Art and Life in Modernist Prague

Transkript

Notes
1. The literature to which I refer includes, first and foremost, the classic
work of Carl Schorske, Fin-de-Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture (New York:
Vintage, 1981). It also includes those who follow his paradigm implicitly or explicitly, even as they seek to modify or revise it. See, for example, Péter Hanák, The Garden and the Workshop: Essays on the Cultural
History of Vienna and Budapest (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1998); William McGrath, Dionysian Art and Populist Politics in Austria
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974); and Scott Spector, Prague
Territories: National Conflict and Cultural Innovation in Franz Kafka’s Fin
de Siècle (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000).
Spector, however, rejects Schorske’s political conclusions.
2. Although Karel Čapek is properly credited with introducing the word
“robot” to the international lexicon, it was his brother Josef who actually
coined it. See Karel Čapek, “O slově robot,” OUKIII, 502–03. Originally
published in Lidové noviny, December 24, 1933.
3. H. Stuart Hughes, Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of European
Social Thought, 1890–1930 (New York: Vintage, 1977), 337.
4. Ibid., 341, 397.
5. David S. Luft, Robert Musil and the Crisis of European Culture, 1880–1942
(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1980), 13.
6. Ibid., 14.
7. Ibid., 2.
8. René Wellek, “Karel Čapek,” in The Columbia Dictionary of Modern European
Literature, ed. Horatio Smith, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1947),
139.
9. Tomáš Hlobil, “Karel Čapek a Thomas Mann,” Estetika 26 (1989): 5–7.
10. Barbara Köpplová and Kurt Krolop, eds., Robert Musil: Briefe Nach Prag
(Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1971), 5–10. Musil wrote more for Die Prager Presse
than for any other newspaper or journal.
11. Robert Musil to Arne Laurin, March 20, 1932, in Briefe Nach Prag, 40. The
letter identifies Kodíček as Musil’s translator into Czech (which was also
the first language into which any of Musil’s writings were translated).
Since Tribuna, unlike Die Prager Presse, was a Czech-language newspaper,
his contributions necessarily had to be reworked. The now well-known
story by Robert Musil, “Die Affeninsel” (Opičí ostrov/Monkey Island), was
the first to be translated. It was published in Tribuna, May 3, 1919.
12. Robert Wohl, The Generation of 1914 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1979), 230–33. Wohl shows that the members of the generation of
1914 were drawn to the radical politics of both the left and right in the
1920s, but he stresses that fascism was their major political temptation.
211
10.1057/9781137077394 - Art and Life in Modernist Prague, Thomas Ort
Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to npg - PalgraveConnect - 2016-10-12
Introduction
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Notes to Pages 6–8
One way of understanding the uniqueness of the Čapek generation is that
even though its members shared so many of the same intellectual and
aesthetic presuppositions as well as historical experiences as the figures
of Wohl’s study, they generally followed a different path politically in
the interwar years. Indeed, Wohl’s concept of the “generation of 1914” is
another excellent means of situating Čapek and his peers in the broader
cultural history of Europe, though in this case the contrasts are as important as the convergences.
Czechs constituted 50.3 percent of the population. Statistics taken from
the 1921 census cited in Josef Harna, “First Czechoslovak Republic (1918–
1938),” in A History of the Czech Lands, ed. Jaroslav Pánek and Oldřich
Tůma (Prague: Karolinum Press, 2009), 400.
Joseph Rothschild, East Central Europe between the Two World Wars (Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 1974), 87.
Kakania was the name Robert Musil gave to the fictional state in which
he set The Man without Qualities. The model for that state was the AustroHungarian Empire, sometimes known as the k. u. k. (kaiserlich und königlich)
empire, and hence “Kakania.” The term has a very witty scatological connotation meant to suggest the dysfunctional nature of that state. It can be
translated roughly as “Shitland.”
In addition to Hughes and Wohl, see Mary Gluck, Georg Lukács and
His Generation, 1900–1918 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1985), 13. Although Gluck’s book concerns intellectual developments in
Hungary, not Czechoslovakia, she argues that the sense of a break with
the past was much more marked in Eastern Europe as a whole than in
Western Europe.
For the most comprehensive general history of the First Republic of
Czechoslovakia, see Zdeněk Karník, České země v éře První republiky (1918–
1938), 3 vols. (Prague: Nakladatelství Libri, 2000–2003). Older and briefer
but indispensable English-language surveys include Rothschild, East
Central Europe between the Two World Wars, 73–135; and Victor Mamatey
and Radomír Luža, eds., A History of the Czechoslovak Republic, 1918–1948
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973).
Victor Mamatey, “The Development of Czechoslovak Democracy, 1920–
1938,” in Mamatey and Luža, History, 52.
Although this has been the dominant view for decades, recent studies
have called into question the degree to which Czechoslovakia was more
democratic or egalitarian than other countries in the region. See in particular Andrea Orzoff, Battle for the Castle: The Myth of Czechoslovakia in
Europe, 1914–1948 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) and Nancy
Wingfield, Flag Wars and Stone Saints: How the Bohemian Lands Became
Czech (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007). For a somewhat different view on egalitarianism in Czechoslovakia, see Melissa
Feinberg, Elusive Equality: Gender, Citizenship, and the Limits of Democracy
in Czechoslovakia, 1918–1950 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,
2006), a subtle analysis of the politics of women’s rights in that state.
Hillel J. Kieval, The Making of Czech Jewry: National Conflict and Jewish
Society in Bohemia, 1870–1918 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988),
185–86.
212
21. Ezra Mendelsohn, The Jews of East-Central Europe between the World Wars
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983), 132.
22. Robert Musil, Diaries, 1899–1942, ed. Mark Mirsky, trans. Philip Payne
(New York: Basic Books, 1998), 220. On Musil’s interest in acquiring
Czechoslovak citizenship, see Robert Musil to Arne Laurin, September
22, 1919, in Robert Musil, Briefe, 1901–1942, Adolf Frisé, hrsg. (Hamburg:
Rowohlt, 1981), 183.
23. Karel Teige, “Novým směrem,” AZNI, 92. Originally published in Kmen 4
(1921).
24. See Karel Čapek, “O čapkovské generaci za války a po ní,” OUKIII, 317.
Originally published in Přítomnost, March 16, 1932.
25. Karel Čapek, “Když už je diskuse,” “O čapkovské generaci,” “O čapkovské
generaci za války a po ní,” and “Tedy o takzvané mladé generaci,” OUKIII,
189–94, 309–27. Originally published in Přítomnost, January 1, 1930,
March 9, 16, and 23, 1932.
26. Karel Čapek, “Hledá se generace,” OUKII, 522–24. Originally published in
Přítomnost, March 27, 1924.
27. Čapek, “O čapkovské generaci za války a po ní,” OUKIII, 321.
28. The best-known attempt by far is Karl Mannheim’s. See his famous essay,
“The Problem of Generations,” in Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, ed.
Paul Kecskemeti (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1968).
29. Hughes, Consciousness and Society, 30.
30. Robert Wohl notes exactly the same propensity to generational thinking
among the figures of his study: “No one who has studied the writings and
followed the careers of European intellectuals born during this period can
doubt that generationalism was one of the most widespread and deeply
rooted convictions of the ‘generation of 1914.’” See Wohl, The Generation
of 1914, 237.
31. Čapek, “O čapkovské generaci,” OUKIII, 309.
32. See, for example, František Götz, “Tak zvaná generace čapkovská,” parts
I–III, Přítomnost, November 18, 25, and December 2, 1931, 698–701,
712–15, 726–28; Pavel Fraenkel, “Karel Čapek a jeho generace,” Nová
svoboda 2 (1925), 500–02; and Marie Štemberková, “Čapkovská generace,”
unpublished manuscript, 1985. I am grateful to Marie Štemberková for
sharing her manuscript with me.
33. Cited in Jan Kábrt, Krakonošova zahrada bratří Čapků: Léta pobytu Dr. Antonína
Čapka a jeho rodiny v Úpici, 1890–1907 (Hradec Králové, Czechoslovakia:
Kruh, 1985), 48.
34. Karel Čapek, “Proč máte rád své povolání,” Od člověka k člověku I (Prague:
Československý spisovatel, 1988), 377–78. Originally published in Lidové
noviny, April 6, 1924.
35. Bratří Čapkové, “Předmluva autobiografická,” in Karel Čapek and Josef
Čapek, Ze společné tvorby: Krakonošova zahrada, Zářivé hlubiny a jiné prózy,
Lásky hra osudná, Ze života hmyzu, Adam stvořitel (Prague: Československý
spisovatel, 1982), 11.
36. Karel Čapek, “Jak jsem k tomu přišel,” OUKIII, 338. Originally published
in Lumír 58 (1932).
37. Ibid., 340.
38. Ibid., 338–40.
Notes to Pages 9–19 213
39. Karel Čapek, Hordubal, Povětron, Obyčejný život (Prague: Československý
spisovatel, 1985), 290–91.
40. Ibid.
41. Little is known about this fascinating incident. Čapek discussed it only
briefly in the autobiographical introduction to his collection of stories
Krakonošova zahrada, referring to the group merely as a “very non-murderous
anarchist society.” See Bratří Čapkové, “Předmluva autobiografická,” 13.
43. Ibid., 317.
44. See Ferdinand Peroutka, Deníky, dopisy, a vzpomínky (Prague: Lidové
noviny, 1993), 157.
45. There is no relation, whatsoever, between the Czechoslovak National
Socialists and the German National Socialists. The Czechoslovak incarnation was a party of the moderate left. For an excellent overview of the
National Labor Party as well as Čapek’s involvement in it, see Andrea Orzoff,
“The National Labor Party: Intellectuals as Politicians,” in “Battle for the
Castle: The Friday Men and the Czechoslovak Republic, 1918–1938,” PhD
diss., Stanford University, 2000, 125–218. See also Orzoff’s book, Battle for
the Castle, 98–103, though the discussion here is more abbreviated.
46. Orzoff, Battle for the Castle, 101–05.
47. Karel Čapek, “O tom nacionalismu,” OUKIII, 46. Originally published in
Lidové noviny, July 25, 1926.
48. Ivan Pfaff, “První protofašisticky manifest českých intelektuálů,” Český
časopis historický 91 (1993): 247–67.
49. Jiří Opelík, Josef Čapek (Prague: Melantrich, 1980), 238–53. Bergen-Belsen
was liberated by British forces on April 15, 1945.
50. Although there is no evidence that Čapek or Kafka knew one another,
they did have numerous mutual friends and acquaintances as was almost
inevitable in a small city like Prague. For example, it was Jiří Langer, the
younger brother of František Langer, who introduced Kafka to Hasidic
mysticism. See Spector, Prague Territories, 186. Kafka was also directly
in touch with František Langer in the spring of 1914 about publishing
excerpts of his first book, Meditations (1912), in Umělecký měsíčník [Art
Monthly], the most important journal of the Czech prewar modernist
movement (see chapter 1). Langer was one of the journal’s editors. The
excerpts never ultimately appeared, but it may be that the outbreak of
the First World War, which forced the closure of Umělecký měsíčník, prevented their publication. This incident demonstrates not only that Kakfa
was familiar with Umělecký měsíčník and, by extension, with the Czech
prewar modernist movement, but also that he believed the journal to be
an appropriate outlet for his work. See Franz Kafka to Kurt Wolff Verlag
[April 22, 1914], in Franz Kafka, Letters to Friends, Family, and Editors, trans.
Richard and Clara Winston (New York: Schocken, 1977), 106.
51. Otakar Vočadlo, Anglické listy Karla Čapka (Prague: Nakladatelství Jan,
1995), 10–12.
52. See Bradley Abrams, The Struggle for the Soul of the Nation: Czech Culture
and the Rise of Communism (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005),
118–38.
214
Prague 1911: The Cubist City
1. The full passage reads: “Cet art [modern art/cubism] est très en honneur
aujourd’hui en Bohême et les Tchèques ont pris la tête de Mouvement
Moderne.” Cited in Josef Čapek, ed. Jaroslav Slavík and Jiří Opelík (Prague:
Torst, 1996), 83. Originally published in Paris Journal, March 6, 1914.
2. See Rostislav Švácha, ed., Kubistická Praha/Cubist Prague, 1909–1925
(Prague: Středoevropská galerie a nakladatelství, 2004) and Emmanuel
Starcky and Jaroslav Anděl, eds., Prague 1900–1938: Capitale secrète des
avant-gardes (Dijon: Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon, 1997). On the place
of Czech cubism in the artistic world of Austria-Hungary see Bruce
Garver, “Czech Cubism and Fin-de-Siècle Prague,” Austrian History
Yearbook, 19/20 (1983/84): 91–104 and Magda Czigány, “Imitation
or Inspiration: The Reception of Cubism in the Habsburg Monarchy,
1910–15,” in Decadence and Innovation: Austro-Hungarian Life and Art
at the Turn of the Century, ed. Robert Pynsent (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1989), 74–81.
3. See later in the chapter as well as chapter 2 for a full discussion.
4. Alexandre Mercereau cited in Vojtěch Lahoda, “Malířství v Čechách 1907–
1917/Osma, Skupina výtvarných umělců a jejich generační druhové,”
DČVU, 259.
5. Karel Čapek, “O čapkovské generaci,” OUKIII, 310. Originally published in
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Stephen Kern, The Culture of Time and Space, 1880–1918 (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1983), 196.
9. Emil Filla, “O ctnosti novoprimitivismu,” OaS, 38–40. Originally published in Volné směry 15 (1911). Volné směry is usually translated into
English as Free Trends or Free Directions, but I believe Open Paths is a
better if slightly looser rendering. For an excellent overview of this distinguished journal’s history see Roman Prahl and Lenka Bydžovská, Volné
směry: Časopis secese a moderny (Prague: Torst, 1993).
10. Emil Filla cited in Vilém Závada, “Rozhovor s Emilem Fillou,” in OaS, 254.
Originally published in Rozpravy Aventina 7 (1931–1932).
11. Ibid. See Lahoda, “Malířství v Čechách 1907–1917,” 252.
12. Karel Čapek, “Úvaha korektivní,” OUKI, 187. Originally published in
Umělecký měsíčník 1 (1911–1912).
13. Karel and Josef Čapek to Vlastislav Hofman, [spring 1911], in Karel Čapek,
Korespondence I (Prague: Český spisovatel, 1993), 112.
14. Two of the pioneers of cubist architecture, Pavel Janák and Josef Chochol,
studied with Wagner in Vienna. The relationship between Czech cubist
architecture and Wagner’s modernism is discussed in chapter 2.
15. See Lahoda, “Malířství v čechách 1907–1917,” 233–93 and Vojtěch
Lahoda, “Vincenc Kramář, collectionneur et promoteur du cubisme,” in
Starcky and Anděl, Prague 1900–1938, 138–40.
16. See Viktor Dyk, “Němci v čechách a české umění,” Lumír 42 (1914): 331–34.
The article is a criticism of Franz Werfel’s clumsy attempts at reconciliation
1
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
between Prague Germans and Czechs. Werfel argued for greater understanding between the groups on the basis that the Czech arts were the
“child” of German culture. It was precisely claims of this sort that infuriated Czech nationalists.
František Langer, Byli a bylo (Prague: Státní pedagogické nakladatelství,
1991), 141. The Union Café, or Kavárna Union, was the chief meeting
place of the artists of the Czech prewar modernist movement.
Letter from Josef Čapek to Vlastislav Hofman, [beginning of 1911],
cited in Vojtěch Lahoda, “Kubismus jako politikum: k dějinám Skupiny
výtvarných umělců,” Umění 40 (1992): 50.
Carl Schorske, Fin-de-Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture (New York: Vintage,
1981), xvii–xxx. Schorske may be guilty of overstating the pervasiveness
of the inward turn since important figures of Viennese culture, such as the
writers Karl Kraus or Robert Musil, do not fit comfortably into his scheme.
His thesis has been challenged thoroughly over the years on these and
other grounds, and I too count myself among its revisionists, but it still
provides an exceptionally fruitful means of thinking about the cultural
life of Habsburg Central Europe and so remains a touchstone for most
studies of the subject. There are good reasons, moreover, for continuing to
take many of Schorske’s claims seriously despite his over-generalization.
As will be seen in the pages that follow, the artists of Čapek’s generation
looked on Viennese modernist culture in much the same way that he
describes it: as aestheticist, interiorized, and withdrawn from the realities
of contemporary life. For a collection of important critiques of Schorske’s
thesis see Austrian History Yearbook 28 (1997) and Steven Beller, ed.,
Rethinking Vienna 1900 (New York: Berghahn Books, 2001).
Péter Hanák, The Garden and the Workshop: Essays on the Cultural History of
Vienna and Budapest (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998).
Ibid., 65.
Ibid., 66.
Ibid., 147–78. Although Hanák’s category of “marginal” intellectuals
should be treated with caution, it is worth noting that he classifies 65 percent of creative intellectuals in Budapest as “marginal,” while in Vienna
the figure is even higher at 74 percent.
Mary Gluck, Georg Lukács and His Generation, 1900–1918 (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1985), 71.
Ibid., 105.
The outstanding study of this process is by Jeremy King, Budweisers into
Czechs and Germans: A Local History of Bohemian Politics, 1848–1948
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002).
Gary Cohen, The Politics of Ethnic Survival: Germans in Prague, 1861–1914
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), 86–139.
For the best discussion of the Manifesto and the generation of the
1890s, see Katherine David-Fox, “The 1890s Generation: Modernism
and National Identity in Czech Culture, 1890–1900,” (PhD diss., Yale
University, 1996).
Cited in David-Fox, “The 1890s Generation,” 398.
Ibid., 396.
216
31. Ibid., 342–43.
32. Ibid., 327–28, 342–45.
33. Čapek, “O čapkovské generaci,” OUKIII, 311. Originally published in
34. The situation was of course significantly more complicated for the Jewish
artists and writers who identified themselves as Czech. Although antisemites always denied it, it was nonetheless increasingly possible to be
both a Czech and a Jew, and in the last decades of the nineteenth century
ever greater numbers of Bohemian Jews were identifying themselves as
“Czech.” By 1900 more than half the Jewish population of Bohemia had
declared itself Czech. See Hillel Kieval, The Making of Czech Jewry: National
Conflict and Jewish Society in Bohemia, 1870–1918 (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1988), 61.
35. See Jacques Le Rider, Modernity and Crises of Identity: Culture and Society
in Fin-de-Siècle Vienna, trans. Rosemary Morris (New York: Continuum,
1993).
36. See Thomas Harrison, 1910: The Emancipation of Dissonance (Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996). The book opens with a
description of a rash of suicides among young Austrian artists and intellectuals in 1910.
37. Scott Spector, Prague Territories: National Conflict and Cultural Innovation
in Franz Kafka’s Fin de Siècle (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 2000), x. If, in Spector’s terms, the German-Jewish writers of Kafka’s circle were “deterritorialized,” that is, lacking a naturalized
way of grounding claims about politics, society, culture, and above all
identity, then the artists and writers of Čapek’s generation were profoundly “territorialized.” For a vivid portrait of Prague’s deeply divided
Czech and German cultures, see also Peter Demetz, Prague in Black and
Gold (New York: Hill and Wang, 1997).
38. Robert A. Kann, A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1526–1918 (Berkeley and
Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974), 464.
39. Cohen, The Politics of Ethnic Survival, 132–34.
40. Some of the Czech-identified Jews in the Skupina and wider prewar modernist movement include Otokar Fischer, Otto Gutfreund, Josef Kodíček,
František Langer, and Ervín Taussig.
41. Karel Čapek, “Otázka národního umění” and “Tradice a vývoj,” OUKI,
272–76 and 342–46. Originally published in Volné směry 17 (1912–1913)
and Volné směry 18 (1913–1915).
42. All of these artists were important figures in the nineteenth-century Czech
national revival.
43. See, for example, Schorske, Fin-de-Siècle Vienna; Le Rider, Modernity and
Crises of Identity; Harrison, 1910; David S. Luft, Robert Musil and the Crisis
of European Culture, 1880–1942 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1980); and Gerald N. Izenberg, Modernism and Masculinity:
Mann, Wedekind, Kandinsky through World War I (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2000).
44. See H. Stuart Hughes, Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of
European Social Thought, 1890–1930 (New York: Vintage, 1977).
45. See Jeffrey Weiss, The Popular Culture of Modern Art: Picasso, Duchamp, and
Avant-Gardism (New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press, 1994),
esp. 49–105. See also Christopher Green, Cubism and Its Enemies: Modern
Movements and Reaction in French Art, 1916–1928 (New Haven, CT, and
London: Yale University Press, 1987) and Kern, The Culture of Time and
Space, 181–210.
46. Bohumil Kubišta, “O duchové podstatě moderní doby,” OaS, 90. Originally
published in Česká kultura 2 (1913–1914).
47. Their understanding of cubism is explored more completely in chapter 2.
48. Filla, “O ctnosti novoprimitivismu,” OaS, 39–40.
49. Karel Čapek and Vlastislav Hofman, “Indická architektura,” OUKI, 271.
Originally published in Styl 5 (1913).
50. Karel Čapek, “Úvaha korektivní,” OUKI, 188.
51. Carl Schorske, “Explosion in the Garden: Kokoshka and Schoenberg,” Finde-Siècle Vienna, 343.
52. Josef Čapek, “Kandinsky: Über das Geistige in der Kunst,” Umělecký
měsíčník 1 (1911–12): 270. Neither he nor Karel distinguished sharply
between expressionism in its Viennese, German, or other incarnations.
53. Josef Čapek, “Krása moderní výtvarné formy,” OaS, 136. Emphasis in
original.
54. Josef Čapek, “První Berlínský podzimní salon,” Lumír, 42 (1914): 94.
55. Karel Čapek, “2. Výstava skupiny výtvarných umělců v Obecním domě,”
OUKI, 220–24. Originally published in Česká revue (1912–1913).
56. Karel Čapek, “K nejmladší německé poesii,” OUKI, 339–40.
57. Ibid., 340–41. Emphasis in original.
58. Lahoda, “Malířství v Čechách 1907–1917,” 233.
2 Between Life and Form: Karel Čapek and
the Prewar Modernist Generation
1. Stanislav K. Neumann, “Otevřená okna,” AŽŽ, 67–68. Originally published in Lidové noviny, August 9, 1913. Frištenský was a famous Czech
boxer, the Českomoravská Machine-Tool Works was one of the largest
Czech industrial enterprises, Laurin and Klement was a Czech car and
motorcycle maker. Part of the translation and explanation above is taken
from Derek Sayer, The Coasts of Bohemia: A Czech History (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1998), 158.
2. Vincenc Beneš, “Moderní umění,” OaS, 103. Originally published in
3. Karel Čapek, “O dvou publikacích,” OUKIII, 638–39. Originally published
in Lidové noviny, February 4, 1935.
4. Karel Čapek, “O čapkovské generaci,” OUKIII, 312. Originally published in
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., 312–13.
8. A handful of examples include Karel Čapek, “Henri Bergson: Das Lachen,”
OUKI, 394–97 (originally published in Přehled, May 15, 1914); Jaroslav
218
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Kabelka, “Ideové vztahy novodobé filosofie a moderního umění,” Volné
směry 17 (1913): 131–34; Jaroslav Kabelka, “O filosofii Bergsonově,”
Přehled, March 21 and 28, 1913, 443–44, 473; Stanislav K. Neumann, “Ať
Žije Život!” AŽŽ, 43–55 (originally published in Lidové noviny, August 2,
1913); Rudolf Procházka, “O podstatné proměně duchové povahy naší
doby,” Umělecký měsíčník 2 (1912–1914); and Tankred [Tancrède] de Visan,
“Filosofie Henri Bergsona a současná estetika,” trans. Hanuš Jelínek, Lumír
41 (1913): 416–20, 443–48.
Mark Antliff, Inventing Bergson: Cultural Politics and the Parisian AvantGarde (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 4–5.
Henri Bergson, An Introduction to Metaphysics, trans. T. E. Hulme (New
York: Macmillan, 1955), 51. The artists and writers of the Czech prewar
modernist generation were familiar with most of Bergson’s major works
from before the First World War, including Time and Free Will (1889),
Matter and Memory (1896), Laughter (1900), and Creative Evolution (1907).
For the brief description above, however, I have drawn primarily on An
Introduction to Metaphysics (1903), an essay in which Bergson summarized
most of his key ideas up to that time.
Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution, trans. Arthur Mitchell (New York:
Random House, 1944), 292–95.
František Langer, “Problém generací,” in Tvorba z exilu (Prague: Akropolis,
2000), 246. This essay was originally delivered as a lecture on June 10,
1944, during Langer’s wartime exile in London.
For an excellent analysis of the use of Bergson’s thought by French cubist
artists, see Antliff, Inventing Bergson.
See Karel Čapek, “Moderní lyrika francouzká,” and “Několik nových dramat francouzkých,” OUKI, 302–6 and 284–302. Originally published in
Lumír 41 (1912–1913) and Scéna 1 (1913–1914).
Čapek, “Několik nových dramat francouzkých,” OUKI, 294.
Karel Čapek, “Jules Romains,” OUKI, 241. Originally published in Přehled,
January 24, 1913.
Ibid., 242.
Karel Čapek, “Sociální filozofie. Ke kritice školy Durkheimovy,” OUKI,
359–68. Originally published in Přehled, February 6 and 13, 1914.
Ibid., 367.
Ibid., 363.
Ibid., 364.
Ibid., 366.
Ibid., 367.
Ibid., 367–68. Emphasis in original.
Čapek, OUKI, 360.
Karel Čapek, “A. Mamelet: Le relativisme philosophique chez Georg
Simmel,” OUKI, 400–3. Originally published in Přehled, June 26, 1914.
Ibid., 402.
Ibid., 401.
Ibid.
Ibid., 402.
Ibid., 401.
32. Karel Čapek, “Křik po náboženství,” OUKI, 329–30. Originally published
in Volné směry 17 (1913).
33. Ibid., 330.
34. Vlastislav Hofman, “Duch přeměny v umění výtvarném,” OaS, 211.
Originally published in Almanach na rok 1914 (1913).
35. Ibid., 212.
36. Karel Čapek, “Syntéza a výstava Osmi,” OUKI, 43. Originally published in
Snaha 3 (1908).
37. Karel Čapek, “Moderní umění,” OUKI, 372–73. Originally published in
Přehled, March 13 and 20, 1914. Emphasis in original.
38. Hofman, “Duch přeměny v umění výtvarném,” OaS, 212. Emphasis in
original.
39. Josef Čapek, “Krása moderní výtvarné formy,” OaS, 136. Originally published in Přehled, September 1913. Emphasis in original.
40. Jiří Padrta, “Spory o kubismus,” OaS, 178–80.
41. Emil Filla, “Z berlínských výstav,” OaS, 167. Originally published in
42. Josef Čapek, “Postavení futuristů v dnešním umění,” OaS, 164–66.
Originally published in Umělecký měsíčník 1 (1911–1912).
43. Vincenc Beneš, “Nové umění” and “Kubistická výstava v Mánesu,” OaS, 106
and 169–72. Both originally published in Umělecký měsíčník 2 (1912–1914).
44. See Čapek, “Moderní umění,” OUKI, 369–77.
45. Karel Čapek, “Výstava maleb italských futuristů,” OUKI, 349. Originally
published in Česká revue (1913–1914).
46. Ibid. For a similar expression of sentiment see Josef Čapek, “Výstava
futuristů,” Lumír 42 (1914): 140–42.
47. Čapek, “Výstava maleb italských futuristů” and “Moderní umění,” OUKI,
348–49 and 369–77.
48. Douglas Cooper, The Cubist Epoch (New York: Phaidon, 1970), 112.
49. See Vincenc Kramář, “Kapitoly o ismech,” Umělecký měsíčník 2 (1912–1914).
50. Beneš, “Kubistická výstava v Mánesu,” OaS, 170.
51. Karel Čapek, “Několik poznámek k moderní literatuře,” OUKI, 333–34.
Originally published in Přehled, October 10, 1913.
52. Karel Čapek, “Zasláno,” Dodatky, 26–29. Originally published in Přehled,
April 4, 1914.
53. See Carl Schorske, “The Ringstrasse, Its Critics, and the Birth of Urban
Modernism,” Fin-de-Siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture (New York: Vintage,
1981), 24–115.
54. See Rostislav Švácha, The Architecture of New Prague, 1895–1945, trans.
Alexander Büchler (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995), 100.
55. Vladimír Šlapeta, “Cubism in Architecture,” in Czech Cubism: Architecture,
Furniture, and Decorative Arts, 1910–1925, ed. Alexander von Vegesack
(London: Laurence King, 1992), 34–36.
56. Pavel Janák, “Otto Wagner,” Styl 1 (1908–1909): 48.
57. Pavel Janák, “Od moderní architektury k architektuře,” Styl 2 (1910): 105–9.
58. Ibid., 106–7.
59. Ibid., 107–9.
60. Pavel Janák, “Proti náladě v architektuře,” OaS, 185–87. Originally published in Umělecký měsíčník 1 (1911–1912): 185.
220
61. Ibid., 186.
62. Most scholars of cubist architecture cite the German psychologist Theodor
Lipps as the source of Janák’s ideas about the motion of mental life, for
example, Marie Benešová, “Architektura kubismu,” in DČVU, 330; and
Ivan Margolius, Cubism in Architecture and the Applied Arts: Bohemia and
France, 1910–1914 (North Pomfret, VT: David & Charles, 1979), 12. It
seems to me, however, that an equally possible source is Bergson, particularly the theory outlined in Creative Evolution, in which the philosopher
explicitly equates consciousness with motion and describes it as life in its
purest, freest state. But Janák never mentions by name Lipps, Bergson, or
any other source for his ideas. Karel Čapek, on the other hand, did comment on Creative Evolution at length, though not until 1920. See chapter
3 for a discussion of his understanding of this important text.
63. Pavel Janák, “Hranol a pyramida,” OaS, 190–92, 209. Originally published
in Umělecký měsíčník 1 (1911–1912).
64. Ibid., 192.
65. Ibid., 209.
66. Vegesack, Czech Cubism, 326.
67. Vlastislav Hofman, “Duch moderní tvorby v architektuře,” Umělecký
měsíčník 1 (1911–1912): 127–35.
68. Ibid., 134.
69. Vlastislav Hofman, “Příspěvek k charakteru moderní architektury,”
Umělecký měsíčník 1 (1911–1912): 229–30.
70. Karel Čapek, “2. Výstava skupiny výtvarných umělců v Obecním domě,”
OUKI, 224. Originally published in Česká revue (1912–1913). Čapek’s praise
for Hofman’s work should be seen in the context of their close friendship
and also of the split within the Skupina in 1912, but it would be a mistake
to understand it solely in terms of personal allegiances. Despite some criticism of Pavel Janák, Čapek was overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the work
of all the cubist architects. His commentary on Hofman’s designs should
therefore be taken as an indication of his true preferences and goals.
71. Ibid., 224.
72. Langer, “Problém generací,” Tvorba z exilu, 245.
73. Čapek, “Několik poznámek k moderní literatuře,” OUKI, 333.
74. Otakar Theer, “Mladá česka poesie,” Přehled, March 7, 1913, and “Dvě
generace,” Národní listy, July 9, 1913. For an excellent account of the generational split announced by Theer see Evá Strohsová, Zrození moderny
(Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1963).
75. Strohsová, Zrození moderny, 35–36.
76. Ladislav Matejka, ed., Czech Poetry: A Bilingual Anthology, vol. 1 (Ann
Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, 1973), 347. See also Arne Novák,
Dějiny českého písemnictví (Prague: Brána, 1994), 243.
77. See Josef Kodíček, “Z nové poesie III,” Lumír 41 (1913): 449–52; Josef
Čapek, “J. Karásek ze Lvovic Posvátné ohně,” Umělecký měsíčník 1 (1911–
1912): 143–44 ; and Strohsová, Zrození moderny, 14.
79. Čapek, “O dvou publikacích,” OUKIII, 638.
80. František Götz, “Tak zvaná generace čapkovská,” Přítomnost, November
18, 1931, 700.
81. Novák, Dějiny českého písemnictví, 246–47.
82. Neumann, “Ať Žije Život,” AŽŽ, 52–55.
83. Visan, “Filosofie Henri Bergsona a současná estetika,” 416–20, 443–48.
See note 8.
84. Bergson, An Introduction to Metaphysics, 51.
85. Visan, “Filosofie Henri Bergsona a současná estetika,” 445.
86. Neumann, “Ať Žije Život,” AŽŽ, 44–45.
87. Ibid., 45.
88. Ibid., 45–46.
89. Ibid., 53.
90. Stanislav K. Neumann, “K nové poesii sociální,” AŽŽ, 136–39. Originally
published in Lidové noviny, November 14, 1913. Emphasis in original.
91. Stanislav K. Neumann, “Různé odpovědi,” AŽŽ, 82–83. Originally published in Lidové noviny, September 12, 1913.
92. Strohsová, Zrození moderny, 37.
94. Ibid., 335–36.
95. See Karel Čapek, Básnické počátky—Předklady (Prague: Český spisovatel,
1993).
96. Čapek, “Moderní lyrika francouzká,” OUKI, 304–5.
97. F. X. Šalda, “O dnešní tvorbě románové,” Česká kultura 1 (1913) and “K
dnešní situace literární,” Česká kultura 1 (1913).
99. Ibid., 335. It is more likely he was thinking of those poets who associated
themselves with the literary movement, similar to Futurism, known as
paroxysm.
100. See Čapek, “O čapkovské generaci,” OUKIII, 312. See also, Karel Čapek,
“Henri Bergson,” OUKIII, 179–81. Originally published in Lidové noviny,
October 18, 1929.
101. Čapek, “Henri Bergson: Das Lachen,” OUKI, 394–97.
102. Ibid., 396.
103. Ibid., 397. Emphasis in original.
104. Although the conﬂict with Filla and Beneš was spread out over the
course of nearly two years, it culminated in the spring of 1914 at about
the same time Čapek wrote his article on Bergson. The article in which
Čapek used the phrase “resolution of life” was written in April 1914. See
Čapek, “Zasláno,” Dodatky, 28.
3 The Lessons of Life: Karel Čapek and
the First World War
1. Karel Čapek, “O čapkovské generaci za války a po ní,” OUKIII, 318. Originally published in Přítomnost, March 16, 1932.
2. Ibid., 315–21. See also Karel Čapek, “O čapkovské generaci,” OUKIII,
309–15. Originally published in Přítomnost, March 9, 1932.
3. Karel Čapek, “Stanislav K. Neumann: Ať Žije Život!” OUKII, 222–25.
Originally published in Národní listy, November 26, 1920.
222
4. Ibid., 223
5. Ibid.
6. Vilém Závada, “Rozhovor s Emilem Fillou,” OaS, 254–55. Originally published in Rozpravy Aventina 7 (1931–1932).
7. Milan Blahynka, ed., Čeští spisovatelé 20. století (Prague: Československý
spisovatel, 1985), 337.
8. Holger H. Herwig, The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary,
1914–1918 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997), 296–301, 439; Rudolf
Kiszling, Österreich-Ungarns Anteil am Ersten Weltkrieg (Graz: Stiasny
Verlag, 1958), 95.
9. This was a phenomenon that took place not only in a provincial city like
Prague, but in a cosmopolitan center like Paris as well. Ironically, whereas
in Paris conservatives condemned cubism as an un-French German
import, in Prague cubism was attacked for exactly the opposite reasons.
See Kenneth Silver, Esprit de Corps: Art of the Parisian Avant-Garde and the
First World War, 1914–1925 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1989), 3–27.
10. The Berlin journals Der Sturm and Die Aktion were among their principal outlets at this time. Owing to the relative paucity of published
material during the war and because of the necessity to censor one’s
publically stated opinions, this chapter draws heavily from private
correspondence, especially between the Čapek brothers and the poet
S. K. Neumann.
11. Another notable exception was his brother, Josef, who was called up
repeatedly but was granted a series of temporary exemptions because of
his poor eyesight. See Jiří Opelík, Josef Čapek (Prague: Melantrich, 1980),
132–33.
12. Karel Čapek to Stanislav K. Neumann, [December 7, 1914], in Stanislava
Jarošová, Milan Blahynka, and František Všetička, eds., Viktor Dyk,
St.K.Neumann, Bratři Čapkové: Korespondence z let 1905–1918 (Prague:
Nakladatelství Československé akademie věd, 1962), 109.
13. After the war, this institution, which sits imposingly at the top of Prague’s
Wenceslaus Square, was renamed the National Museum.
14. Despite his denunciations of popular antisemitism, Čapek was also given
to some anti-Jewish feeling during the war. Specifically, he was disturbed
by the overwhelming support for the war among Austria’s Jews. See, for
example, his letter to Neumann [January 4, 1915], Korespondence z let
1905–1918, 115. On Jewish support for the war, see Marsha Rozenblit,
Reconstructing a National Identity: The Jews of Habsburg Austria during World
War I (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).
15. Karel Čapek to Neumann [after September 25, 1914], Korespondence z let
1905–1918, 102–3.
16. Ibid. [December 18, 1914], 112.
17. On the popular and intellectual enthusiasm for the war see, for example,
Hew Strachan, The First World War, Volume I: To Arms (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2001), especially Chapter 2, “Willingly to War,” and
Roland Stromberg, Redemption by War: The Intellectuals in 1914 (Lawrence,
KS: Regents Press of Kansas, 1982).
18. Stefan Zweig, The World of Yesterday (Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press, 1964), 229–30.
19. Ibid., 223.
20. See Ivan Šedivý, Češi, české země a velká válka, 1914–1918 (Prague:
Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2001), 270–85, and Claire Nolte,
“Ambivalent Patriots: Czech Culture in the Great War,” in Aviel Roshwald
and Richard Stites, eds., European Culture in the Great War (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1999), 162–75.
22. Martin Kučera, “Názory a postoj F.X. Šaldy za první světové války,” Český
časopis historický (1992): 539–40.
23. Cited in Kučera, “Názory a postoj F.X. Šaldy za první světové války,” 540.
24. Karel Čapek, “Dr. Emanuel Rádl: F.X. Šaldova filozofie,” OUKI, 458.
25. Josef Čapek to Neumann [January 4, 1915], Korespondence z let 1905–1918,
117.
26. Karel Čapek to Neumann [December 22, 1914], Korespondence z let 1905–
1918, 113.
27. Ibid. [October, 1914], 106.
28. Josef Kodíček to Vlastislav Hofman, December 24, 1915, Vlastislav Hofman
papers and drawings, Series II, Box 2, Folder 18, Getty Research Institute
for the History of Art and the Humanities, Los Angeles, CA.
29. Karel Čapek to Neumann [after February 6, 1916] and [spring-summer
1916], Korespondence z let 1905–1918, 158 and 163.
30. See Mahulena Nešlehová, Bohumil Kubišta (Prague: Odeon, 1984), 174,
206. The submarine that Kubišta’s unit sank was the Marie Curie. In 1915,
it was raised from the bottom of the harbor at Pula, repaired, and placed
into the service of the Austro-Hungarian navy as SM U-14. Georg Ritter
von Trapp of The Sound of Music fame became U-14’s most successful commander, sinking numerous British, French, and Italian vessels. See Lothar
Baumgartner and Erwin Sieche, Die Schiffe der k. (u.) k. Kriegsmarine im Bild
(Vienna: Verlagsbuchhandlung Stöhr, 1999).
31. Josef Čapek to Neumann [October 27, 1915], Korespondence z let 1905–
1918, 150.
32. In one letter he wrote: “Czech newspapers have reached a low no one
could have ever anticipated; the ‘world-historical events’ have been good
mainly for kicking Jews off of newspapers; it’s the absolutely lowest form
of cowardice, pettiness, and ignorance.” Karel Čapek to Neumann [after
September 25, 1914], Korespondence z let 1905–1918, 102–3.
33. Josef Čapek to Neumann [December 5, 1917], Korespondence z let 1905–
1918, 189.
34. Karel Čapek to Neumann [December 5, 1917], Korespondence z let 1905–
1918, 191–92.
35. Josef Čapek to Neumann, [December 5, 1917], Korespondence z let 1905–
1918, 189.
36. Karel Čapek to Neumann, [December 5, 1917], Korespondence z let 1905–
1918, 190.
37. Karel Čapek, “Několik poznámek k moderní literatuře,” OUKI, 336–38.
Originally published in Přehled, October 10, 1913. See chapter 2.
38. Čapek, “Stanislav K. Neumann: Ať Žije Život!” OUKII, 223.
224
39. Karel Čapek, “K nejmladší německé poezii,” OUKI, 339. Originally published in Přehled, October 31 and November 7, 1913.
40. Stanislav K. Neumann, “Ať Žije Život!” Lidové noviny, August 2, 1913.
41. Čapek, “Stanislav K. Neumann: Ať Žije Život!” OUKII, 222–23.
42. Ibid., 223. For reasons of intelligibility, I have translated the word rozmach
as “surge.” This translation, however, is imperfect since the word thereby
loses its Bergsonian connotation. Rozmach is the usual Czech means of rendering Bergson’s term “élan,” which Čapek unquestionably had in mind.
43. Karel Čapek, “Filozofie Bergsonova. Henri Bergson: Vývoj tvořivý,” OUKII,
159–87. Originally published in Cesta, April 30, May 7, and May 14,
1920.
44. Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution, trans. Arthur Mitchell (New York:
Random House, 1944).
45. Čapek, “Filozofie Bergsonova,” OUKII, 159–87.
46. Ibid., 186.
47. Ibid.
48. See chapter 4.
49. See chapter 2.
50. Čapek, “Stanislav K. Neumann: Ať Žije Život!” OUKII, 223–24.
51. Ibid., 225.
52. Ibid., 223.
53. Ibid., 223–4.
54. Ibid.
55. Miroslav Halík, Karel Čapek: Život a dílo v datech (Prague: Academia, 1983),
26.
56. Karel Čapek, Pragmatismus, čili filosofie praktického života (Prague: F. Topič,
1918). The paper was not in fact written for Beneš’s class, which was a
lecture course, but for a separate philosophy seminar that Čapek took the
same semester. See Halík, Karel Čapek, 26.
58. Karel Čapek, “Pragmatism,” OUKI, 538–43. Originally published in Červen
1 (1918–1919).
59. Ibid., 540
60. Ibid.
62. Bergson and James were great friends and mutual admirers. Both shared
a deep distaste for rationalist philosophy, and there is clear convergence
in their conceptions of the fluid nature of consciousness and reality. But
their views of “life” are very different, as are their attitudes toward the
attainment of absolute knowledge. See Horace Kallen, William James and
Henri Bergson: A Study in Contrasting Theories of Life (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1914).
63. Ibid., 541.
64. Karel Čapek, Pragmatism, čili filosofie praktického života (Olomouc, Czech
Republic: Votobia, 2000), 57.
65. Václav Štěpán, “Pařížský Loupežník bratří Čapků,” Sborník Národního
muzea v Praze 41 (1987): 1–49.
66. See chapter 1.
67. Karel Čapek, Dramata, 11.
226
4 Art ≠ Life: The Čapek Generation and Devětsil
in Interwar Czechoslovakia
1. Josef Čapek, “Cestou II,” in Co má člověk z umění a jiné úvahy o umění –
výbor z článků z let 1912–1937 (Prague: Výtvarný odbor Umělěcké besedy
v Praze, 1946), 63. Originally published in Život 8 (1928–1929).
2. “U.S. Devětsil,” AZNI, 81–83. Originally published in Pražské pondělí,
December 6, 1920. Although it did not officially announce its existence
until December, Devětsil was first organized two months earlier, on
October 5, 1920. The literal translation of the word devětsil is “butterbur,”
the plant. While it should be taken primarily as an avant-garde nonsense
word, it does have other possible meanings, including “nine strengths”
or “nine forces.” I know, however, of no satisfactory explanation of these
meanings. Perhaps most important is the word’s expressive quality: it
sounds very good in Czech.
3. Karel Teige, “Novým směrem,” AZNI, 92. Originally published in Kmen 4
(1921).
4. Karel Teige, “Naše umělecké touhy,” AZNI, 167. Originally published in
Rovnost, July 19, 1921.
5. For a good summary of the group’s activities, see Jaroslav Slavík, “Skupina
Tvrdošíjní: Ke kronice její aktivity,” Umění 3 (1982): 193–211.
6. Karel Teige, “Věc Tvrdošíjných,” Československé noviny, January 3, 1923.
7. Some of the most important books, edited volumes, special journal issues,
essay collections, and translations of Teige include: Karel Srp, Karel Teige
(Prague: Torst, 2001); Eric Dluhosch and Rostislav Švácha, eds., Karel
Teige, 1900–1951: L’Enfant Terrible of the Czech Modernist Avant-Garde
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999); Manuela Castagnara Codeluppi
and Hana Císařová, eds., “Karel Teige: Architecture and Poetry,” special
issue, Rassegna 15 (1993); Lenka Bydžovská and Rostislav Švácha, eds.,
“Karel Teige a evropská avantgarda,” special issue, Umění 43 (1995); Karel
Teige, Osvobozování života a poezie: Studie ze čtyřicátých let, ed. Jiří Brabec,
Vrastislav Effenberger, Květoslav Chvatík, and Robert Kalivoda (Prague:
Aurora and Český spisovatel, 1994); Karel Teige, The Minimum Dwelling,
trans. and intro. Eric Dluhosch (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Chicago:
Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, 2002); Karel
Teige, Modern Architecture in Czechoslovakia and Other Writings, intro. JeanLouis Cohen, trans. Irena Žantovská Murray and David Britt (Los Angeles:
Getty Research Institute, 2000).
8. Teige, “Novým směrem,” AZNI, 92.
9. Ibid., 91.
68. Cited in Willam Harkins, Karel Čapek (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1962), 71.
69. Karel Čapek, “Musím dále,” OUKII, 415. Originally published in Lidové
noviny, June 18, 1922.
70. Čapek, Dramata, 82–83.
71. Ibid., 9.
72. Ibid.
10. Ibid., 95–96. See also Karel Teige, “Nové umění a lidová tvorba,” AZNI,
150–56. Originally published in Červen 4 (1921).
11. Karel Teige, “Obrazy a předobrazy,” AZNI, 102. Originally published in
Musaion 2 (1921).
12. Karel Teige, “S novou generací (polemické poznámky),” AZNI, 134–47.
Originally published in Červen 4 (1921).
13. Karel Čapek, “Poznámka,” AZNI, 104. Originally published in Musaion 2
(1921). Václav Nebeský, “Umělecký defétismus,” AZNI, 115–19. Originally
published in Tribuna, March 27, 1921.
14. Josef Čapek, “Dnešní umělecké jaro,” Lidové noviny, May 10, 1922. Václav
Nebeský, “Manifest mladých I & II,” Tribuna, May 6 and 7, 1922.
15. Slavík, “Skupina Tvrdošíjní,” 193–211.
16. For a good review of the developing strains but also continuing cooperation between some members of the two generations, see Pavla Pečinková,
“Generační roztržka (Josef Čapek kontra Karel Teige),” Zpravodaj Společnosti
bratři Čapků 34 (1995): 23–31.
17. Josef Kodíček, “Devěthnid,” AZNI, 382–91. Originally published in Tribuna,
December 31, 1922.
18. Josef Čapek, Nejskromnější umění (Prague: Aventium, 1920).
19. Teige, “Nové umění a lidová tvorba,” AZNI, 152. See also Vítězslav Nezval
cited in Jiří Holý, “František Langer a předválečná avantgarda,” in František
Langer na prahu nového tisíciletí, ed. Milena Vojtková and Vladimír Justl
(Prague: Nadační fond Františka Langera, 2000), 75.
20. See, for example, Peter Gay, Weimar Culture: The Outsider as Insider (New
York: Harper & Row, 1970).
21. Cited in Mary Gluck, Georg Lukács and His Generation, 1900–1918
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 11.
22. For a challenge to this standard interpretation of Duchamp, however,
see Jerrold Seigel, The Private Worlds of Marcel Duchamp: Desire, Liberation,
and the Self in Modern Culture (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1995).
23. Peter Bürger, Theory of the Avant-Garde, trans. Michael Shaw (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1984), 49.
24. Ibid.
25. Karel Teige and Jaroslav Seifert, “J. Kodíček a jeho generace (Několik fakt
jako odpověd),” AZNI, 564. Originally published in Host 3 (1924).
26. Teige, “Obrazy a předobrazy,” AZNI, 97.
27. Teige, “Novým směrem,” AZNI, 91–92.
28. Jiří Jelínek, “Situace na počátku roku 1924,” AZNI, 538. Originally published in Veraikon 10 (1924).
29. František Götz, “Spor generací,” Host 3 (1924): 154. Although he identified himself politically with the radical left and sympathized mainly with
the young artists of Devětsil, Götz was one of the most fair-minded critics
in the notoriously ideological 1920s.
30. Ibid.
31. František Götz, “O těch generacích,” Přerod 6–7 (1924): 101.
32. F. X. Šalda, “Trojí generace: Kus české literární morfologie,” Kritika 1
(1924): 328–29. Emphasis in original.
33. F. X. Šalda, “Spory literární,” Var 3 (1923–1924): 101.
34. Ibid., 330–31. In this essay, Šalda badly mischaracterized Vaihinger for
whom the “as if” was neither a deficit nor a weak substitute for real
faith or knowledge but an accurate description of the scientific method.
Vaihinger argued that science advanced on the basis of useful fictions,
acting “as if” a proposition were true even though it might patently be
false or unproven. Vaihinger is correctly seen as a precursor to pragmatism, though he never accepted its more radical claims about the relativity of truth. See Hans Vaihinger, The Philosophy of “As If”: A System of the
Theoretical, Practical, and Religious Fictions of Mankind, trans. C. K. Ogden
(London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1935).
35. See Teige, “Novým směrem,” “Naše umělecké touhy,” and “Nové umění
proletářské,” AZNI, 90–96, 165–68, and 247–75. Last essay originally published in Sborník Devětsil 1 (1922).
36. Teige, “Naše umělecké touhy,” AZNI, 165. Interestingly, Teige himself
never joined the Party.
37. See Ladislav Cabada, Intelektuálové a idea komunismu v českých zemích,
1900–1939 (Prague: Institut pro středoevropskou kulturu a politiku,
2000), 80–176, and Ivan Pfaff, Česká levice proti Moskvě, 1936–38 (Prague:
Naše vojsko, 1993).
38. Karel Čapek, Továrna na Absolutno, Krakatit (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1982), 117.
39. Ibid., 118.
40. See, for example, František Buriánek, Karel Čapek (Prague: Melantrich,
1978), 146, and William Harkins, Karel Čapek (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1962), 101–2.
41. Čapek, Továrna na Absolutno, Krakatit, 154.
42. Götz, “Spor generací,” 153–55, and “O těch generacích,” 100–102. See
also František Götz, “Generace ztracená—a přece oficielní,” Nová svoboda
46 (1925): 435–37.
43. Josef Kodíček, “Generace skoro nalezená,” Přítomnost, June 19, 1924,
365.
44. Josef Čapek, “Skepsi ve psí a o kursu nadosobních hodnot,” Přítomnost,
June 24, 1924, 372.
45. Ibid.
46. Karel Čapek, “Ignoramus a ignorabimus,” OUKII, 537. Originally published in Přítomnost, October 23, 1924.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid., 538.
50. Ibid.
51. Ibid., 539.
52. Ibid., 540.
53. Ibid.
54. Teige, “Obrazy a předobrazy,” AZNI, 97.
55. Čapek, “Poznámka,” AZNI, 104.
56. Václav Nebeský, “Umělecký defétismus,” AZNI, 115–19. Originally published in Tribuna, March 27, 1921. For my analysis of the aesthetic conflict between the artists of Čapek’s generation and those of Devětsil, I am
228
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
indebted to the excellent work of the art historian Karel Srp. His article,
“Tvrdošíjní a Devětsil,” Umění 35 (1987): 54–68, was especially helpful.
Nebeský, “Umělecký defétismus,” AZNI, 119.
Ibid.
See also Václav Nebeský, “Uměni a společnost,” Volné směry 22 (1923–24):
9–20.
Karel Teige, “Umění dnes a zítra,” AZNI, 365–81. Originally published in
Sborník Devětsil 1 (1922).
See especially Karel Teige, “Constructivism and the Liquidation of ‘Art’,” in
Karel Teige, Modern Architecture in Czechoslovakia and Other Writings, trans.
Irena Žantovská Murray (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2000),
340. Originally published as “Konstruktivismus a likvidace ‘umění’,” Disk
2 (1925).
See Karel Srp, “Teige in the Twenties,” in Karel Teige, 1900–1951: L’Enfant
Terrible of the Czech Modernist Avant-Garde, ed. Eric Dluhosch and Rostislav
Švácha (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999), 26.
Karel Teige, “Poetism,” trans. Alexandra Büchler, in Karel Teige, 1900–
1951, 70. Originally published as “Poetismus,” Host 3 (1924).
Vítězslav Nezval cited in Karel Honzík, Ze života avantgardy: zážitky architektovy (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1963), 71.
Ibid.
Václav Nebeský, “Umění trůnu zbavené,” Tribuna, May 10, 1923.
Ibid., 2–3.
Honzík, Ze života avantgardy, 47–89. Devětsil’s architects were far less dogmatic than its writers and theoreticians and were also among the first to
have major differences with them.
See František Šmejkal, “Výtvarná avantgarda dvacátých let Devětsil,”
DČVU, 171–72.
See Karel Teige, “Uměni dnes a zítra,” AZNI, 371.
Nebeský, “Umění trůnu zbavené,” 3.
Nebeský, “Umění a společnost,” 11–12.
See his introduction to the play published in Karel Čapek, Dramata,
181–82.
Dramata, 256–57.
Cited in Robert Hilferty and Paul Thomason, “The Case for and against
Makropulos,” Opera News, April 11, 1998, 21.
Karel Čapek to Leoš Janáček [February 27, 1923] in Karel Čapek,
Korespondence I (Prague: Český spisovatel, 1993), 182–83.
As reported by Helena Čapková. Cited in John Tyrell, Janáček’s Operas:
A Documentary Account (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992),
311.
See, for example, Bohuslava Bradbrook, Karel Čapek: In Pursuit of Truth,
Tolerance, and Trust (Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press, 1998), 56–61.
Karel Čapek, The Makropulos Secret, trans. Yveta Synek Graff and Robert T.
Jones, in Towards the Radical Center: A Karel Čapek Reader, ed. Peter Kussi
(Highland Park, NJ: Catbird Press, 1990), 111.
Karel Čapek, “Filozofie Bergsonova. Henri Bergson: Vývoj tvořivý,” OUKII,
179. Originally published in Cesta, April 30, May 7, and May 14, 1920.
81. Ibid., 179–180.
82. Miroslav Halík, Karel Čapek: Život a dílo v datech (Prague: Academia,
1983), 37. Most of the novel, however, was written in 1923. It was completed in September 1923.
83. There are clear similarities between krakatit and Čapek’s karburators in
Factory for the Absolute.
85. Čapek, “Filozofie Bergsonova,” OUKII, 163.
86. Ibid.
87. Karel Čapek, “O čapkovské generaci,” OUKIII, 312. Originally published
in Přítomnost, March 9, 1932.
88. Georg Simmel, “The Conflict in Modern Culture,” in On Individuality and
Social Forms, ed. Donald N. Levine (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1971), 375–93. Reprinted from Georg Simmel, The Conflict in Modern
Culture and Other Essays, trans. K. Peter Etzkorn (New York: Teachers
College Press, 1968). Originally published in 1918 but written in 1914.
89. Ibid., 375.
92. Ibid., 393.
93. Ibid.
94. Čapek, “O čapkovské generaci,” OUKIII, 312; “A. Mamelet: Le Relativisme
philosophique chez Georg Simmel,” OUKI, 400. Originally published in
Přehled, June 26, 1914. See also chapter 2.
95. Halík, Karel Čapek, 37.
96. Karel Čapek, “Formy,” in Od člověka k člověku I (Prague: Československý
spisovatel, 1988), 228–30. Originally published in Lidové noviny, September 10, 1922.
98. Čapek and his generational peers often accused members of the postwar avant-garde of plagiarizing their innovations. See, for example, Josef
Kodíček, “O jedné generaci,” Přítomnost, March 20, 1924, 152–53.
100. Halík, Karel Čapek, 40–41.
102. Ibid., 402.
103. Ibid., 400.
104. Ibid.
105. Ibid., 402.
5 The Self as Empty Space and Crowd:
Karel Čapek and the Czechoslovak Condition
1. Karel Čapek, “Téměř kus noetiky,” OUKIII, 568. Originally published in
Přítomnost, June 6, 1934.
2. Karel Čapek, “Ignoramus a ignorabimus,” OUKII, 537–40. Originally
published in Přítomnost, October 23, 1924. See chapter 4 for a full
discussion.
230
3. René Wellek, “Karel Čapek,” in The Columbia Dictionary of Modern European
Literature, ed. Horatio Smith (New York: Columbia University Press, 1947),
139.
4. Karel Čapek, “Hledají se jistoty,” OUKIII, 541–45. Originally published in
5. Karel Čapek, “O té státotvornosti,” OUKIII, 293. Originally published in
Přítomnost, February 3, 1932. Čapek does not mention Benda by name
in this article, but there can be no doubt about the reference or about
Čapek’s familiarity with his work. In Čapek’s Conversations with Masaryk
(1928–1935), Benda’s Treason of the Intellectuals (1927) was a topic of
discussion between him and Masaryk. See Karel Čapek, Hovory s T G
Masarykem (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1990), 329–32.
6. Karel Čapek, “Klamal nás rozum?” OUKIII, 583–89. Originally published
in Přítomnost, July 11, 1934.
7. See Robert Musil, The Man without Qualities, trans. Sophie Wilkins (New
York: Knopf, 1995), 30.
8. William Harkins, Karel Čapek (New York: Columbia University Press,
1962), 116.
9. Adam, 9–10.
10. See, for example, Ferdinand Peroutka, “O té avantgarrde rrrévolutionairre,” Tribuna, January 6 and 9, 1923. In this article Peroutka asked, “I
want to know why exactly [Devětsil’s] poetry is called Marxist and not,
for example, Bakuninist.” In the novel Krakatit (1924), Karel Čapek also
blurred the lines between anarchism and communism in his depiction of
the young generation’s political aspirations. See chapter 4.
11. Adam, 17–19.
12. See Květoslav Chvatík and Zdeněk Pešat, Poetismus (Prague: Odeon,
1967).
13. Adam, 19.
14. Ibid., 20–21.
15. Ibid., 22–27.
16. Ibid., 28–30.
17. Ibid., 50.
19. Ibid., 82.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid. See also the discussion of Tales from Two Pockets below.
22. According to Harkins, the dichotomy between Adam and Alter Ego “parodies the ambivalence of the modern radical intellectual, who inclines
towards individualism, at least for himself, but fancies that totalitarian
methods are an easier and quicker way of perfecting the social order.”
This is unquestionably a viable explanation, but it ignores the play’s generational dynamics as well as the disparate programs within the postwar
avant-garde of which the Čapek brothers were well aware. The two readings, however, are not mutually exclusive. See Harkins, Karel Čapek, 117.
23. Adam, 105.
24. Ibid., 157.
25. Ibid., 166.
26. See Viktor Kudělka, Boje o Karla Čapka (Prague: Academia, 1987), 39–40.
27. F. X. Šalda cited in Ivan Klíma, Karel Čapek: Life and Work, trans. Norma
Comrada (North Haven, CT: Catbird Press, 2002), 134–35.
28. Karel Čapek, “Hovory s Karlem Čapkem,” OUKIII, 276–77. Originally published in Rozpravy Aventina 7 (1931).
29. It goes without saying too that not every story is successful artistically or
interesting from a philosophical point of view. It should be mentioned,
however, that Tales from Two Pockets is highly prized for its innovative use
of colloquial Czech. Many of the stories are written entirely in everyday
speech, a major formal innovation at the time. For a good discussion of
this feature, see Zdeněk Pešat, afterword, in Povídky, 320–21. Pešat fails to
note, however, that this innovation belongs to the modernist attempt,
advocated by Čapek in the years before the First World War, to break
down the barriers between art and everyday life. Čapek then called for an
end to the highly stylized, ostentatious, literary prose that long characterized Czech belles lettres. He only fully realized his aspirations here.
30. Tales, 18–19. Emphasis in original. This translation is for the most part
excellent, and I cite it extensively. For some passages, however, I have
sought slightly more precision and have provided my own translations.
This is indicated by a reference to the original Czech text (Povídky).
31. The story was apparently inspired by an interview with Leoš Janáček
about his experiences in England. See Pešat, afterword, Povídky, 322.
32. Ibid., 222.
33. Ibid., 57.
34. Tales, 46.
35. Ibid., 333–34.
36. It is impossible to know whether Čapek was thinking of Robert Musil
when he wrote this story, but it cannot be ruled out. Musil is a relatively
common Czech name, but the character is described in a way that recalls
Robert Musil. The story’s narrator, Kavka (whose name is also suggestive—
Kavka is the Czech form of the German Kafka), describes Musil as “an
unusually well-educated and sophisticated man” and comments ironically: “He’s the type of intellectual who sees a problem in everything and
has to cast around for his point of view on it. For example, he even has a
point of view on his own wife: Musil isn’t a partner in the state of matrimony, he’s a partner in the problem of matrimony. He thinks in terms of
the social problem, the sexual question, the problem of the subconscious,
the problem of education, the crisis of contemporary culture, and a whole
range of other problems” (Tales, 335).
37. Tales, 335–36.
38. Ibid., 337.
39. Ibid., 339.
40. Povídky, 280.
41. Tales, 344–35.
42. Ibid., 346.
43. The original Czech title is “Sbírka známek,” literally “A Collection of
Stamps.”
44. From right to left, beginning with the Czech and Czechoslovak parties, the coalition included the Czech National Democrats, the Czech
232
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
Small Traders, the Czech Populists, the Czechoslovak Agrarians, the
Czechoslovak National Socialists, the Czechoslovak Social Democrats, the
German Farmer and DAWG, and the German Social Democrats. Joseph
Rothschild, East Central Europe between the Two World Wars (Seattle and
London: University of Washington Press, 1974), 116–17.
Even though the Sudetendeutsche Partei won the greatest number of
votes, the Czechoslovak Agrarians were a close second and emerged as the
largest parliamentary party (by one seat) due to some clever maneuvering.
Rothschild, East Central Europe between the Two World Wars, 125–26.
Josef Branžovský, Karel Čapek, světový názor a umění (Prague: Nakladatelství
politické literatury, 1963), 183.
Branžovský, a harsh critic of Čapek’s work, poses the above question but
acknowledges that the novels represent another aspect of Čapek’s engagement with contemporary life rather than a retreat from it. Čapek made
the political and social implications of his novels more explicit in an epilogue he wrote after their publication.
Bedřich Golombek, “Podkarpatská tragédie ze soudního přelíčení,”
reprinted in its entirety in Karel Čapek, Hordubal, Povětroň, Obyčejný život
(Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1985), 407–8.
Harkins, Karel Čapek, 133.
Čapek, Hordubal, 15.
Harkins, Karel Čapek, 134.
The state is unnamed, but the locale is most likely the Johnstown in
Cambria County, Pennsylvania, about 70 miles east of Pittsburgh. The
city was home to major coal and steel industries in the nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, attracting thousands of immigrant laborers
including many from Eastern Europe.
Three Novels, 17. Although this translation of the trilogy is outdated and
imperfect in many respects, much of it is perfectly serviceable. Where it is
insufficient or lacking in precision, I have provided my own translations.
These are indicated by references to the original Czech texts (Hordubal,
Povětroň, Obyčejný život).
Čapek, Hordubal, 27.
Ibid., 103.
Ibid., 102.
Three Novels, 125.
Čapek, Hordubal, 106. A Flobert is a French-made rifle or pistol.
Ibid., 126.
Henri Bergson, Creative Evolution, trans. Arthur Mitchell (New York:
Random House, 1944), 181–82. Emphasis in original.
William Harkins, introduction, Three Novels (unpaginated); Harkins, Karel
Čapek, 137–38; Harkins, “Karel Čapek: From Relativism to Perspectivism,”
History of Ideas Newsletter, 3 (1957): 50–53.
See José Ortega y Gasset, The Modern Theme, trans. James Cleugh (London:
C. W. Daniel, 1931) and Karl Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, trans. Louis
Wirth and Edward Shils (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1936). On
the relationship of Ortega and Mannheim’s thought, see Robert Wohl,
The Generation of 1914 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979).
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
Mannheim’s theory is sometimes known as relationism rather than
perspectivism.
Karel Čapek, “Vzpoura davů,” OUKIII, 517–24. Originally published in
Přítomnost, January 17, 1934.
Both works, however, were well-known at the time and Čapek’s familiarity
with them is likely. If he did read Ideology and Utopia, he would undoubtedly have been sympathetic to Mannheim notion of “unattached” or
“free-floating” intellectuals, who, because of their skepticism toward all
contemporary ideological alternatives, occupied the most creative cultural position in society.
Povětroň, 142.
Ibid., 178.
Ibid., 230.
Ibid., 143, 137, and 171.
Ibid., 172.
Ibid., 174.
Ibid., 198.
Ibid., 203.
Ibid., 204. Emphasis in original.
Henri Bergson, An Introduction to Metaphysics, trans. by Arthur Mitchell
(New York: Random House, 1944), 24–25.
Čapek, Obyčejný život, 274.
Ibid., 275. The exact dates of the man’s life are never given, but the year
of his birth, the reader learns, is 1864. Approximately 70 years old at the
time of his death, the man would have passed in the year 1934, the year
in which Čapek composed the novel.
Ibid.
Although Čapek’s father was a doctor and not a cabinetmaker, the
descriptions of the ordinary man’s parents closely mirror Čapek’s own
statements about his parents as well as his sister’s account in her memoirs.
See Karel Čapek, “Jak jsem k tomu přišel,” OUKIII, 338–40 (originally published in Lumír 58 (1932)), and Helena Čapková, Moji milí bratři (Prague:
Československý spisovatel, 1962). An Ordinary Life has long been recognized to contain many autobiographical elements.
Three Novels, 344.
Ibid., 303.
Ibid., 305.
Ibid., 309.
Ibid., 328.
Ibid., 330.
Three Novels, 391.
Ibid., 343.
Ibid., 347.
234
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
Ibid., 352–54.
Three Novels, 445. Emphasis in original.
Musil, The Man without Qualities, 30.
Čapek, Obyčejný život, 381. Emphasis in original.
Bergson, An Introduction to Metaphysics, 51.
Čapek, Obyčejný život, 392–93. Emphasis in original.
This was Musil’s description of Kakania, or rather Austria-Hungary, but
it applies well to Czechoslovakia too. See Musil, The Man without Qualities, 31.
Conclusion
1. Karel Čapek, “O čapkovské generaci za války a po ní,” OUKIII, 321.
Originally published in Přítomnost, March 16, 1932.
2. H. Stuart Hughes, Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of European
Social Thought, 1890–1930 (New York: Vintage, 1977), 337–41, 395–401,
404–11.
3. David S. Luft, Robert Musil and the Crisis of European Culture, 1880–1942
(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1980), 15–17.
4. Hughes, Consciousness and Society, 338–41; Luft, Robert Musil, 17. See
also Robert Wohl, The Generation of 1914 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1979), 232. Although Wohl concerns himself with a
slightly younger group of writers than Hughes or Luft, there is significant
overlap between the generation of 1905 and the generation of 1914.
Wohl reaches an even starker conclusion than Hughes and Luft with
respect to this cohort’s political inclinations. “It is fair to say,” he writes,
“that Fascism was the great temptation of the generation of 1914.”
5. Luft, Robert Musil, 17.
6. See, for example, Karel Čapek, “Jak jsem k tomu přišel,” OUKIII, 340.
Originally published in Lumír 58 (1932). Not only did Čapek often conceive of his work in medical terms, but the figure of the doctor is also
one of the most common characters in his writing.
7. Otakar Vočadlo cited in Andrea Orzoff, “Battle for the Castle: The
Friday Men and the Czechoslovak Republic, 1918–1938,” PhD diss.,
Stanford University, 2000, 29. Legionaires were members of the army
of Czech prisoners of war and deserters that first fought against the
Central Powers during the First World War and then, after the Bolshevik
Revolution, against the Red Army during the Russian Civil War. They
were generally oriented on the right wing of the Czechoslovak political spectrum. Orzoff’s dissertation contains the best discussion of the
Friday afternoon meetings at Čapek’s home.
8. Communist propaganda cited in Věra Olivová, The Doomed Democracy:
Czechoslovakia in a Disrupted Europe, 1914–38, trans. George Theiner
(Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1972), 189.
9. See Václav Kapoun, Silvestrovská aféra Karla Čapka (Prague: Nakladatelství
Melantrich, 1992).
10. See Viktor Kudělka, Boje o Karla Čapka (Prague: Academia, 1987), 95–143
and Štěpán Vlášín, “Bojovník proti fašismu,” in Kniha o Čapkovi, ed.
Štěpán Vlášín (Prague: Československý spisovatel, 1988), 346–59.
11. Ferdinand Peroutka, “Sbohem K. Č.” Přítomnost, December 29, 1938.
12. Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge,
trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 1984), xxiv.
13. Jean-François Lyotard, “Answering the Question: What is Postmodernism?”
in Innovation/Renovation: New Perspectives on the Humanities, ed. Ihab
Hassan and Sally Hassan, trans. Régis Durand (Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press, 1983), 341.
14. See, for example, Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979) and Essays on Heidegger
and Others: Philosophical Papers II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1991).
236
You have reached the end of the preview for this book /
chapter.
You are viewing this book in preview mode, which allows selected pages
to be viewed without a current Palgrave Connect subscription. Pages
beyond this point are only available to subscribing institutions. If you
would like access the full book for your institution please:
Contact your librarian directly in order to request access, or;
Use our Library Recommendation Form to recommend this book to
your library
(http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/connect/info/recommend.html),
or;
Use the 'Purchase' button above to buy a copy of the title from
http://www.palgrave.com or an approved 3rd party.
If you believe you should have subscriber access to the full book please
check you are accessing Palgrave Connect from within your institution's
network, or you may need to login via our Institution / Athens Login page:
(http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/nams/svc/institutelogin?
target=/index.html).
Please respect intellectual property rights
This material is copyright and its use is restricted by our standard site
license terms and conditions (see
http://www.palgraveconnect.com/pc/connect/info/terms_conditions.html).
If you plan to copy, distribute or share in any format including, for the
avoidance of doubt, posting on websites, you need the express prior
permission of Palgrave Macmillan. To request permission please contact
[email protected].
preview.html[22/12/2014 16:51:21]

Art and Life in Modernist Prague

Transkript

Podobné dokumenty

Democratizing Technology