Vadas József (szerk.): Ars Decorativa 11. (Budapest, 1991)
RENNER Zsuzsanna: Baktay Ervin, mint művészettörténész és muzeológus
view. The determination of their provenance raised several problems, the most difficult of which was that, owing to the uniformity of iconographical rules and mutual stylistic influence, it was very difficult to distinguish between Nepalese and Tibetan bronzes 6 . With the specimens presented by Schwaiger, in the absence of more scientifically based data their previous possession served as an important practical evidence because Schwaiger was known to have purchased them from Nepalese people directly from Nepal and the Nepalese origin of his bronzes was not questioned by contemporary literature. The essential differences between Nepalese bronzes and Tibetan bronzes of Nepalese character, based on a critical analysis of styles, had not yet been established. Baktay held that original Nepalese sculpture had preserved much more, in an almost unaltered form, the characteristic features of Indian style in the proportions of the members of body and in the more life-like representation of details (e.g. the drapery). In case of Nepalese bronzes, the faces are usually of the Indian type and the eyes are not slit. Baktay regarded the powerful but, at the same time, delicate, often tender modelling, the organic representation of human body and the vivid expression of the face as characteristic to the Nepalese variety of Indian style. In dating Nepalese sculpture, the greatest difficulty is caused by the canonical respect for traditional forms as a consequence of which images remain the same for centuries. Preferably, the condition and elaboration of the bronzes was suggested by Baktay as a basis for dating, and, moreover, one might also lake into account the gradual development during the course of which stress slowly schifted from purely plastic elements to an ever richer ornamentation, so much so that later works seem to have been created by the goldsmith rather than the sculptor. The beginning of this stylistic change can be illustrated by a Bodhisattva Padmapani, the oldest piece among Schwaiger's bronzes, dated to the 15th century by Baktay (Plate 16.). In this case, jewellery and ornamental details are emphasized but still form an integral part of the sculptural representation. It is interesting to compare it with another Bodhisatlva Padmapani which illustrates the final stage of the enrichment of ornamentation (Plate 17.). The image, which was purchased by Baktay for the museum is in fact a masterful work of the goldsmith; sculptural features are no longer important here though the modelling of the figure cannot be criticized from the sculptural point of view either. It was dated to the late 18th early 19th century by Baktay. Baktay purchased two more outstanding bronzes for the Lamaist collection. One of them, according to Baktay's identification, is a Nepalese image of the Mahakala Dharmapala, that is, of the „Great Black" protector of the doctrine (Plate 18.) 7 . The type and its ornamentation are equally rare, unparalelled in the literature. The other piece is a Vajratara, one of the wrathful forms of the Yellow Tara who is a female bodhisattva (Plate 19.). Baktay believed it to be a Tibetan work of the 17—18th century 8 . As the Vajratara is also a rare form, we can tell that all three bronzes of the Lamaist collection purchased by Baktay are extraordinary rareties. Baktay also studied the collection of miniature paintings 9 . One of the problems that miniatures pose is that the two main schools of North Indian painting developed in close interaction; as a consequence, in many cases it is very difficult to distinguish between their products. Several pieces of the collection could not be established as belonging to one school or the other; see Plate 20 for instance: this painting shows
