ACen e One Day, aPe iphe y Nex : Shi ing
Con igu a ions o he Czech A an -ga de
Jindřich Toman– Uni e si y o Michigan
Recen discussions abou he in e wa a an -ga de epea edly ouch on he issue o
cen e and pe iphe y, especially as ega ds he ela ion be ween Eas and Wes . The
o e all di ec ion o hese s udies sugges s ha he assump ion o acon igu a ion in
which he Wes is cen al, hence domina ing, is w ong. Ins ead, al e na i e models o
s uc u es should be leshed ou in which e e yone is on apa , hence no asymme ies,
no cen e s, no pe iphe ies. An o en -quo ed p oposal ha poin s in his di ec ion is
Pio Pio owski’sapp oach in which wha is unde s ood as he e ical model o he
a an -ga de– and mode n a – is eplaced by aho izon al model. Pio owski opens
his analysis as ollows:
This e ical na a i e implies ace ain hie a chy. The hea o mode n a is he
cen e – aci y o ci ies– whe e he pa adigms o he main a is ic ends came
in o being: Be lin, Pa is, Vienna, London, New Yo k. F om hose cen e s pa icula
models come o he pe iphe y, adia ing all o e he wo ld. Pu di e en ly, om
wi hin ce ain na ions hose models a e subsequen ly in e na ionalized. Hence,
he a o he cen e de e mines aspeci ic pa adigm, while he a o he pe iphe y
is supposed o adop he models es ablished in he cen e s. (Pio owski 2009: 50 .)
Pio owski is si ua ing his p ocess cau iously in p esen ing he insis ence on he
cen e and pe iphe y as ama e o a his o y. While a is s in eal li e a e beha ing
in an unisono solida i y, “[i] was only a his o y which de eloped he hie a chical,
e ical discou se o de ing he a is ic geog aphy in e ms o cen e s and pe iphe ies”
(Pio owski 2009: 51). This is, o cou se, aposi ion ha hose o us who a e no a
his o ians may ind discipline -in e nal, i.e., acase in which adiscipline handles i s
own his o y, alues, aims, and in e nal con lic s. Whe he i is desc ip i ely adequa e
on “ he g ound loo ” is ano he ma e .
While his o ians o he a an -ga de ha e been d awing inspi a ion om his pa -
adigm change and i s subsequen discussion (see Jakubo ska/Radomska 2022), he e
is ob iously an elephan in he oom– ho izon al a his o y and simila app oaches
ypically ail o be su icien ly nuanced since hey a e hea ily d i en by emancipa o y
pe spec i e. Pe haps una oidably so. Pio owski was an excep ional connoisseu o
a o communis Eas e n Eu ope and had all easons o pe cei e no only de o ma-
ions p e alen du ing his pe iod bu also he igno ance o Wes e n his o iog aphy,
which signi ican ly con ibu ed o he emancipa o y la o o he ho izon al model.
Howe e , al hough “ho izon aliza ion” is in p inciple imaginable, we should no
limi ou sel es o asingle guiding image. The p esen pape s udies wo cases which
Ia gue b ing amo e nuanced angle on he subjec in laying ba e ce ain elemen a y
104 BRÜCKEN 30/1
mechanisms cha ac e is ic o a an -ga de beha io . Speci ically, I i s e iew he
ela ionship o he P ague a an -ga de g oup o De ě sil and i s B no coun e pa o
he 1920s, and hen p oceed o he ela ionship o P ague Su ealis s o Pa is Su e-
alis s in he 1930s. Ishow ha in bo h ins ances he ole o cen e and pe iphe y, was
c ucial. In bo h cases, essen ially he same g oup o a is s and li e a i a emp ed o
ac i ely implemen acen alized ole a one poin in ime, while consciously subo -
dina ing i sel o acen e a ano he ime. The alue o cases such as hese consis s in
eminding ou sel es ha asymme ies in cul u al ins i u ions a ise and change– o ,
pe haps be e , a ise o change– and ha gene al ule o social in e ac ion, which
e ol e a ound compe i ion, c ea ion o pecking o de s, and o he o ms o hie a -
chical con ol, a e p esen in he domain o cul u e as well. Na u ally, as is common
in s udies o cul u e, al e na i e desc ip ions may be possible– he p esen p oposal
is me ely d i en by a ailable da a.
LETTERS TO BRNO
S udies o he Czech a an -ga de o he 1920s ha e by now along adi ion in bo h
Czech and in e na ional schola ship. Special a en ion has been paid o he g oup
called De ě sil, li e ally “nine powe s,” which eme ged in la e 1920 in P ague.1 While
P ague was a isible capi al o he new s a e, b inging anumbe o a an -ga de au-
ho s, a is s, and a chi ec s oge he , he Mo a ian capi al B no quickly de eloped
asigni ican a an -ga de cul u e o i s own oo. In ac , B no was in many ways mo e
en e p ising han P ague. This showed, among o he hings, i s abili y o launch an
a an -ga de magazine Pásmo (1924–1926), which unc ioned o much o i s exis ence
as he De ě sil’scen al pla o m, hus playing an impo an ole in he de elopmen
o an a an -ga de p og am called Poe ism.2 P ague and B no we e in aclose con ac
as is documen ed p ecisely on he pages o Pásmo bu also by he co espondence be-
ween he P ague a an -ga de leade Ka el Teige (1900–1951) and his con è e A uš
Če ník (1900–1953), who mo ed om P ague o B no and was ac i e in B no De ě sil
o much o he 1920s and also ac ed as Pásmo’sco -edi o .
3
The p esen sec ion exploi s
his unde s udied co espondence.4
The launching o Pásmo p omp ed awa m eac ion in P ague. Teige’sle e o
Če ník om Janua y 8, 1924, oices co dial ega ds om he en i e P ague De ě sil
and wishes good luck o P ague’sB no comba an s– Pásmo is “ e y much needed”:
Milý A uši,
dos al jsem Pásmo, k e é se mi elmi líbí ak e é se P aze ůbec líbí. Mlu il jsem
sBa ošem isGö zem, oběma se moc líbí, Gö z neděli “Samos a nos i” bude
1 English -language su eys and analyses ange om Šmejkal and Š ácha (1990) o Pomajzlo á (2019); he
la e includes an ex ensi e p ima y and seconda y bibliog aphy co e ing lie a u e, a , a chi ec u e,
ilm, and o he media.
2 On he ole o he so -called “small” magazines in he Czech a an -ga de see Fo bes (2016), Toman (2019,
2021), and Wu sdo (2019).
3 Fo monog aphic ea men s o Teige in English, see Michalo á (2018) and Zusi (in p epa a ion); Če ník
is less known, bu see his en y in he Lexikon české li e a u y (Vlašín 1985).
4 Speci ically, Iquo e le e s by Teige o Če ník ha a e deposi ed in Če ník pape s in he Pamá ník
ná odního písemnic í (PNP), P ague.
105JINDŘICH TOMAN
psá oPásmu kladně ano ém ži o ě nega i ně. […] Přejeme Pásmu mnoho zda u,
přejeme Vám isobě aby pásmo ycházelo co nejčas ěji, je ho elmi řeba, apozd a-
ujeme celou edakci.
Teige aos a ní.
(Teige o Če ník, Jan. 8, 1924; spelling p ese ed; A. Če ník pape s, PNP P aha)
[Dea A uš,
Igo acopy o Pásmo ha I eally like and ha we like in P ague o e all. I alked
o Ba oš and Gö z, hey bo h like i e y much, Gö z will w i e abou Pásmo pos-
i i ely and abou he New Li e nega i ely on Sunday in “Independence”. […] We
wish Pásmo alo o success, we wish you and you sel ha i will be published as
o en as possible, i is e y much needed, and we g ee he en i e edi o ial boa d.
Teige and he o he s]
Al hough P ague De ě sil membe s we e ac i ely pa icipa ing in Pásmo, P ague was
g adually becoming c i ical. On June 2, 1925, Teige s a es o Če ník unce emoniously
ha P ague needs o ake o e :
Moc se nadá á na o že nemáme přes Pásmo ůbec kon olu, a ak nemůžeme za-
b áni dále če nějším ho adinám, 10, 11-12 č.!! Zk á ka, De ě sil chce aby příš ím
očníkem Pásmo bylo kon olo áno p ažskou edakcí, aaby pods a ně z ýšilo
ú o eň. Redakčně. Na huje se zp ažského de ě silu abych edoucím ( édac eu
en che ) edak o em p o en o očník byl já, úřadujícím che edak o em, le géan ,
y. (Teige o Če ník, June 5, 1925; spelling p ese ed; A. Če ník pape s, PNP P aha)
[The e is alo o bad eelings ha we ha e no con ol o e Pásmo a all, and so we
can’ p e en u he bullshi like in numbe s 10, 11-12! In sho , De ě sil wan s
Pásmo o be con olled by P ague in he nex yea and o inc ease he quali y sub-
s an ially. In edi o ial e ms. I is p oposed om he P ague De ě sil ha he head
edi o ( édac eu en che ) o his yea should be mysel , he ac ing edi o -in -chie ,
i.e., géan , you.]
An “execu i e” o de ollows in Sep embe demanding ha Pásmo be edi ed by Teige
comple ely and in all espec s, including ypog aphy and layou :
Ale aby Pásmo […] bylo mnou op a du edigo áno (– .j. aby am nebylo nic bez
mého ědomí, mé kon oly ako ek u y aabych je lámal), o je nejen mé přání ale
iusnesení De ě silu. (Teige o Če ník, Sep . 12, 1925; spelling p ese ed; A. Če ník
pape s, PNP P aha)
[And Pásmo needs o be eally edi ed by mysel (i.e., no hing wi hou my knowledge,
my con ol and co ec ion in i and ha Ido he layou ), ha is no only my wish
bu also he esolu ion o he De ě sil.]
Bu he e was s ill mo e o come when Pásmo ol. 2, no. 3, appea ed in Decembe 1925,
ea u ing Pa isian music -halls:
106 BRÜCKEN 30/1
Milý Če níku,
zuřím na poslední d ě čísla Pásma. P oč je o s ins o na obálce? Za jedno: je o kýč
jako di adlo. Sluší -li se aby mode ní časopis zdu azňo al co je music hallu a  e ui
mode ního, měl by se pečli ě š í i oho, co je nich kýče, sen imen ali y, s ins a
ane o dá a na obálku. Aco se ýká ysické k ásy. Jak bylo by sk ělé kdyby u byla
elká ep odukce nějaké ělesné k ásy, řeba něco zonoho U a ilmu, y d ě dí ky
na břehu jeze a či pod. Ale ep oduko a s a ou bach a ou ma onu se s islými p sy.
(Teige o Če ník, Janua y 9, 1926; spelling p ese ed; A. Če ník pape s, PNP P aha)
[Dea Če ník:
I’m u ious abou he las wo numbe s o Pásmo. Why is his c ap on he co e ?
Fo one hing: i ’ski sch as hea e is. I i is app op ia e o amode n magazine o
emphasize wha is in he music hall and mode n shows, i should ca e ully a oid
ki sch, sen imen ali y, il h and no pu i on he co e . And in e ms o physical
beau y– how g ea would i be i he e was abig ep oduc ion o some physical
beau y, like some hing om ha U a mo ie, he wo gi ls on he lake sho e o unde .
Bu a ep oduc ion o an old clumsy ma on wi h hanging b eas s?]
I is no easy o es ablish whe he Teige’sc i icism esul ed in any immedia e changes,
al hough we no e ha olume wo ac ually swi ched o asmalle o ma as Teige also
equi ed. Bu on Janua y 9, 1926, Teige esolu ely s a es ha he is lea ing Pásmo’sed-
i o ial boa d. Admi edly, hese we e al eady he las days o he en e p ise. The
magazine did no su i e olume wo, 1925/26, which was no en i ely asole esul
o c i icism coming om P ague.
Clea ly, one could a gue ha we a e dealing wi h usual ic ions among edi o s,
wi h no subs an ial alue. Mo eo e , ama e ial limi is imposed on ou in e p e a ion
since only le e s by Teige o Če ník a e p ese ed so we can lis en o one pa y only,
namely P ague. Teige does no communica e any c i icism ad hominem, he mainly
ocuses on con en , layou and ma e s o p oduc ion. A he same ime, howe e , he
epea edly speaks on behal o he whole P ague g oup, which leads o he conclusion
ha hese documen s demons a e an a emp o c ea e he p ope pecking o de ha
is no exclusi ely based on his pe sonal opinons.
In sum, he langue ha comes om P ague is clea – P ague wan s o be he cen e .
No e exp essions such as “con ol” and he line o command ha Teige p oposes. In
o he wo ds, we mus acknowledge ape spec i e in which ahie a chical dicho omy, o
asymme y, is knowingly asse ed. Signi ican ly, his asymme y does no in ol e any
in e na ional bo de s. I p ojec s asymme y wi hin one coun y and one linguis ic
e i o y, p o iding us wi h an example o ahie a chy ha can be discussed wi hou
any g and Wes -Eas conno a ions.
LETTERS TO PARIS
In 1934, he Czech– o , P ague– Su ealis g oup was ounded. The ini ia i e o he
poe Ví ězsla Nez al (1900–1956) was c ucial in his de elopmen and since De ě sil,
whose co e membe Nez al had been, was dis an memo y, Nez al’sini ia i e played
amajo ole in e i ing and eshaping he Czech a an -ga de. O e he nex ou yea s,
107JINDŘICH TOMAN
howe e , Nez al’sau ho i y as aSu ealis was somewha diminishing, which was
in pa due o his wa e ing posi ion on Su ealism’s ela ion o he Communis Pa y.
Nez al was no alone in his; simila discussions we e conduc ed in F ance. Nez al
was ying o keep he balance– he con inued o publish su ealis poe y5 and as la e
as Janua y 1938 he de ended he wo co e a is s o Czech Su ealism, Jindřich Š y ský
and Toyen, in an ex ensi e p e ace o he ca alogue o hei exhibi ion. And ye on
Ma ch 7, 1938, he announced he dissolu ion o he Su ealis g oup.
Wha happened in ea ly Ma ch 1938, when Nez al dissol ed he g oup, can be
econs uc ed based on a leas wo majo sou ces: he le e s exchanged a e Nez-
al’sac be ween he P ague Su ealis g oup and Pa is in Ma ch– May 1938, and Ka el
Teige’spamphle o May 1938 en i led Su ealismus p o i p oudu [Su ealism Agains he
Cu en ] which eph ases and ex ends accoun s we ind in he co espondence. Bo h
sou ces men ion amee ing in which a a he ough discussion occu ed ha esul ed
in he idea o excluding Nez al om he g oup. Bu Nez al u ned he ables on he
g oup and quickly dissol ed he g oup i s – an ac ha he g oup did no accep .
None heless, Nez al’sac ion was ins an ly applauded by he leading ep esen a i es
o Communis cul u al leade ship, Julius Fučík and Ku Kon ad,6 which may plausibly
sugges abackg ound p esence o he Communis Pa y. A e he d ama was o e ,
Nez al would ha e new iends. Beginning Ap il 1938, A agon, Elua d, and E enbu g
eme ge in his w i ings as new poin s o e e ence, all o hem good Pa y membe s
in hei coun ies, none o hem on alking e ms wi h B e on.
Tu ning back o ou main subjec , he cen e -pe iphe y ela ion, he o mal eac-
ion o he Su ealis g oup is signi ican . Speci ically, we ocus on he “mail” aces
ha he dispu e le behind. The i s p ese ed documen is acollec i e le e by he
g oup o B e on om Ma ch 17, 1938 (Lo 2220). Add essed “AAnd é B e on e ous les
cama ades du g oupe su éalis e de Pa is” [To And é B e on and all he com ades o
he g oup o Su ealis s o Pa is] he collec i e le e goes well beyond he o ma o
as anda d le e – we a e in ac dealing wi h an en i e dossie ha assembles i ems
ha un eil Nez al’sde ec ion om Su ealism.7
The le e is quick in s a ing ha “La no ice de Nez al p ou e que son au eu man-
i es e pas op dans sa mé hode la concep ion s alinienne de la démoc a ie en c oyan
de pou oi e ace pa un ai de plume une collec i i é qu’es no e g oupe su éalis e”
[Nez al’sno e p o es ha i s au ho ’sme hod is no sho o he S alinis concep ion
o democ acy by belie ing ha he can e ase wi h as oke o he pen acollec i i y ha
5 Fo an English -language s udy o Nez al’s1930s, see Ga inkle (2003).
6 The communis c i ic Julius Fučík s a ed on Ma ch 18, 1938, ha he g oup became aho bed o poli ical
decay: “Nez alů čin ázně pomáhá klik idaci pá é kolony mezi in eligencí. Vy azil d eře, pečli ě
zamykané ockis ickými šejdíři.“ (Fučík 1938) [Nez al’sdeed helps esolu ely in he liquida ion o
he i h column among in elligen sia. He c ashed he doo ca e ully gua ded by T o skyi e swindle s.]
Aday la e ano he Communis c i ic, Ku Kon ad, con inued in Haló no iny, s a ing ha Nez al’sac
was one o “disin ec ion” (“[…] je činem éměř desin ekčním”; Kon ad 1938).
7 P obably he i s i em in hese exchanges was a eleg am dispa ched o Pa is o And é B e on on Ma ch
15, 1938– he i em is un o una ely no ex an . No do we ha e Nez al’sle e (s?) o B e on. Howe e ,
asho le e by Nez al o Pé e (May 10, 1938) is ex an . All hese documen s esu ged in he auc ion
o B e on’ses a e in 2003; see he DVD a ached o he ca alogue, speci ically lo s 2220 and 2221 (see
Lo s in he bibliog aphy below). Addi ionally, And é B e on’sanswe o Nez al om Ma ch 18, 1938, is
p ese ed in Nez al pape s a PNP (see he ollowing no e).

108 BRÜCKEN 30/1
ou su ealis g oup ep esen s.] (ibid.). Al hough appa en ly d a ed by Teige, he
le e is acollec i e s a emen le ing B e on know ha he g oup me , did no ag ee
wi h Nez al, and excluded him as a esul . We ind he e also a ela i ely de ailed de-
sc ip ion o he umul uous mee ing ha igge ed e e y hing. The le e is signed
by he membe s o he g oup. Asecond collec i e le e , again wi h adocumen a ion
and signa u es, ollowed on Ma ch 23, 1938.
As o he eac ion, we ha e only pa ial documen a ion. B e on eac ed wi h
se e al le e s, o which only ha o Nez al is p ese ed. In i he encou aged cau ion
and encou aged coope a ion, bu in apos sc ip um he added:
PS Nemusím Vám říka , že ozhodně odmí ám Vaše básně: 4.če enec1937, 3 smu-
eční básně aXX. Vý očí. Žádám Vás, abys e je bez jakýchkoli okolků co nejene ge-
ič ěji popřel. (B e on o Nez al, Ma ch 18, 1938; quo ed om he Czech ansla ion
in Nez al 1981: 98 .)
[PS Ido no ha e o ell you ha I esolu ely ejec you poems “July, 4, 1937”, he
h ee commemo a i e poems [abou Masa yk; J.T.], and he poem “Twen ie h An-
ni e sa y”. Iask you o enounce hem ene ge ically and wi h no delay.]
This no e clea ly shows ha he ed line was c ossed, bu whe he we can say ha
B e on was pleased by he “ ile” he ecei ed om P ague emains open. The poem
abou he wen ie h anni e sa y o he Oc obe Re olu ion was p o -S alinis and he
poems on he occasion Masa yk’spassing could be in e p e ed as na ionalis ic.
On he whole, he ch onology o hese e en s can be desc ibed easonably well.
Deep causes will be ha d o de e mine bu as poin ed ou abo e, poli ics was in he
backg ound. This is in line wi h in e p e a ions o Nez al’sbeha io ha ha e been
p oposed in he li e a u e: he his o ian I an P a has emphasized he poli ical as-
pec s, as ha e Alessand o Ca alano (2008) and Milan D ápala (1996) been. O cou se,
hese aspec s we e el by he main ac o s o he a ai hemsel es, especially by Nez-
al. The Ma ch days we e days o agene al collapse o he Eu opean poli ical o de .
Anewspape eade who ead abou he disbandmen o he Su ealis g oup ead
almos simul aneously abou he call -up o Czech ese is s o aining and abou
he Anschluß– Hi le ma ched in o Aus ia on Ma ch 12, 1938. O he ac o s played
a ole as well, including Moscow show ials. The hi d ial, conduc ed in Ma ch 1938,
was appa en ly agg essi ely suppo ed by Nez al du ing he umul uous mee ing as
he g oup’sle e indica es:
Nez al, d’une açon inju ieuse, en employan des mo s les plus g os e bas, adécla é
qu’il aillai , d’un acco d ab[s]olu, app ou e la poli ique ac uelle de l’Union So ié-
ique e cela; e quan aux p ocès in en és con e les collabo a eu s de Lénine, e en
ce qui conce ne ce aine ai s de poli ique cul u elle so ié ique, p.e. la supp ession
du héâ e Meie chold qui, au di e de Nez al, n’aé é au e chose qu’une agence
d’espionnage! (Ma ch 17, 1938; Lo 2220)
[In an insul ing way, using he c udes and coa ses wo ds, Nez al decla ed ha
i was absolu ely necessa y o app o e he p esen policy o he So ie Union, in-
109JINDŘICH TOMAN
cluding he ials wi h Lenin’scollabo a o s, as well as o he ac s o So ie cul u al
policy, o ins ance, he supp ession o he Meie chold hea e, which, acco ding
o Nez al, was no hing mo e han aspy agency!]
The a mosphe e o anxie y was s ong. When in Ap il 1938 he exhibi ion o Š y ský
and Toyen was opening in B no, Roman Jakobson was among he speake s. When
Toyen la e asked him o his speech, he old he ha he lushed i in he oile .
Tu ning back o he dossie , we no e ha i indic ed Nez al on wo coun s one o
which was S alinism, na ionalism being he o he .8 I emizing he o ences by way o
poems, he dossie included ap o -S alinis poem by Nez al w i en on he occasion
o he wen ie h anni e sa y o he Oc obe e olu ion, poems on he Czechoslo ak
p esiden Masa yk, and mo e. On he whole, he dispa ch o Pa is su p ises by i s
de ails– as i his we e a ile on someone. No e ha o iginals in he o m o newspape
clippings we e enclosed. Bu mo e signi ican ly, he ile was submi ed o he “head-
qua e s.” By his oken P ague Su ealis s demons a ed hei loyal y o he cen e .
IN CONCLUSION
Based on wo cases om he his o y o Czech a an -ga de, we a gue ha a an -ga de
does no necessa ily lack beha io ha is s uc u ed in he e ms o cen e and pe-
iphe y. Despi e di e ences, he wo cases a e bo h sui able o show ha hie a chies
exis , speci ically in he o m o compe i i e beha io and loyal y a icula ions, all he
same whe he we hink o he en i onmen as cen e ed o decen e ed, e icalized
o ho izon alized. Recognizing his ac should esul in amo e nuanced image o
in e wa ne wo ks while helping us c i ically e alua e he unc ion o emancipa o y
discou ses o ou days.
In he i s case we see acon on a ional asse ion o au ho i y– P ague De ě sil
explici ly s a es ha i wan s o con ol is B no coun e pa . The easons la gely e-
ol e a ound he con en o he B no a an -ga de magazine Pásmo. Al hough wo ded
by Teige, he case mus be unde s ood as ep esen ing he in e ac ion be ween wo
g oups. Mo e e , he case is “elemen a y” in no in ol ing any c oss -bo de ela ions—
he con igu a ion is ee o any Eas -Wes conno a ions.
The second case essen ially p esen s he same P ague g oup o au ho s and a -
is s– including Nez al, Š y ský, Teige, Toyen– bu di e s in complexi y. By mid-1930s,
he g oup was amembe o adis inc ne wo k, ha o Su ealism, which had an
in e na ional quali y, whe eby he cen ali y o Pa is was ela i ely clea . As a esul ,
and unlike he i s case, which had no in e na ional impac , Czech Su ealis s now
ope a ed wi hin an in e na ional space. We may add ha he cen al membe s o he
Pa is g oup, And é B e on and Paul Elua d, isi ed P ague in 1935, s eng hening bo h
hei s anding in Pa is and P ague (see Saye 2013). Al hough his p osely ic isi
upheld he posi ion o he P ague g oup wi hin Czechoslo akia, i also ein o ced i s
s a us as alocal b anch.
8 Acollec ion o “exhibi s” in he o iginal and F ench ansla ions was a ached. I included newspape
clippings abou he disbandmen o he g oup, some c i ical commen a ies (mos no ably by communis
c i ics Fučík (1938) and Kon ad (1938)), and selec poems by Nez al.
110 BRÜCKEN 30/1
No su p isingly hen, he Nez al con lic was epo ed o he cen e al hough
his was in ac no eques ed. We can only specula e whe he he possibili y o no
con ac ing he cen e was conside ed. I so, his solu ion was no chosen. Ins ead,
a oluminous olde wi h inc imina ing “exhibi s” was c ea ed, e en ually exp essing
loyal y o he cen e , pe haps wi h he unde s anding ha his migh op imize he
unc ioning o he ne wo k. In his sense he ocus o explana ion shi s o he way
an asymme ical ela ion is handled and e alua ed by he pa icipan s. P ague Su -
ealis s ob iously concluded ha a icula ing hei posi ion is -à- is he cen e was
an accep able way o handle acon lic . A he same ime, elemen a y g oup dynamic
mechanisms we e a wo k ha do no necessa ily ely on ab oad con ex . Repo ed
o no , exclusion o amembe o he g oup is amajo ool ha is mean o s eng hen
g oup iden i y.9
Taken oge he , he wo cases, al hough showing di e ences, demons a e he
o ce o he cen e -pe iphe y ela ion, al hough each in adi e en way. In he i s
case, P ague a emp s o be acen e , in he second case, P ague essen ially assumes
he posi ion o ape iphe y.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ca alano, Alessand o (2008): Rudá záře nad li e a u ou: Česká li e a u a mezi socialismem aunde ‑
g oundem (1945–1959) [Red Blaze o e Li e a u e: Czech Li e a u e be ween Socialism and
Unde g ound]. B no: Hos .
D ápala, Milan (1996): Iluze jako osud: K ý oji poli ických pos ojů Ví ězsla a Nez ala [Illusion as
Fa e: On he De elopmen o Ví ězsla Nez al’sPoli ical Posi ions].– In: Soudobé dějiny 3/2–3,
175–218.
Fo bes, MeghanL. (2016): In he Middle o i All: P ague, B no, and he A an ‑ga de Ne wo ks o In e ‑
wa Eu ope. Doc o al disse a ion. Uni e si y o Michigan, Ann A bo .
Fučík, Julius (1938): Nez alů p oje [Nez al’sAdd ess].– In: T o ba 13/11 (18.03.1938), 132 [signed
-je -].
Ga inkle, Debo ah (2003): B idging Eas and Wes : Czech Su ealism’sIn e wa Expe imen . Doc o al
disse a ion, Uni e si y o Texas. Aus in.
Gi a d, René (1982): Le Bouc émissai e [The Scapegoa ]. Pa is: G asse .
Jakubowska, Aga a/Radomska, Magdalena (eds.) (2022): Ho izon al A His o y and Beyond: Re ising
Pe iphe al C i ical P ac ices. London: Rou ledge.
Kon ad, Ku (1938): Básníko a odpo ědnos [Poe ’sResponsibili y].– In: Haló no iny 6/67
(19.03.1938), 4 [signed K. K.].
Lo s 2219, 2220, 2221.– In: And é B e on: 42, ue Fon aine [Auc ion ca alogue, DVD a achmen ], Pa is
2003: Calmels Cohen.
Michalo á, Rea (2018): Ka el Teige: Cap ain o he A an ‑ga de. P ague: Kan .
Nekula, Ma ek (ed.) (2019): Zei sch i en als Kno enpunk e de Mode ne/n: P ague– B ünn– Wien.
Heidelbe g: Win e .
9 Qui e in line wi h he mechanism o scapegoa ing as unde s ood by René Gi a d (1982).
111JINDŘICH TOMAN
Nez al, Ví ězsla (1981): Depeše zkonce isícile í: Ko espondence Ví ězsla a Nez ala [Despa ches om
he End o aMillennium: The Co espondence o Ví ězsla Nez al]. P aha: Českoslo enský
spiso a el.
P a , I an (1993): Česká le ice p o i Mosk ě, 1936–1938 [The Czech Le agains Moscow, 1936–1938].
P aha: Naše ojsko.
Pio owski, Pio (2009): Towa d aHo izon al His o y o he Eu opean A an -ga de.– In: B u,
Sascha/Nicholls, Pe e (eds.), Eu opean A an ‑Ga de and Mode nism S udies. Be lin: de G uy e ,
ol. 1, 49–58.
Pomajzlo á, Alena (ed.) (2019): De ě sil, 1920–1931. P ague: P ague Ci y Galle y.
Saye , De ek (2013): P ague– Capi al o he Twen ie h Cen u y: ASu ealis His o y. P ince on, NJ:
P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
Šmejkal, F an išek/Š ácha, Ros isla (eds.) (1990): De ě sil: Czech A an ‑ga de A , A chi ec u e and
Design o he 1920s and 30s. Ox o d, Museum o Mode n A . London: Design Museum.
Teige, Ka el (1938): Su ealismus p o i p oudu [Su ealism Agains he Cu en ]. P aha: Su ealis-
ická skupina. (Also in his Výbo zdíla, ol. 2, 1969, 469–541, P aha: Českoslo enský spiso a el.)
Toman, Jindřich (2019): Pla o ms o Ope a ion: De ě sil and I s Magazines.– In: Pomajzlo á, Ale-
na (ed.), De ě sil, 1920–1931. P ague: P ague Ci y Galle y, 39–56.
Toman, Jindřich (2021): “Wi h Some Rese a ions…”: Ea ly Ma e ials on De ě sil and Zeni .– In:
S o godina časopisa Zeni 1921– 1926– 2021: AHund ed Yea s o he Zeni Magazine, ed. by Bojan
Jo ić and I ina Subo ić. Beog ad: Gale ija RIMA, 387–397.
Vlašín, Š ěpán (1985): A uš Če ník.– In: Lexikon české li e a u y, ol. 1 (A–G). Ed. Vladimí
Fo s e al. P aha: Academia, 445.
Wu sdo , I ina (2019): Zu demons a i en In e na ionali ä de A an ga de am Beispiel de
Zei sch i ReD.– In: Nekula, Ma ek (ed.), Zei sch i en als Kno enpunk e de Mode ne/n: P ague–
B ünn– Wien. Heidelbe g: Win e , 161–175.
Zusi, Pe e ( o appea ): The In eg i y o he A an ‑Ga de. Ka el Teige and he Biog aphy o an Ambi ion.
MHRA Books.