Databáze uměleckých výstav v českých zemích 1820 – 1950

The exhibition of Jan Matejko's Union of Lublin was the second opportunity for the Czech audiences to admire the work of this artist. In 1868, Prague hosted the exhibition of his canvas Rejtan, which took place after a strong call for Matejko's presentation in Bohemia. The local press had already covered his work in the previous years and, as a Slavic artist who had been successful in Vienna and Paris, Matejko enjoyed great popularity in Bohemia, further intensified by the fact that his father was Czech. The press reported on the creation of the Union of Lublin and its first exhibition in Vienna at the end of 1869, where the artist had a condition “that his painting should not be placed next to German paintings, and secondly, that visitors to the picture gallery should not be given any explanation of his painting other than in the Polish language.” [Anonymous author 1869a]

The Artistic Forum, which organized the exhibition, originally planned to use the premises of the Higher School for Girls, but the city council offered to provide its great assembly hall in the Old Town City Hall, which naturally increased the prestige of the event. The press announced the show from the beginning of January, when the painting was still on its way to Prague, and regular advertisements appeared in the advertising section throughout the duration of the exhibition. According to press reports, the public’s interest was weaker that expected, so the admission was reduced from 30 kreutzers on weekdays and 20 kreutzers on weekends to 20 and 10 kreutzers. This probably helped because the exhibition, scheduled to end in mid-February, was extended until February 27. The painting then travelled to Paris. The exhibition attracted 6280 visitors and earned 1213 guldens in admission fees [Anonymous author 1870a]. For the Artistic Forum, the success of the exhibition went beyond financial gain: In the spring of 1870, the association appointed Matejko (together with Jaroslav Čermák) as an honorary member and received a letter from the artist, in which he thanked for the positive reception of his painting and promised to paint a scene from Czech history [Anonymous author 1870b].

Articles in the press discussed the artistic qualities of the painting as well as its historical content. The magazine Pokrok published two texts: the first, signed J. J. K., described the persons depicted and provided a historical context; the second, written by Otakar Hostinský, analyzed the artistic aspect of the painting. The magazine Květy published only a short text at the time of the exhibition; a longer article with a reproduction of the work only appeared there on June 30, 1870. [Anonymous author 1870c] Other reviews were published in Světozor, Bohemia and Národní listy. All reviewers were largely unanimous in their assessment of the work - they preferred it over Rejtan, praising Matejko’s mastery of composition and colour, and the emphasis on portraiture and psychological depth in the portrayal of the figures. Hostinský was the only critic to question the artist’s rendition of the main character, King Sigismund Augustus, who in Hostinský’s view, appeared too calm and uninvolved; Světozor, on the other hand, criticized the somewhat superficial depiction of the female faces. In his review for Národní listy, Jan Neruda was most concerned with placing Matejko in the context of European art; according to Neruda, Hans Makart’s work comes across as mechanical in comparison to Matejko’s, and French history painting is too detached from the living reality – yet in the conclusion he calls Matejko “a Slavic Paul Delaroche ... in terms of depth of expression” [Neruda 1870]. The Slavic aspect was important to Neruda – Matejko’s mastery proved that Slavic nations could no longer be considered uncultured. Hostinský also pointed out a Slavic motif in the painting, noting that the face of the Prussian prince bears “a clearly Germanic physiognomy, in contrast to the rest of the faces, which are purely Slavic.” [Hostinský 1870]

Markéta Vondrová

Works Cited

Anonymous author 1869a: Anonymous author, Příklad národní hrdosti, Posel z Prahy 1869, 18. 11., no. 138, p. 3

Anonymous author 1869b: Anonymous author, Unie Lubelská. Historický obraz (Reproduction on p. 425), Světozor III, 1869, no. 52, p. 427

Anonymous author 1870a: Anonymous author, bez názvu, Národní listy X, 1870, 4. 3., p. 2

Anonymous author 1870b: Anonymous author, Zprávy spolkové, Umělecká beseda, Národní listy X, 1870, 8. 4., p. 2

Anonymous author 1870c: Anonymous author, Matejkova „Unie Lubelská“, Květy V, 1870, no. 26, pp. 206–207

Neruda 1870: Jan Neruda, Matejkova „Unie lubelská“, Národní listy X, 1870, no. 18, 19. 1. 1870, p. 1

Hostinský 1870: O. H. [Otakar Hostinský], Matejkova „Unie Lubelská“ II. Umělec a jeho dílo, Pokrok II, 1870, no. 27, 28. 1., p. 2

Further Reading

Anonymous author, bez názvu, Naše listy 1869, 7. 3., no. 66, p. 2

Anonymous author, Jan Alois Matejko, Světozor IV, 1870, no. 8, p. 59

Anonymous author, Matějkův obraz „Unie Lubelská“, Národní listy X, 1870, 3.7., no. 177, p. 3

Anonymous author, Valná hromada „Umělecké Besedy“, Národní listy X, 1870, 6.12., no. 333, p. 3

Anonymous author, no title, Světozor IV, 1870, no. 2, p. 15

Anonymous author, „Umělecká beseda“, Národní listy X, 1870, 5.1., no. 4, p. 2

Anonymous author, Matejkův obraz „Unie Lubelská“, Národní listy X, 1870, 23. 1., no. 22, p. 3

Anonymous author, Lubelská unie, Národní listy X, 1870, 18.2., no. 48, p. 2

Anonymous author, no title, Národní listy X, 1870, 4. 3., p. 2

Anonymous author, no title, Pokrok II, 1870, 5.1., no. 4, p. 3

Anonymous author, no title, Pokrok II, 1870, 9.1., no. 8, p. 3

Anonymous author, Umělecká beseda, Pokrok II, 1870, 13.1., no. 12, p. 3

Anonymous author, no title, Pokrok II, 1870, 18. 1., no. 17, p. 3

Anonymous author, Unie Lubelská, Pokrok II 1870 29.1. no. 28, p. 3

Anonymous author, Lubelská Unie, Pokrok II, 1870, 9.2., no. 39, p. 3

Anonymous author, Matejkova „Lubelská unie“, Pokrok II, 1870, 21. 2., p. 1

Anonymous author, no title, Pokrok II, 1870, 26. 2., no. 56, p. 3