The Hungarian National Museum – National Museums

Before the era of the internet, travellers who wanted to gain information when visiting a country’s capital did best by going to a national museum. There they were introduced to the geography of the country, could learn about its natural and economic treasures and obtain a brief account of its history, at least as much as would enable them to recognise names and dates seen in the museum in the names of streets and squares, and have some knowledge about the city’s statues and monuments. Even if national museums have largely lost their exclusive significance in terms of sources of information and locations of remembrance, and their encyclopaedic feature is mostly taken over by a network of specialised museums, it is impossible for them to entirely abandon their original function.

Following its foundation at the beginning of the 19th century, the Hungarian National Museum was among the pioneering Central European examples regarding the early spread of this type of institution. The process, which is less well known than the pioneering achievement, is how the museum’s character and scope of tasks were crystallized. When and what was established was disputed, whether a library donated by FerencSzéchényi in 1802 or a museum in today’s sense, which was so named by the article sanctioning the foundation in 1808, in line with the founder’s wishes. Either way, the collection of prints, books and manuscripts constituting the donation – even with the additional collection of medals and the personal library, as well as a collection of engravings – rather corresponded to a library in today’s sense.

The word museum is a rarer, elevated title for the humanists’ studiolos referring to the shrine of muses: a study, which is also a collection of books and remarkable objects (curiosities, curiosa). The most famous example is the collection of books and portraits held in Bishop Paolo Giovio’s villa in Como (1539-49: MusaeumJoviiScriptis et Imagine Claret,according to the inscription), which was also the basis of different collections of prominent personalities’ biographies.

The Como collection was a specialised compilation in a sense similar to libraries, whose grand rooms displayed prominent historical and literary personalities associated with individual academic fields, such as the images of Caligula, Galba, Julius, Nero and Titus in the Cotton Collection of the British Library. The reference to a Roman emperor obviously made orientation easier for a philologist. However the objects held in a studiolo presumed a different use: meditation and admiration, which were directed both at the natural world (curiosa naturalia) and human creations (artificalia). The conceptions of the Great Creator and works of the crafts were united in them. In the beginning FerdinandoCospi of Bologna complemented his collection, which reflected his interest in mechanics, with natural curiosities, being published in MuseoCospianoin 1677. At the same time, the artefacts of Egyptian and exotic cultures were placed side by side with wonderful optical instruments and the toolkit of alchemy in the Jesuit Athanasius Kircher’s museum in Rome. This type of collection was duly called Kunst- und Wunderkammer. The theories relating to such encyclopaedic collections were developed at the beginning of the 18th century.

Thus in the early period of both the British Museum and the Hungarian National Museum the arts played a more limited role than craftsmanship or artefacts witnessing the flow of history, or its chronological order in the case of coins and medals, or historical portraits and depictions of events. The slogan “History via monuments” became the basic principle of Bernard de Montfaucon, who extended the source material of the French monarchy with monuments and their inscriptions (Monuments de la Monarchiefrançaise, Paris 1729-1733), which not accidentally followed the Saint-Maur Benedictine pragmatic critical school (Jean Mabillon: 1632–1707). The principle of observing and using artworks as sources was the first recognition of their significance in learning about the Middle Ages – from an aspect different to that which was used in the aesthetic approach, the interpretation and representation of artworks which were based on the ideals of antiquities and the artistic production of the Modern Age. Collecting antiquities and modern artistic representation, which competed with the old, exceeded the intimate frameworks of the studiolo,where at most cabinets with drawers suitable for keeping medals, jewellery and prints could serve this purpose. The large statues required courtyards and gardens – those collections also represented the basis for studies in art academies. Great masterpieces as well as the following new prominent works of art became accommodated in the galleries of princes’ and aristocrats’ residences from the 17th century.

The change in thinking, according to which works of art do not necessarily follow a stylistic standard deriving from antiquities but represent the ways of expression of eras and all must be interpreted in their own right, brought about a different form of universalism based on the principle of historicism. The prevalence of the principle of historical relativity stretched long into the 19th century. The attitude that recognised several kinds of principles, unlike the one that had a system of ideal standards as well as respected the traditions of schools, already won acceptance in the 18th century. The principle of the “visible history of the arts” was first realized in the imperial collection of artworks in the rooms displaying Italian (Florence, Rome, Venice and Bologna), Dutch and German schools in the Viennese Belvedere arranged by the Swiss Christian von Mechel in 1781. The history of the arts established by Winckelmann, in which the achievements of peoples coming after one another were summarized, became the principle of an ideal construction (Lehrgebäude) on the basis of implementing the “visible history”. The attention to rarities and curiosities as the objects of amazement and delight was turned towards historicism and “natural history” with the introduction of Linné’s classification system (on the basis of the evolutionary theses which later became prevalent in natural sciences). All this outdated the type of encyclopaedic collection of the Kunst- und Wunderkammer,while the 1808 law which asserted the concept of the National Museum and the accompanying call for national donations represented the principle of compiling and uniting all national treasures.

The reconstruction, undertaken by ErzsébetKirály in 2012, of FerencSzéchényi’s preliminary studies and especially the experience of his travels in Germany, the Netherlands and England in 1787, made a great step forward in clarifying the concept of the foundation of the Hungarian National Museum. The reconstruction renders possible the conscious nature of the founder’s intent, which could only be concluded on the basis of the parallels drawn from 18th-century historical developments and types of collecting. In the light of these parallels it should to be emphasised that Széchényi’s experience on his travels occurred on the eve of the French Revolution and at the time of the count’s withdrawal from Josephinian politics. Therefore the direction of his interest and objectives defined by the Enlightenment is not necessarily identical with the stronger emphasis on national antiquities in the foundation in 1802, in which his dissatisfaction with the policies of Francis I is also expressed.

The public nature of collections and the emphasis on the moral and educational role of knowledge must be highlighted as vital among the most important tendencies of the 18th-century development in relation to the foundation of Hungary’s national museum. The precondition of that was the public character of the collections, about which the owners of 18th-century collections generally agreed, yet the overall picture was rather varied.

Limited access was the general practice. It required special permits (for art studies, for copying, for selected ‘academic’ or distinguished visitors, with references, and in any case with a gratuity). The declaration of private and especially princely collections to be part of public (state) ownership and making them accessible became a rather frequent philanthropic or political gesture, especially following the French Revolution, which in respect of publicity initiated a major change which continued throughout the 19th century – finally as the consequence of World War I (with the nationalisation of the imperial and the Prussian royal collections of Vienna and Berlin). The conditions of the British Museum’s foundation provided an example in this respect, too, since it was established with an Act of Parliament in 1753. The legislative cooperation was repeated in 1816 when the Elgin Marbles were transported to London from Athens. The foundation of the Hungarian National Museum also involved a legislative, parliamentary act, which required only the monarch’s assent – in that respect it was a manifestation of national sovereignty, which was supported by Palatine Joseph’s co-operation in the museum’s foundation. Yet all this could not have taken place without the developments of the French Revolution in relation to museums. The Musée de la République,which was established in the Louvre in Paris and opened in 1793, responded to all the questions concerning collection: to publicity and public ownership, as well as to its foundation by parliament.

French collection history provides the first example of treating universal and national art separately. The distinction is partly of a stylistic nature, and is of a political-historical character, since the subject matter of the Musée des monuments français(established to redress the damage caused by the revolutionary devastation) encompasses the Middles Ages and the heritage of the ancienrégime. That became the ideal for the national museums in Europe and the hungaricacollection to be united in the National Museum indicated this path for Hungary.

In the period when augmenting the collection of the Hungarian National Museum took the shape of national public contributions, meaning that the focal point of the collecting activity was equal to the actual construction of the museum, a series of foundations took place in the Habsburg Empire. The Johanneum was established in Graz in 1811 and museums were established in Brno in 1817, Innsbruck in 1823, Linz in 1833, Salzburg in 1835 and in Klagenfurt in 1845. Two significant foundations in Transylvania can be included in this list: SámuelTeleki’s library foundation in Marosvásárhely (today Târgu-Mureș) in 1802, which preceded the one in Pest, and the Brukenthal Museum in Nagyszeben (today Sibiu), which was established at the same time, but opened only in 1817.

In 2000 Edit Szentesi highlighted the connections which can be demonstrated in the endeavours of Archduke John (the brother of Francis I and Archduke Joseph, Hungary’s palatine), who founded the Johanneum in Graz. It was he, who most certainly played a major role in the “imperial patriotism”, which was rooted in the anti-Napoleon resistance. For the historical research and literary activity pursued by Josef Hormayr and others provincial patriotism (Provinzialpatriotismus) primarily indicated a narrow path which offered possibilities for the peoples of the Habsburg Empire. This was joined by the Hungarians in addition to the Moravians and Czechs.

Yet the concept of “imperial patriotism” significantly differed from the approach to history that prevailed during the initial period of the National Museum in as much as it placed the role of the historical associations and museums then being formed in the framework of Provinzialpatriotismuswithin the limits of loyalty to the Habsburg empire.

The conflict between the universalism represented by the “total monarchy” – and in a certain sense the tradition of the former Holy Roman Empire (represented by relics still held in Vienna) – and Hungarian “provincialism” defined the relationship of the two developing art historical traditions right up to the end of the 19th century. One of the main characters of this conflict, Rudolf Eitelberger, offered the Viennese government’s support for the cycle of historical frescos in the staircase of the National Museum in 1866 on the eve of the Compromise. They were completed by artists Mór Than and KárolyLotz only by 1876. The programme defined by Eitelberger essentially corresponded to the decoration of an Austrian provincial Landesmuseum,which was little changed by the modifications which suited the changed political situation.

However, the conflict between “imperial patriotism” and national character had deeper consequences for the Hungarian National Museum and its collections. The emphasis on collecting focussing on national antiquities was not inconsistent with the original, feudal national concept, and that approach remained primary when developing the collection. When in 1845 the idea of the museum’s picture gallery was raised, the most important objective of the Palatine Joseph Art Gallery Founding Society was to represent Hungarian painting and Hungarian historical themes. Although important works of universal art history were acquired by the museum’s collection (primarily due to the Jankovich collection and the art gallery donated by the archbishop of Eger, LászlóPyrker, in 1836 and opened in 1846) the universal art historical aspect remained incidental. Universalism was represented by the private collections, mainly by the Esterházy art gallery. What was only a by-product for Jankovich’s collecting activity represented the goal for his most important enlightened collecting contemporaries, especially for GáborFejérváry, who strove to achieve a summarizing and systematic historical synthesis. Yet the results of that art collecting were lost for the history of Hungarian collecting, leaving a still palpable gap in art historical chronology. In his study On Museums written in 1875 about the condition of the Hungarian National Museum and the reform of museums, in effect his programme as director, FerencPulszky analysed museums from the aspect of implementing universalism and usefulness in relation to general education. For Pulszky the development of a status due to the museum of the Hungarian nation state that regained its sovereignty with the Compromise was all-important “… since we can generally say that a nation’s degree of culture can be defined by the number and wealth of its museums; the nation that has no artistic sense and which does not think of the monuments of its history can hardly be regarded as a modern nation”. His reform proposals included the separation of universal and national collections, and the introduction of new types of museums (fine arts, applied arts, ethnography, etc.).

During the period of Pulszky’s directorship plaster casts of the most significant antique sculptures were exhibited, pointing at the concept of the National Museum as the institution uniting works of universal art history.

Not only the National Museum as an archetype, but also the beginning of a modern museum structure in Hungary – with all its usefulness and contradictions – can be witnessed following the appearance of Pulszky’s reform ideas.