Prékopa Ágnes (szerk.): Ars Decorativa 31. (Budapest, 2017)
Diána RADVÁNYI: Changes in the Critical Reception of Haban Ceramics: A Brief History of Research with a Discussion of Some Prominent Viewpoints
kia). We are incorrect in attributing it to the Habans, that is, the former Anabaptists’, quotes Ernyei, who had only one objection to the information in the article: “the worthy author here forgets about the modest factors in the development of the Haban, or if you prefer, the Slovak-Czech industry: the Hungarian nobility who provided the homeless outlaws with a home and land did all they could to provide protection too; the Révay, Nádasdy, Illésházy, Vizkelethy, Szunyogh, Nyáry, Sándor and other families, with the Rákóczis at the fore.”16 The earliest Czech publication was by Jan Koula, who at the end of the 19th century compared the style of the newly recognized group of ceramics to 18th- and 19tl1- century Moravian and Slovakian folk ornamentation. Czech researcher Karel Cernohorsky summarized the earlier works and in-depth investigations into the origins of these superb ceramics—known in Czech literature as Haban faience. After 1921, he was in regular contact with Károly Layer, and he studied the material in the Museum of Applied Arts in Budapest and examined the Anabaptist codices in the Episcopal Library of Esztergom. Herman Landsfeld’s archaeological finds in the 1930s are important to this day and serve as a basis for comparison in particular with respect to which items we consider authentic Haban. His work has been continued by Jiri Pajer. Cernohorsky was succeeded by Jana Kybalová as the next outstanding Haban scholar from among the subsequent generation of Czech researchers. Kybalová worked on several important exhibitions and their catalogues. The first comprehensive exhibition of Haban ceramics assembled from the collection of several museums was staged in Czechoslovakia— a country created from two rivalling independent ones. In 1981, Jana Kybalová and Jarmila Novotná published a 265-page catalogue containing 539 objects from Czech and Slovak museums and a German summary. Horváth and Krisztinkovich note that Kybalová’s study is perhaps the first in ceramic literature to treat Haban ceramics as a separate unit. However, they lament that “the text deals with the history of the Anabaptists on Czech lands, virtually ignoring the fact that most of that history took place in the towns and villages of historical Hungary, with Hungarian and/or German names very different from today. This gaing omission notwithstanding, the catalogue was a well deserved-success.”17 An outstanding and thorough researcher was Slovak scholar Alzbeta Güntherová- Meyerová, who was in regular contact with Béla Krisztinkovich. Meanwhile, in Hungary Imre Katona represented the ‘official’ museum side. His colleague in the Museum of Applied Arts in Budapest was Eva Sárdy-Cserey, whose field of research was the stove and stove tile collection of the museum.18 Also important are the publications of Magda Bunta because of their discussion of Haban material in Transylvania. Despite some personal contacts among scholars, research on Haban ceramics until the threshold of the 21st century was conducted separately by Czech, Slovak and Hungarian-Transylvanian historians/art historians because of the scattering of the material among the different countries. As a result, the scholars from the varying countries focused on different aspects and drew different conclusions. Jenő Horváth may have exaggerated somewhat in his objection. He stated that 28
