National Theatre22 and for the tympanum with
Dionysos and Apollo (fig. 3).23 In his autobiography, written in 1891, he stresses, how
quickly he completed this work, and that it was very well received abroad.24 By pointing to
the opinions of foreigners, Schnirch indirectly admits that the work was not received
enthusiastically at home. It is a historical fact and Schnirch, evidently, did not understand
what was the cause of this failure. He knew Czechs were not surprised by his style and
iconography, which was fully in keeping with the prevailing fashion. It was not in the style
inspired by ancient Greece and Rome, nor in the fact that he presented Dionysos on equal
terms with Apollo. From contemporary opinions and later art historical literature, it follows
that the reason for Schnirch’s tympanum failure was exclusively in the specific way in which
he presented Dionysos and Apollo.
In the “Národní listy” of September 8, 1883, it is briefely mentioned that, “the
proscenium is already gilded and decorated with the sculptural group of the sculptor Mr.
Schnirch, which represents a Slavia goddess blessing.“ In the official publication prepared for
the occasion of the opening of the National Theatre, its author, the first director of the theatre,
F.A.Šubert, does not say much more. He writes that in the tympanum there is „a figure
decoration representing “Čechia” (the personification of Czech lands), who is blessing the art
of theatre represented by various figures and symbols.“25 In 1933, the art historian, V.V.Štech,
also describes the tympanum very vaguely: „Victoria with muses Thalia and Melpomene,
genius of music and Dionysiac emblems.“ 26 In numerous later article and books, we come
across very concise descriptions, which are not always accurate, the central figure being
“Čechia,” Bohemia, Slavia or Victoria.27 In the last synthetic treatment devoted to the
sculpture in 19th century Prague, its author writes about the tympanum in a chapter entitled
“Persistence of classical conception.“28 The tympanum is for this art historian so uninteresting
that he repeats, word for word the description which Šubert wrote almost exactly one hundred
Today „The State Opera.“ Built by the Wien company Fellner and Helmer,
plans from 1885 were realised between 1886 and 1887. Cf. Hoffmann 1966,
106-107; J. Hilmera in: Baťková 1998, 794-795.
20 The sculptor was Theodor Friedl (1842-1899) from Wien, who collaborated
closely with the company Fellner and Helmer.
21
The curtain burned down in 1881, the sketches are reproduced in Matějček
1954 p. 158 and p. 159; Národní … 1999 fig. 64.
22 Národní technické muzeum, inv. n. 4479 (h. 140 cm).
23 Národní galerie (National gallery, Prague), n. P 3848 (h. 91 cm, w.
248cm).
24 Schnirch, „Curiculum vitae“ (sic), Archiv Národní galerie (Archive of the
National gallery) AA 2974, box n. 1.
25 Šubert 1881, 342.
26 Štech 1933.
27 Žákavec 1918, 224; Jiří Hilmera in: Baťková 1998, 262.
28 P. Wittlich in: Poche 1980, 266.
19
4
years beforhand.29 Evidently, ever since the tympanum appeared in the National Theatre
everybody has been at a loss what to think about it. Consequently, art historians meticulously
repeat Šubert’s wording. If anybody ever understood the tympanum, art historians are
reasoning, it had to be Šubert, Schnirch’s contemporary, who, moreover, knew everything
concerning the National Theatre.
In the vast amount of literature devoted to the National Theatre, there are the only two
sentences in which there is at least an attempt to analyze the iconography of Schnirch’s
tympanum. The first one comes from V.V.Štech and because his description (quoted above) is
not very exact, his analysis misses the point. Of the figures represented, he writes: “by means
of these ancient symbols, the tympanum alludes to the fact that theatre has roots in ancient
Greek religious rites, while the curtain, painted by Hynais, celebrates the recent past of this
building.“30 Much more exact is Matějček’s interpretation: „in the middle of the tympanum a
woman is sitting, an allegory of a victorious “Čechia” as Nike, who is placing wreathes on the
heads of the theatre muses Melpomene and Thalie. The Apollonian youth with a lyre and the
Dionysiac youth with a panther stand for the two roots of the theatrical arts, a swan and a
dolphin fill the corners (sic) as attributes of singing.“31
The Apollonian and Dionysiac youths? The double roots of theatrical art? These
formulations clearly point to the „Birth of tragedy from the spirit of music,“ Friedrich
Nietzsche’s first book, published in 1872.32 It is true that Dionysos was to a certain degree
already celebrated in German Romanticism.33 In addition, it is also true, that the contrasting
pair of the Apollonian and Dionysiac was in Nietzsche’s time a widely used topos. For
instance, not long before his book, in 1864, Jules Michelet’s bestseller, „La Bible de
l’Humanité“ was published.34 It is a comparative study of religion and mysticism in ancient
Greece, Persia and India and one of its main themes is the contest of Apollo and Dionysos,
which Michelet presents as a clash of lyre and flute.35 On the one hand light, peace and
harmony, on the other darkness, drunkenness and barbarian orgies. Nevertheless, Schnirch’s
tympanum points unmistakably to Nietzsche.
In the middle of the tympanum, there is a winged personification of the arts sitting on
a throne, wreaths in spread out hands. The symbols of victory receive, as is expected in a
theatre, Thalie and Melpomene. On the left, Melpomene is sitting majestically on a stone
block decorated with an ornamental frieze. The embodiment of tragedy has her head sunk so
that she can visualize her deep thoughts. In her right hand, which rests on a cithara, she holds
a dagger. Her left hand Melpomene places on a tragic mask, which is reposing on her knees.
Next to the cithara, we see a wreath lying on the ground. Behind the muse, Apollo is kneeling
and playing the lyre. He is naked, with a cloak thrown over his shoulder. On his head, he
„Čechie žehnající divadelnímu umění“ (“Čechia, who is blessing the art of
theatre), repeated in: Toman 1950, II, 433; P. Wittlich in: Poche 1980,
266; P. Wittlich in: Seibt 1995, 284; Prahl 1999a, 109. Similarly: Květ,
1953, 555.
30 Štech 1933.
31 Matějček 1954, 228. In the first edition (Matějček 1934), the tympanum is
not even mentioned. Matějček published his interpretation of the tympanum
in: Matějček, Štech, Kovárna 1940, 21. It is quoted in: Port 1953; Ličková
1992, 31-32; Národní … 1999, 44.
32 Nietzsche 1972, Dritte Abteilung, 1. Cf. Janz 1978, 410-414; Silk, Stern
1981; Henrichs 1984.
33 Cf. note 12.
34 Cf. Wagenvoort 1959.
35 Cf. Aristot., pol. 1341 a 18.
29
5
wears a headband. Behind Apollo, at the corner of the tympanum, there are two swans and a
dolphin, all swimming in water suggested by stylized waves.36
The embodiment of comedy is sitting to the right of the goddess. In her left hand, she
holds a comic mask, on her lap lies the shepherd’s crook; a lyre is lying behind her. Thalie
differs greatly from Melpomene, because she is much more lively. She sits impatiently on a
rock in a casual pose; behind her is Dionysos who is also more informal than Apollo.
Dionysos holds a thyrsus and has an ivy wreath on his head, he is also half-naked like Apollo
and a fleece thrown over his shoulder shows his uncivilized nature. Dionysos is not looking
towards Thalie, he faces the theatre audience, but he turns his head and left arm to a panther
standing next to him. He seems to be quietening the beast represented in an unstable pose, as
if it wanted to jump down to the auditorium. In the corner, we see Dionysiac attributes – a
tambourine, an amphora and wine grapes.
The right half of the tympanum represents the Dionysiac identification with the world,
exactly as described in Nietzsche’s book. Alcohol (wine amphora) and ecstatic dance
(tambourine) completely changes the state of one’s mind. As a direct result of this
intoxicating hurricane the individual is dissolved in the external world, man is not only
connected with man, but people are also reunited with nature (the panther and the rock on
which Thalie is sitting). While Dionysos, and to a certain degree the panther, face the
audience; Apollo is looking straight in front of himself, making no contact with the people in
the auditorium. A counterpart of the Dionysiac delight in life is the Apollonian detachment
from reality, a result of reasoning, which calls for a seclusion. Both Apollo and Melpomene
visualize the solitary concentration. They isolate themselves from the natural chaos and seek
refuge in an orderliness of civilization. Apollo is not dressed in a fleece like Dionysos and
Melpomene does not sit naturaly like Thalie. Moreover, Melpomene is not represented in a
natural setting. The solitude of Apollo and Melpomene is underlined by the water, which
seems to surround their insular retreat. This solitude recalls the image of Schopenhauer
quoted at the very beginning of Nietzches’s book. In the midst of a stormy sea, a lonely man
is sitting in a boat, who believes that his wretched bark will protect him.37 In this parable the
boatman is an individual, who in the sea of hardships, only relies on his „principium
individuationis,“ namely that, which constitutes him as an individual human being, because it
separates him from other people and from nature.
Schnirch designed not only the tympanum but also the two masks at the base of the
proscenium arch. On the left we see that of a satyr, on the right that of Dionysos. We may
regard them as a Dionysiac counterpart to the acroterion at the top of tympanum representing
Apollonian lyre and dolphins. Consequently, in the decoration of the proscenium arch, Apollo
and Dionysos were counterbalanced not only horizontally, but also vertically. The satyr’s
mask with big horns is on the side of the muse of tragedy and in this way this half man - half
goat could allude to the “song of goats,” which in ancient Greece gave a name to tragedy.38
Be it as it may, in the National Theatre in Prague Schnirch gave a prominent position to satyr,
which he never had in antiquity. This rehabilitation of satyr is another trait pointing to
Nietzsche, who declared him the only true human being. From the opposite side of humanity,
a creature, which was neither human nor animal, Nietzsche created an archetypal man, an
embodiment of the quintessence of humanity.
According to Nietzsche, man when entering the historical time looses itself. For the
technical and material progress brought about by the Apollonian rationality, humankind must
We find Melpomene and Thalie similarly arranged in the „Schauspielhaus,“
cf. note 10.
37 Nietzsche 1972, 22, he quotes: Schopenhauer, Welt als Wille und
Vorstellung I, 416.
38 Cf. Ziegler 1937.
36
6
pay with the estrangement of an individual human being. Man is estranged from other men,
from his own tribe and nation, and this process can be reversed only by a return to primordial
unity, which embodies the choir of ancient Greek tragedy. Man left the mythical age as a
lonely individual and the ties with other men can be reestablished only by Dionysos’ return.
Only this god can save humankind, which split itself into powerless individuals, who can
achieve nothing. An Apollonian individual will escape his grievous seclusion only when he
finds his place in a Dionysiac choir, in which he again will be able to integrate with other
men. The man, who entered a merry round of Dionysos, became part of the world of
instability again, from which his rationality separated him. So wrote Nietzsche, and that was
perhaps the reason, why Schnirch recalled a Dionysiac choir at the base of the proscenium
arch, where it is present at every performance at the National Theatre in Prague.
In the original version of Schnirch’s trigs, we may find also a Nietzschean contrast of
art and reality, rationality and lack of any control. They were destined for pylons on sides of
the façade of the National theatre. The left one was monumental and static, while its
counterpart at the right side was lively and dynamic. In this way, art was contrasted with live
people, at least according to Tyrš’s article, in which he described trigs before they were
destroyed during the fire at the National Theatre (Národní listy from July 13, 1881). Nike
driving the left trig had a star on her forehead and embodied the triumph of arts - this is the
reason why it is necessary to interpret the central figure of the tympanum also as
personification of arts. This figure was represented in a dignified pose and her trig quoted the
classical Greek art at its best form, as Tyrš noted: „it advances in this short, restrained and
solemn gallop, in which the horses on the Parthenon with their riders also head towards the
feast of Panathenaia.” Nike at the right embodied the triumph of the nation, she had a
Phrygian cap on her head and was much livelier in her pose and also in details, as Tyrš
stresses: „when we compare the ornaments on the corresponding parts, we find on the left
greater sophistication and dignity, on the right greater animation and strength.“
Schnirch’s tympanum of is ostensibly classical in style and iconography, but wholly
un-classical in its spirit, because of its tension - it contain a contradiction, which cannot be
resolved. Dionysos and Apollo are presented as antagonists who cannot be reconciled in the
same way, as it will never be possible to bring the panther and the swan together. This
contradiction points to Nietzsche, who in this very sense reevaluated not only Dionysos and
Apollo, but also our perception of world in general. This was the main reason why academic
philosophy refused to acknowledge the inner coherence of his thoughts for a whole century.39
For a long time, Nietzsche’s unity of contradictions was interpreted as a fallacy, a signal of
his approaching insanity. Apollo on Schnirch’s tympanum stood for morality, reason,
civilization and history. Dionysos stood for unruliness, nature, freedom and mythical
timelessness. Intellectual and moral demands of Apollo’s tragic genre were contrasted with
the irresponsibility and the libertinism of Dionysiac comedy. In Schnirch’s tympanum,
however, these irreconcilable rivals do not stand against each other; the goddess of triumph is
raising victorious wreaths at Dionysos and Apollo’s sides. Neither one nor the other is the
winner, but rather both; the ultimate winner is the unity of contradictions, which is so strong
because there is no hierarchy among its opposing parts.
In the National Theatre we find, of course, pairs even more contrasting than
Schnirch’s Apollo and Dionysos, for instance the paintings of Ženíšek on the foyer ceiling.
They illustrate vividly the decline and rebirth of art, which is the parable of the decline and
rebirth of the Czech nation. These contrasting pairs, however, always represent alternatives
(art or nation either declines or flourishes), which are, moreover, hierarchized (rebirth
overcomes decline). In the National Theatre, the negative alternative appears in order to be
39
Cf. Müller-Lauter 1971.
7
replaced by its reverse. The iconography aims at the same thing as the architecture and style
of the National Theatre, namely the installment of perfect harmony. In this connection, it must
be stressed that behind the famous scandal of Hynais’ curtain there was no principal
incongruity.
The National Theatre in Prague had, as already stressed, two functions – through this
building Czechs wanted to enter into Europe and, at the same time, to isolate themselves from
their German compatriots. Otakar Hostinský expressed it very clearly: „for us there is no and
there should be no German theatre, our Czech National Theatre must fully meet your
requirements.“40 To this the rhetoric of the National Theatre must respond - it had to be either
commonly European or specifically Czech. According to Hostinský, architecture could be
“European” because it is determined by its function and material, but sculpture and above all
painting must demonstrate national traits. „A sculptor and a painter,” stresses Hostinský,
“must respect real forms of external objects, but in the hard stone or colour surface
representing the human face, they can imprint spiritual life and in this way also national
traits.“41
In sculpture and painting, the Czech character had to be shown above all in faces of
the represented figures, these faces had to have “Slavic,” ostentatiously un-German features.
That was the reason, why the management of the National Theatre at first refused to accept
the curtain of Hynais. His Czechs did not have Czech features, but rather resembled French.
According to them, Hynais mixed the European and Czech tendency in a way, which could
not be permitted. Hynais, however, pushed through his conception in which the Czech nation
was celebrated by a representation of Czechs with nationally neutral physiognomies. Hynais’
Czechs were not represented in their present situation, which left much to be desired, but in a
future state, when their national character will be fully recognized and, consequently, when
specifically Czech physiognomies will not be necessary any more in Czech visual art.
Consequently, there was no real problem with his curtain, no contradiction, which would
prevent Czechs from accepting and, after initial hesitation, even taking it to their heart.
This same audience did not accept Schnirch’s tympanum, as it illustrated a real
contradiction, which was, moreover, totally unrelated to the Czech cause. Nobody was
interested in this work of art, which unveiled a fatal flaw in the traditional conception of man
and human culture. Schnirch’s friend, aesthetician Otakar Hostinský, would have certainly
characterized this theme as „romantic,“ which in his vocabulary of the 70s and 80s meant
avant-guard, progressive.42 However, Hostinský made no comments on the tympanum, which
was at variance with his conception of sculpture in service of the national movement.
„Similarly also modern sculpture,” he writes, “forgets that even though classical antiquity is
true school of sculpture, an artist cannot remain a pupil forever, but must come out of the
school age and enter into life. Modern sculpture loves classical subjects, but in doing this, it
resigns to an independent creation of ideals … while in the field of national myths and
legends it probably could find new, original ideals, and in this way it could truly achieve
something in arts.“43
Though during Schnirch’s life the message of his sculptures did not find any echoes,
as they did not illustrate Czech legends, around 1900 objections were aimed at their classical
style. At the time, when classical antiquity ceased to be “the true school of sculpture,”
Schnirch’s contribution to the decoration of the National Theatre was openly ridiculed.
„Apollo is here with his nine muses, Nike are jumping in the body of their chariots, and
O. Hostinský, „O významu a úkolu Národního divadla i přípravách k jeho
otevření,“ 1881, cf. Jůzl, 1981, 58.
41 Hostinský in: Dalibor, 1869 (cf. Hostinský 1974, 15).
42 Cf. e.g. Hostinský 1877, 17, and Hostinský 1881.
43 Hostinský in: Dalibor 1869 (cf. Hostinský 1974, 14).
40
8
ancient masks and draperies everywhere, and even his “Čechia” in the centre of his tympanum
is some woman from classical south in the middle of the Dionysos reveling.“44 The author of
the above quoted words, K.B.Mádl, at that time professor of history of art at the High school
of decorative arts in Prague, asks: „who would raise his eyes in exaltation towards the
tympanum?“ In addition, he himself gives answer: “foreign, learned concepts and images of
bygone nations, which are distant from us. How they could inflame artistic mind to original
creation?“45
For all of the 20th century, Schnirch was considered a hard-working and skilled
decorator without original ideas. To a large degree, Schnirch himself wrote this label. In his
autobiography, he characterized himself as someone, who was always standing at side of
other, more important people.46 His loyalty to the architects of the National Theatre explains,
how such strange thing, as the tympanum undoubtedly is, could have made its way into the
most prominent place in the National Theatre. Zítek and Schulz fully relied on Schnirch’s
skill and judgement, and they did not intervene in his work. The independence was probably
even greater during the reconstruction of the National Theatre after the fire of August 12,
1881. Thanks to these circumstances, Schnirch could realize the tympanum entirely according
to his liking, and this is corroborated by the fact that its content was in his mind years before
he was asked to design it. It was in no way an improvisation, an occasional work of art
disconnected with his artistic ideals. On the contrary, the tympanum was a summary of his
intensive reflections of art in all of the past decade.
Schnirch discussed art from his student times with an art historian and classical
archaeologist Miroslav Tyrš and an aesthetician Otakar Hostinský, who were his intimate
friends. With Hostinský, he had in common a love for music, which could have introduced
them to the book of Nietzsche.47 Hostinský was an active supporter of Richard Wagner,48 who
vehemently defended Nietzsche, when his book was refused by the academic classical
philology.49 Bohuslav Schnirch was a contemporary of Nietzsche; he was born a year after the
philosopher and died a year after his death. The sculptor could have felt sympathy for a
philosopher’s belief in superiority of Greek culture, which he, however, interpreted in a
strikingly original way. The sculptor could also have found the philosopher’s intensive belief
in art attractive, which enables people to understand the world and, more importantly, to
reconcile with it.50 At the time Dionysos was being rehabilitated, Schnirch created two
sculptures, which demonstrate that he was also interested in this deity.51 Of course,
Mádl 1904, 69-70 (originally published in 1901).
Mádl 1904, 59, 61 (originally published in 1900). Mádl’s words can be
compared with the criticism of the new decoration of the Comédie Francaise
(1840s): “What a sad resourse for modern art are these gods which have been
a laughing stock for 2.000 years,” Revue générale d’architecture 7, 1847,
315. We find the same arguments in the criticism of the decoration of the
theatre at Bordeaux (1869): J.-A.Castagnary, Salons I, Paris 1892, I, 340.
Cf. Carlson 1989, 186.
46 Cf. „Curiculum vitae“ (sic), Archiv Národní galerie AA 2974, box 1.
47 Cf. Hostinský 1974, 27-37 (originally published 1873). In this essay he
also analyses the double roots of theatrical art, but they are conceived
differently.
48 Hostinský 1870.
49 Cf. Vogel 1966; Gründer 1969; Calder 1983; Cohen-Halami 1995.
50 Nietzsche and visual arts: Hultberg 1964; Gründer 1969; O’Flaherty,
Sellner, Helm 1979; Bauer 1995; Kemal, Gaskell, Conway 1998; Kostka,
Wohlfarth 1999; Hofmann 1999; Salaquarda 1999.
51 „Dionysian scene“, terracotta, Polabské museum v Poděbradech (Poděbrady
museum), 1871-1873, inv. n. U 1695; Dionysos on a panther, plaster, signed
B.S. 1872, Polabské muzeum v Poděbradech inv. n. U 1692.
44
45
9
throughout the 19th century, Dionysos was a popular subject, and this analogy could be
accidental.52 Nevertheless, there is an unequivocal testimony - Schnirch’s house.
In 1875, Schnirch finished his Prague house, in which he also had his studio, and he
himself decorated its façade with a sgraffito frieze.53 This frieze separates the first and second
store of the building and its theme illustrate the renewal of man and art in Nietzsche’s spirit,
namely as a consequence of Dionysos’ rebirth in 5th century BC Athens.54 In the middle of the
frieze, we see a temple suggested by four ionic columns. In it a woman figure is sitting on a
throne. Her identities define putti holding posters with names of artistic genres - painting,
sculpture, music, and architecture. It is not a personification of visual art, but art in general,
and clearly Nietzschean traits are the two altars in this temple, which is consecrated to two
deities, Dionysos and Apollo. The left half of the frieze represents the triumphal march of
Dionysos and Ariadne accompanied by merry satyrs and maenads. From the right the temple
approaches very different procession, we see mortals, dignified citizens of classical Greece
bringing sacrificial animals. The difference between the two halves of the frieze is not only in
the savagery of the left hand side and the majestic calmness of the right one. The procession
on the right evokes not only human beings and their civilization (religion visualized by
sacrifice), but also Schnirch’s own craft.
The right half of the frieze is a free variation on the theme of the Panathenaia
procession, represented by Pheidias on the Parthenon on the Acropolis in Athens. This is
clearly manifested by equestrian figures, closely imitating the Athenian model. Dionysos’
counterpart, Apollo, is not represented directly, but in the guise of the most famous work of
representational art, whose patron was Apollo. These two contrasting processions illustrate an
antithesis of dance and music on the one hand, and Apollonian art represented by relief
sculpture on the other. At the same time, 5th century BC Athens is recalled as a city, in which
the representative arts culminated with the Parthenon, and in which at this very time the new
genre, theatre, was created.
In Bohemia, the reception of Nietzsche begins around 1900, in the work of Březina
and Šalda, but it was also at this time, that Masaryk principally refused Nietzsche as a
representative of German nationalism.55 In the 70s and 80s of the 19th century, Nietzsche
could be warmly received because of his opposition to everything German, namely to the
official science and culture, but also to German nationalism. An echo of Nietzsche’s book on
ancient Greece in the work of Schnirch is possible. Besides, Arne Novák already noted on
Nietzsche’s death that artists understood his ideas much earlier than academic philosophers.56
Nietzsche attracted these artists by his appeal to overcome individualism by a return to
a mythical unity of humankind. This theme could be very attractive for Czech patriots,
including Schnirch. As mentioned above, the themes for decoration of the National Theatre
were, as a rule, taken from Czech myths. In this way, the roots of the Czech national character
were located in the very distant past, which gave the whole movement legitimacy. In the
National Theatre, it was possible to combine the timeless classical architectural language with
themes, which were also situated outside historical time. A common denominator of the
architecture and its decoration was the fact that they were both deliberately singled out of
immediately preceding history. The National Theatre is not presented as a part of an unbroken
evolutionary line, but as an expression and monument of the rebirth of the Czech nation,
Cf. Reid 1993, 348ff; Pailler 1995; Ottillinger 1996; Roters 1998.
Mikovcova street no. 548. Architect Antonín Wiehl. Cf. Míla Boučková,
born Schnirch, in: Archiv Národní galerie AA 2974, box 11.
54 Cf. Bažant 1994, 59; Líbal 1997.
55 Cf. Matoušová 1996; Heftrich 1999. Nietzsche in Germany: Krummel 1974;
Hillebrand 1978; Cancik 1999. Nietzsche in France: Nietzsche … 1929.
56 Novák 1900, cf. Hefters 1999, 25.
52
53
10
which reversed the course of history leading in the opposite direction, to its total destruction.57
Reinstallation of mythical past became a promise of the future.
In this exalted atmosphere, Schnirch connected the idea of the rebirth of a nation with
that of the rebirth of art and man. There is no doubt that his theme was topical at his time and
that it is even topical today. So we come again to the crucial question, why was his tympanum
passed unnoticed?58 How was it possible, that everybody ignored Schnirch’s work, which he
was allowed to place in the most conspicuous and much frequented place, to which the eyes
of whole Czech nation were directed?
Schnirch’s tympanum and Hynais’ curtain belong together due to the fact that, as has
already been said, they were conceived to form a whole. What they have in common is also
the fact that their authors pursued their own ideas and got, inevitably, into conflicts with their
audience. Schnirch’s and Hynais’ revolts, however, differ in principles, and that is why
Hynais is celebrated today and his curtain belongs to the most cherished national heritage,
while Schnirch’s tympanum, which is directly above it, is forgotten. Nobody looks at it,
because everybody thinks it is a mere decoration without a deeper meaning. The difference
was in that Hynais revolted only with his “French” style. This is the secret of his success. The
Czechs finally accepted his, for them novel way of expression, because he clearly stated what
they wanted to hear. With Schnirch, it was the other way round. He used classical language,
which everybody understood and expected, but what he expressed was too complicated and,
above all, it was not directly connected with Czech interests.
Schnirch’s novelty was not only in the themes he represented, but also in his approach
to art. His artistic development in the 1880s and 1890s demonstrated, that he was not so much
interested in style, as in meaning. This was his main concern. Even his critics acknowledged
that his model for the St. Wenceslas statue better expressed the saint’s character than that of
Myslbek, whose was finally taken and adorns Wenceslas’ square in Prague today.59 In his
classicizing period, Schnirch took inspiration above all from Greek Hellenistic and early
imperial Roman art. Days spent in Italian museums made him realize not only forms, but also
principles of this Greco-Roman art, for which stylistic pluralism was typical. From his point
of view, the difference between his work for the National Museum and the descriptive realism
of his for the Prague city insurance company was not perhaps as great as it seems to us.60
Schnirch’s statues came from a period, in which the crisis of representation in
European art had its roots. Unlike his contemporaries, he did not experiment with sculptural
form, but fully concentrated on the message of his creations. This message, at least in the
tympanum, was concerned with art as such. It was a work of art, but also a reflection on art. In
the next century all possible versions of representational art were tried, and abandoned.
Consequently, the intellectual reflection on art, which played so important a role in
Nietzsche’s philosophy and Schnirch’s sculptures, is more topical today than ever before.
Bibliography:
Bartnig, H., Neidhardt, H.-J., Krull, E., Krull, D., 1995, Semperoper – Gottfried Semper
Opernhaus zu Dresden, Meißen.
Cf. Macura 1983, 91-92.
As Carlson (1989, 178) rightly underlines, “the space at top center of
the proscenium arch, its visual focus architecturally, was the most
important location for the placement of symbolic elements.”
59 Cf. Mádl 1904, 63.
60 1899-1900, architect Osvald Polívka, cf. R. Švácha in: Vlček 1996, 503505. Schnirch’s statues: Národní galerie P 2346 and 2347 (bronzes),
Polabské muzeum, Poděbrady U 1844 and U 1845 (plaster models).
57
58
11
Baťková, R., ed., 1998, Umělecké památky Prahy. Nové Město, Vyšehrad, Vinohrady (Praha
1), Praha.
Bartoš, J., 1934, Budování Národního divadla. Legenda a skutečnost, Praha.
Bartoš, J., 1935, Legenda o budování Národního divadla a její obhájce (replika Karlu
Stloukalovi), Praha 1935.
Bauer, O.G., ed., 1995, Im Namen des Dionysos: Friedrich Nietzsche - Philosophie als Kunst,
Waakirchen.
Bažant, J., 1994, Pražské vily pod křídly Mílka. Eseje o české renesanci druhé poloviny 19.
století, Praha.
Cancik, H., et alii, 1999, Philolog und Kultfigur: Friedrich Nietzsche und seine Antike in
Deutschland, Stuttgart.
Calder III, W.M., 1983, „The Wilamowitz-Nietzsche struggle: new documents and
reappraisal,“ Nietzsche-Studien 12, 214-254 (= Studies in the Modern History of Classical
Scholarship, Napoli 1984, 183-223).
Carlson, M., 1989, Places of Performance. The Semiotics of Theatre Architecture, Ithaca, NY.
Cohen-Halami, M., et alii, 1995, Querelle autour de "La Naissance de la tragédie"; écrits et
lettres de Friedrich Nietzsche, Friedrich Ritschl, Erwin Rohde, Ulrich von WilamowitzMöllendorff, Richard et Cosima Wagner, Paris.
Garnier, Ch., 1871, Le nouvel Opéra de Paris, Paris.
Goralczyk, P., 1987, Der Platz der Akademie in Berlin, Berlin.
Gründer, K., ed., 1969, Der Streit um Nietzsches "Geburt der Tragödie," Hildesheim 1969.
Hänsch, W., 1986, Die Semperoper, Berlin 1986.
Haiko, P., 1998, „Semper und Hasenauer: kosmopolitische Neorenaissance versus
österreichischer Neobarock,“ in: Stilstreit und Einheitskunstwerk, C. Wenzel, ed., (Muskauer
Schriften, 1), 199-212.
Heftrich, U., 1999, Nietzsche in Böhmen (= Nietzsche v Čechách, Praha).
Hillebrand, B., ed., 1978, Nietzsche und die deutsche Literatur 1. Texte zur NietzscheRezeption 1873-1963, Tübingen 1978.
Henrichs, A., 1984, „Loss of self, sufferance, violence: the modern view of Dionysus from
Nietzsche to Girard,“ HSCP 88, 205-240.
Hofmann, W., 1999, „“Die Dichter stellen immer wieder das Chaos her“: Nietzsche, Klimt
und die Wiener Jahrhundertwende,“ Artibus et historiae 40, 1999, 209-219.
12
Hostinský, O., 1870, „Wagnerianismus a česká národní opera“ Hudební listy 30.3. 19.10.1870 (= Hostinský 1956, 75-78).
Hostinský, O., 1877, Šest rozprav z oboru krasovědy a dějin umění, Praha.
Hostinský, O., 1881, „Výlet do říše romantiky,“ Květy (=
Hostinský 1956, 490-505).
Hostinský, O., 1956, O umění, Praha.
Hostinský, O., 1974, Studie a kritiky, Praha.
Gründer, K., ed., 1969, Die Kunstauffassung Nietzsches, Bergen.
Jähnig, D., 1975, “Die Befreiung der Kunst von der Metaphysik in Nietzsches “Geburt der
Tragödie”” in: D. Jähnig, Welt-Geschichte: Kunst-Geschichte. Studien zum Verhältnis von
Vergangenheitserkenntnis und Veränderung, Köln 1975, 127ff.
Janz, C.P., 1978, Friedrich Nietzsche: Biographie Erster Band, Munich.
Jůzl, M., ed., Otakar Hostinský o divadle, Praha.
Kemal, S., Gaskell, I., Conway, D.W., eds., 1998, Nietzsche, Philosophy and the Arts,
Cambridge.
Kostka, A., Wohlfarth, I., eds., 1999, Nietzsche and "An Architecture of our Minds," Los
Angeles, CA.
Krummel, R.F., 1974, “Nietzsche und der deutsche Geist: Ausbreitung und Wirkung des
Nietzschen Werkes im deutschen Sprachraum bis zum Todesjahr des Philosophen: Eine
Schrifttumsverzeichnis der Jahre 1867-1900,” Monographien und Texte zur NietzscheForschung (Berlin, New York) 3, 1974, 1-17.
Kurth, W., 1953, „Der Klassizismus im Werk von Knobelsdorff,“ in: Deutsche Architektur,
Heft 5, 212-217.
Květ, J., 1953, „Mládí a umělecké počátky Bohuslava Schnircha a jeho podíl na stavbě
Národního divadla v Praze,“ in: Zdeňku Nejedlému Československá Akademie Věd, Praha,
539-557.
Líbal, P., 1997, „Vinohradský Parthenon,“ Studia Hercynia I (Praha), 40-44.
Ličková, J., 1992, Bohuslav Schnirch. Život a dílo, Praha 1992
(Charles University dissertation, Q-H-336/92).
Macura, V., 1983, Znamení zrodu. České obrození jako kulturní typ, Praha.
Mádl, K.B., 1904, Umění včera a dnes 1, Praha.
13
Magirius, H., 2000, Die Semperoper zu Dresden: Entstehung, künstlerische Ausstattung,
Ikonographie, Leipzig.
Marek, M., 1995, „Monumentalbauten und Städtebau als Spiegel des gesellschaftlichen
Wandels in der 2. Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts,“ in: Seibt 1995, 149-233.
Matějček, A., 1934, Národní divadlo a jeho výtvarníci (Dějiny Národního divadla II), Praha.
Matějček, A., 1954, Národní divadlo a jeho výtvarníci (2nd edition), Praha.
Matějček, A., Štech, V.V., Kovárna, F., 1940, Národ sobě. Národní divadlo a jeho umělecké
poklady, Praha.
Matějček, A., Wirth, Z., 1948, Průvodce po Národním divadle v Praze, Praha.
Matoušová, R., 1996, „Některé problémy Nietzscheho recepce v české kultuře přelomu
století,“ Tvar ročník 7, číslo 12, 8-9.
Mead, Ch.C., 1991, Charles Garnier's Paris Opera. Architectural Empathy and the
Renaissance of French Classicism (Architectural History Foundation), Cambridge, Mass.
Müller-Lauter, W., 1971, Nietzsche. Seine Philosophie der Gegensätze und die Gegensätze
seiner Philosophie, Berlin, New York.
Národní … 1999 = Národní divadlo. Historie a současnost budovy, Praha.
Nietzsche … 1929 = Nietzsche en France: l'influence de Nietzsche sur la pensée francaise,
Paris.
Nietzsche, F., 1972, Sämtliche Werke: Kritische Studienausgabe, ed. G. Colli, M. Montnari,
Berlin - New York.
Novák, A., 1900, „K smrti Friedricha Nietzsche,“ Lumír 28, 430-431.
O’Flaherty, J.C., Sellner, T.F., Helm, R.M., ed., 1979, Studies in Nietzsche and the Classical
Tradition, 2nd ed., Chapel Hill.
Ottillinger, E. B., 1996, „Dionysos auf der Tafel: Aspekte der Antikenrezeption im Wiener
Kunstgewerbe des Historismus,“ in: Blakolmer, F., ed., Fremde Zeiten, 395-406.
Pailler, J.-M., 1995, Bacchus: figures et pouvoirs, Paris.
Petersen, J., 1919, Das deutsche Nationaltheater (Zeitschrift f. d. deutschen Unterricht, 14.
Ergänzungsheft), Berlin.
Pingeot, A., et alii, 1986, Musée d’Orsay, Paris. Catalogue sommaire illustré des sculpture,
Paris.
Poche, E., 1980, Praha národního probuzení (Čtvero knih o Praze), Praha.
14
Port, J., 1953, Národní divadlo – klenotnice českého výtvarného umění (Národní divadlo. List
divadelní práce 29,4), Praha.
Prahl, R., Bissel, T., 1996, „The Nation for itself in the curtain of the National theater,“
Umění 44, 520-539.
Prahl, R., 1999a, „Výtvarné umění v divadle,“ in: Národní divadlo. Historie a současnost
budovy, Praha, 107-113.
Prahl, R., 1999b, “Some reflections on the decoration of the National Theatre in Prague,” in:
Studia Hercynia III, 1999, 98-103.
Reid, J.D., 1993, The Oxford Guide to Classical Mythology in the Arts. 1300-1990s, I-II,
Oxford.
Roters, E., 1998, Malerei des 19. Jahrhunderts: Themen und Motive, Köln 1998.
Salaquarda, J., 1999, „Dionysisches und romantisches Kunstwerk: Nietzsches Kritik an der
Instrumentalisierung der Kunst“ in: Liessmann, K. P., ed., Im Rausch der Sinne
(Philosophicum Lech, 2), 37-63.
Seibt, F., ed., 1995, Böhmen im 19. Jahrhundert. Vom Klassizismus zur Moderne, Berlin.
Schoene, A., 1982, Götterzeichen, Liebeszauber, Satankult: Neue Einblicke in alte
Goethetexte, Munich.
Silk, M.S., Stern, J.P., 1981, Nietzsche on Tragedy, Cambridge.
Stephens, A., 1989, „Socrates or chorus person?“ in: Clarke, G.W., ed., Rediscovering
Hellenism. The Hellenic Inheritance and the English Imagination, Cambridge 1989, 237-259.
Stloukal, K., 1935, Legenda o budovatelích Národního divadla, Praha 1935.
Štech, V.V., 1933, O Zlaté kapličce, Praha.
Šubert, F.A., 1881-1884, Národní divadlo v Praze. Dějiny jeho i stavba dokončená, Praha.
Toman, P., 1950, Nový slovník československých výtvarných umělců, Praha (3. vydání).
Vlček, P., ed., 1996, Umělecké památky Prahy. Staré město, Josefov, Praha.
Vogel, M., 1966, Apollinisch und dionysisch: Geschichte eines genielen Irrtums (Studien zur
Musikgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts 6), Regensburg.
Wagenvoort, H., 1959, „Die Entstehung von Nietzsches Geburt der Tragödie,“ Mnemosyne
12, 1-23.
Wilamowitz, U., 1872, Zukunftsphilologie, Berlin.
Zatloukal, P., 1997, Brněnská okružní třída, Brno.
15
Ziegler, K., „Tragoedia,” in: RE 6 A,2 (1937) 1899-2075.
Žákavec, F., 1918, Chrám znovuzrození. O budovatelích a budově Národního divadla v Praze,
Praha.
Figures:
Fig. 1. B. Schnirch: Tympanum above the proscenium arch. National Theater, Prague, 1883.
Photo J. Svoboda.
Fig. 2. B. Schnirch: Tympanum above the proscenium arch (detail). National Theater, Prague,
1883. Photo J. Svoboda.
Fig. 3. B. Schnirch: Plaster model for the tympanum. National Gallery, Prague (P 3848),
1882. Photo National Gallery, Prague neg. 79142.
Fig. 4. B. Schnirch: Satyr mask at the base of the proscenium arch, 1883. National Theater,
Prague, 1883. Photo J. Svoboda.
Published as: „Friedrich Nietzsche in the National Theatre in Prague“, Eirene 37, 2001, 40-61.
16