east central europe 44 (2017) 341-366

brill.com/eceu

The Making and Unmaking of an Austrian Space of Historical Scholarship, 1848–1914

Bálint Varga Hungarian Academy of Sciences [email protected]

Abstract

Starting in the late 1840s, the Habsburg monarchy engaged in the making of modern historical scholarship by introducing standardized training and creating an institu- tional framework of research. During the 1850s, the Viennese government laid down the foundations of a pan-Austrian academic space. However, this space started to split already in the early 1860s, and at the turn of the twentieth century it was largely replaced by academic communities organized along national lines. By analyzing the making of different historians’ communities, this paper claims that the split of the united Habsburg space of historical sciences was the direct result of “high” politics, in particular granting autonomy to various crown lands of the empire.

Keywords historiography – professionalization – Habsburg monarchy

Introduction1

Professionalization and the making of institutionalized and bureaucratic structures were key elements in the emerging modern historical scholarship throughout Europe in the second half of the nineteenth century. History turned

* Research for this paper was supported by grants by the Scholarship Foundation of the Repub- lic of Austria for Post-docs and the National Research, Development and Innovation Office (grant no. K 108670). 1 This paper largely rests on prosopographic databases. The data for the Cisleithanian ­universities (except for Vienna) were gathered by Surman (2012). For other universities, see

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi 10.1163/18763308-04402004Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:37:47PM via free access

342 Varga from an art pursued by erudite gentlemen into a machinery driven by profes- sionals who completed a standardized education and worked along fairly stan- dardized routines. The early modern republica litteraria was now r­eplaced by new scientific communities. Unlike the early modern republic of letters, which covered the entire European continent and beyond, the new spaces were con- fined to smaller geographical entities, in most cases this being the (nation-) state. As Ilaria Prociani and Jo Tollebeek claim:

The professional community that formed in the late nineteenth century was also a national historical “space,” populated by all kinds of people who had little or no personal acquaintance with one another. This space arose through its occupants – wherever they were actually employed in the country in question – reading the same historical journal, being rep- resented by the same national association, and travelling to the same na- tional archive or national library for their research. porciani and tollebeek 2012: 12

This paper investigates the ambiguous making of imperial and national spaces of historical scholarship in the late Habsburg monarchy. The Habsburg monar- chy engaged in the making of modern scholarship since 1849. In the following decade, the Viennese government laid down the foundations of a pan-Austrian academic space, but this space started to separate already in the early 1860s. By the end of the century, a Habsburg space of historical scholarship hardly existed; instead, four full-fledged (Hungarian, Croatian, Polish, Czech) and some less elaborate (Ukrainian, Romanian) academic spaces came into being which also led to the emergence of a German-Austrian community of histo- rians. These communities were organized along national lines, and with the exception of the Hungarian one, disregarded political boundaries and over- lapped with other existing states (Gottas 1997). By analyzing the making of different historians’ communities, this paper claims that the split of the united Habsburg space of historical sciences was the direct result of “high” politics, in particular granting autonomy to various crown lands of the Empire.

The Making of a Habsburg Space for Historical Research

Despite the 1784 establishment of the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences/ Königlich böhmische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften/Královská česká

Redlich (1914: 159–163) (Vienna); Szentpétery (1935) (Budapest); Gaal (2001) (Kolozsvár/ Cluj); Boranić (1925: 109–123) (Zagreb).

east centralDownloaded europe from 44 Brill.com10/02/2021 (2017) 341-366 10:37:47PM via free access

Making and Unmaking of an Austrian Space 343 společnost nauk in Prague and some minor learned societies in Lombardy and Venetia (Pichler 2006: 926–927), the Habsburg monarchy was on the periphery­ of European academic life well until the mid-nineteenth century. The conser- vative Viennese government did not have a significant interest in fostering the ­sciences; indeed, it rather mistrusted them. Universities were teaching in- stitutions to train loyal bureaucrats only and research did not belong to their profile. Scholars were officially even prohibited to maintain foreign contacts (Ottner 2014: 115–119). This situation started to change in the early nineteenth century. The emer- gence of institutionalized scholarship did not begin in the imperial capital Vienna but was located in the provinces. Provincial elites regarded academic institutions as vehicles for the cultural and economic development of their provinces. Provincial museums were established in Hungary (1802), Styria (1811), Silesia (1814), Moravia (1817), Bohemia (1818), Salzburg (1835), and Croa- tia (1846) (Raffler 2007). In Lemberg/Lwów/L’viv, the research institute, library, and printing house Ossolineum was funded by the Galician magnate Józef Maksymilian Ossoliński (1817). While Lombardy was under Napoleonic rule, a learned society was founded in Milan (Society to Encourage Sciences, Lit- erature and Arts/Societa d’incoraggiamento di scienze, lettere ed arti, 1804) and two former societies in Bergamo merged into the Athenaeum of Sciences, ­Literature, and Arts/Ateneo di scienze lettere ed arti di Bergamo in 1810. In 1814, when Lombardy rejoined the Habsburg monarchy, these became Habsburg in- stitutions, too. In the same year, the Habsburg monarchy also occupied Vene- tia, with its rich academic landscape (University of Padua, learned societies in Padua, Rovigo, and Vicenza). The Hungarian Society of Sciences/Magyar Tudós Társaság (later renamed Academy) was established in 1827 in Pest. Provincial associations came into being to promote regional research (Landeskunde) in Bohemia (Matica česká, 1831), in Transylvania (Association to Promote Tran- sylvanian Research/Verein für siebenbürgische Landeskunde, 1840) (Török 2016: 72–74), in Croatia (Matica ilirska, 1842) (Matković and Buczynski 2006: 1277), and in Carniola, Carinthia, and Styria (Association for the History of ­Inner Austria/Historischer Verein für Innerösterreich, 1843) (Dopsch: 2002). In 1846, the Republic of Cracow ceased to exist and the city was incorporated into the Habsburg province Galicia. With that, the Jagiellonian University and an academic association, the Cracow Academic Society/Towarzystwo Naukowe Krakowskie (founded in 1815), became parts of the Habsburg monarchy, too (Brzozowski 1990). These developments and the dynamic institutionalization of the academia in the German lands influenced also the intellectuals of Vienna. After some failed attempts, an Imperial Academy of Sciences in Vienna/Kaiserliche Akad- emie der Wissenschaften in Wien was established in 1847 aiming at organizing

east central europe 44 (2017) 341-366 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:37:47PM via free access

344 Varga science across the entire Habsburg Empire. Among the 48 founding members of the Imperial Academy, ten engaged in historical research. The Alpine lands were represented by four historians (Anton Albert Muchar, Joseph Chmel, ­Jodok Stülz, Albert Jäger), the Italian, the Bohemian, and the Hungarian lands by two each (Pompeo Litta and Andrea Cittadella Vigodarzere; František Palacký and Beda Weber; József Teleki and József Kemény). In the following years, ordinary membership was offered to the Venetian Emmanuele Antonio Cicogna (1854) and corresponding membership to the Bohemian Gregor Wolný and the Hungarian Pál Jászay (both 1848). The Carpathian lands, Croatia, and the provinces along the Adriatic coast were not represented in the Imperial Academy at all (Meister 1947: 45). History was a core discipline within the Imperial Academy: a few months ­after the foundation of the Imperial Academy, a Historical Committee was ­established. In contrast to museums and associations having a strictly ­regional focus, the Historical Committee was the first institution devoted to research into the history of the entire Habsburg monarchy. It was also the first one funded by the imperial government (Pischinger 2000). The mastermind of the historical research at the Imperial Academy was Josef Chmel, a self-trained historian and archivist, who published a short-lived historical journal and ­edited several source collections. Chmel was one of the main initiators of the Academy in general and acted also as chairman of its Section for History and Philosophy (Ottner 2014). The goal of the Imperial Academy’s historical in- quires was quite clear: it aimed at enhancing Austrian patriotism and thus at increasing imperial cohesion. These institutions laid down the foundations of the research infrastructure across the Habsburg lands. Yet, the real change came in the aftermath of the 1848 revolutions. The neo-absolutist government, and minister for culture and education Leo Thun-Hohenstein and state secretary Josef Alexander Helfert in particular, understood the necessity of reorganizing science and education as important means in the consolidation of the shaken Empire. The minis- try launched a university reform: following the Prussian model, they became research hubs and their faculties of philosophy became fully ranked institu- tions (Höflechner 2017). History, previously neglected, now became a core disci- pline in higher education. Specialization in the historical sciences started in the 1850s with the division of the former monolith history departments into chairs for Austrian and universal history; the latter included also ancient ­history. The first modernized Austrian university institution for historical research was the Seminar of History at the University of Vienna (Řezník 2014, 139–141). To provide Austrian historians with the necessary methodological train- ing, the Institute of Austrian Historical Research/Institut für Österreichische ­Geschichtsforschung (IfÖG) was established in 1854. The IfÖG was modelled

east centralDownloaded europe from 44 Brill.com10/02/2021 (2017) 341-366 10:37:47PM via free access

Making and Unmaking of an Austrian Space 345 on the École des chartes in Paris and it taught auxiliary sciences of history focusing on the Middle Ages. Its goal was, however, more than training in pa- leography and related sub-disciplines: it aimed to offer an Austrian vision of history to its students. However, despite the intentions of Helfert, who actu- ally initiated its establishment, the IfÖG never contributed significantly to the formation of an Austrian grand narrative. It rather emerged into a school of “technical” training of historians-to-be. Furthermore, its focus on medieval his- tory further hindered the formation of an Austrian vision of history, because the core lands of the modern Habsburg monarchy were independent entities until 1526 (and some subsequent dates of territorial gain) (Lhotsky 1954). In the crucial decade of the 1850s, a significant obstacle to the making of modern scholarship was the lack of proper Austrian academic personnel. A great number of scholars from German lands were invited to Austria to occu- py chairs mostly in ancient and universal history. The political motivation in the appointment policy of the neo-absolutist government was clear and straight- forward. These scholars were in most cases Catholic and supported the Great German (grossdeutsch) idea; they acknowledged Austria and the Habsburgs as the leading power and dynasty in the German lands (Surman 2012: 169). In Vienna, the chair for universal history was occupied first by Heinrich Grauert, a student of Barthold Georg Niebuhr from Bonn. After his early death (1852) he was followed by the Rhinelander Josef Aschbach, who left his Bonn professorship for Vienna (Redlich 1914: 159–163). Auxiliary sciences of history were taught from 1855 by Theodor Sickel, a Lutheran Saxon; he belonged to the few Protestants gaining position at any Austrian university in this period. The chair for universal history in Prague was occupied by the Bavarian Kon- stantin Höfler between 1850 and 1881. Although Höfler was not an innovative historian, his Catholic and grossdeutsch identity made him a perfect candidate for the neo-absolutist government (Kolař 2008: 154–157). Far deeper impact was made on the Austrian scholarship by Julius Ficker, a Westphalian Catholic, who was educated in Bonn. Ficker was appointed to the chair of universal history at the University of Innsbruck in 1852; in the following decades, a school of legal history developed around him with a focus on the history of the Holy ­Roman Empire (Urmann 2014). Among the universities in the core of the Empir­ e, it was Graz where the specialization lagged behind the most. It was as late as 1865 when separate chairs for universal and Austrian history were established. Until that point, the only professor of history was the Badener Johann Baptist Weiß. Weiß, despite being born in 1820 and having studied at South German universities during the 1840s, the heyday of liberalism, was a hardliner conser- vative regarding both his scholarly and political ideas. As a ­representative of the old-school historiographic tradition, he never engaged with the method of the Rankean Quellenkritik and pursued old-fashioned world history. He gained

east central europe 44 (2017) 341-366 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:37:47PM via free access

346 Varga the sympathy of Austrian authorities less through his work than his political activity: he opposed the democratic Baden Revolution in 1848 and drafted a proclamation promoting a grossdeutsch empire led by the House of Habsburg (Höflechner 2015: 133–137). Whereas the chairs for universal history were occupied by non-Austrian scholars, the chairs for Austrian history were reserved for domestic academics. In Vienna, the Tyrolian Benedictine monk Albert Jäger became professor for Austrian history. In Prague, Vaclav Vladivoj Tomek, a protégé of Thun and Helf- ert, was appointed (Řezník 2014). The fragility of the modernized university system is shown by the fact that the chair for Austrian history in Innsbruck was occupied by Heinrich Glax, a well-read intellectual without formal training in history. In fact, Glax was more a journalist than a historian and he failed to deliver any major historical work (Oberkofler 1969: 22). The reform at the Hungarian and Galician universities was implemented considerably slower. In Pest, two professors worked without clearly distin- guishing their portfolios. János/Johann Reisinger, a Hungarian Piarist started his university career in the Vormärz period; he was loyal to the neo-absolutist government and thus kept his chair after the revolution. As a scholar he be- longed to the older generation, which practically meant that his research was very modest. Far more dynamic was the young Adam Wolf, who was born in Bohemia, studied in Prague, earned his habilitation in Vienna, and was ap- pointed to Pest in 1852 as extraordinary professor. They both offered lectures about general and Austrian subjects; from 1852, separate Hungarian history was not taught. Wolf lectured in German only, while Reisinger read both in German and Hungarian. A third lecturer worked at the history department, too: Árpád Horvát taught auxiliary sciences of history from 1846, was suspended after the 1848 revolution but as extraordinary professor could continue teaching (Szent- pétery 1935: 416, 426). Beside the University of Pest, Hungary had some colleges with a focus on law. A few Austrian historians earning fame later started their career at such colleges: Karl Friedrich Stumpf-Brentano was appointed to the chair of his- tory of the College of Law in Preßburg/Pozsony/Bratislava in 1856, Ferdinand Zieglauer to Hermannstadt/Nagyszeben/Sibiu in the same year, Franz Krones occupied the same chair in Kaschau/Kassa/Košice the next year, and in 1859 Joseph Zahn became associate professor in Preßburg. Modernization of the historical scholarship started the latest in Galicia. In Lemberg, the Galician Antoni Wachholz led the still single department for history between 1850 and 1859. Lacking the necessary methodological train- ing, Wachholz’s contribution to the professionalization of historiography in ­Lemberg was very modest. After leaving Lemberg for Cracow, for a short period

east centralDownloaded europe from 44 Brill.com10/02/2021 (2017) 341-366 10:37:47PM via free access

Making and Unmaking of an Austrian Space 347 between 1859 and 1861, he was followed by Gottfried Muys, who, despite hav- ing had an up-to-date training in Münster, remained unnoticed as a historian (Lundgreen 2005: 166). In Cracow, the single professor for history in the 1850s was Antoni Walewski, who counterbalanced his poor academic work by fierce support to the Austrian state and allegedly with cooperation with the Austrian secret police (Surman 2012: 174). The Italian universities formed an exception in several ways. Their language of instruction remained Italian and the reforms of Thun were introduced later than at other universities (Lentze 1962: 37, 235). In Lombardy, Girolamo Tur- roni kept the still only chair for history at the University of Pavia. Born in 1802 in Pavia and having studied in the same city, Turroni became teacher of his- tory and philosophy at several Lombardian schools in the 1820s. In 1828 he was appointed professor at the University of Pavia, where he remained until his retirement in 1860 and taught both universal and Austrian history. Turroni, to- gether with the Pest professor Reisinger, was born in 1802 and thus belonged to the oldest generation of historians still active in the 1850s. Like his Pest counterpart, as a scholar he was old-school but his political conservativism kept him in his position.2 In Venetia, Giuseppe de Leva was appointed to the still single chair of history as assistant professor at the University of Padua. Born in Dalmatia, educated in Vienna and Padua, de Leva did not participate in the 1859 turmoil but became ­ a cautious supporter of the Risorgimento in the 1860s (Cella 1988). Thus, the Ital- ian universities’ teaching profile differed from the Germanophone universities and they were less integrated into the Austrian flaw of academics, too.3 The modernization of the research infrastructure led to some spectacular results, mostly in the field of source publications. The series Fontes rerum Aus­ triacarum, published under the auspices of the Historical Committee of the Imperial Academy of Sciences, was modeled on the Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Sources and shorter studies were published in the Archiv für Kunde österreichischer Geschichtsquellen, which was also published with the Imperial Academy of Sciences. With a focus on the Alpine lands, they both concerned

2 During the turbulent year of 1848, Turroni engaged in the work of the Provisional Govern- ment of Milan; yet, an investigation after reestablishment of Austrian rule assessed his loy- alty to Austria and Turroni was pardoned (Curato 1973). 3 The Faculties of Law of both Italian universities followed a similar pattern, too: whereas ­German law was introduced at all Germanophone universities of the Empire as a compul- sory subject to law students, at Pavia and Padua the history of Italian law was taught instead (Lentze 1962: 248–249).

east central europe 44 (2017) 341-366 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:37:47PM via free access

348 Varga sources from all over the Habsburg Empire. For instance, twenty volumes ap- peared in the subsection Diplomataria et Acta of the Fontes between 1849 and 1860. Twelve included sources from the Alpine lands, while the r­emaining eight were divided among Venice (three volumes), Hungary and Transylva- nia (three volumes), and Bohemia (two volumes).4 Yet, the single decade of the 1850s was not enough to produce an overarching imperial narrative of the entire Habsburg Monarchy. Protagonists of the imperial historiography pub- lished mainly on narrower topics; Tomek was an exception to write a History of the Austrian Empire, which, nonetheless, was meant as a textbook for second- ary schools (Řezník 2014: 153). Thus, the neo-absolutist government was able to lay down the foundations of an Austrian historical scholarship and a united, imperial academic space, in which people and ideas could flow without inner boundaries. This increas- ing integration is aptly demonstrated by the appointment of the Tyrolian Jäger in Vienna, the Bohemian Wolf in Pest, the Moravian Krones in Kaschau, the Tyrolian Zieglauer in Hermannstadt, the Viennese Stumpf-Brentano and the Lower Austrian Zahn in Preßburg, and the Dalmatian de Leva in Padua. The German language, in which universities (with the exception of Pavia and ­Padua) operated, was a key element in this system. Other key factors were un- conditional loyalty to Austria, conservatism, and the rejection of liberalism and nationalism.5

The First Hit: Hungary

This imperial space of historical research started to diminish in the 1860s. Due to the failure of the Habsburg Empire in the wars against France and Sardinia in 1859 and Prussia and Italy in 1866, Lombardy and Venetia seceded from Austria. While the Italian provinces vanished from the map of Austrian academia through war, Hungary remained in the Habsburg monarchy but its intellectual space seceded immediately after the failure of neo-absolutism. The October Diploma in 1860 (re)introduced Hungarian as the language of administration and higher education. Adam Wolf, who was on research leave from 1857, was

4 See the table of contents of the Fontes: https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/%C3%96sterreichis che_Geschichtsquellen_(Fontes_rerum_Austriacarum). 5 Several scholars’ examples demonstrate this statement. Jäger’s main research subject was Catholic church history and Aschbach edited a general church lexicon. Before moving to Austria, Höfler and Weiß engaged in severe conflicts with non-Catholic parties in Munich and Freiburg, respectively (Surman 2012: 171).

east centralDownloaded europe from 44 Brill.com10/02/2021 (2017) 341-366 10:37:47PM via free access

Making and Unmaking of an Austrian Space 349 suspended from the University of Pest (1861) and appointed to Graz (1865). Reisinger lectured alone until his retirement in 1865. Then the structure of the history department was modified: a chair for Hungarian history and another for universal history were established, while the department for auxiliary sci- ences was consolidated. A chair for Austrian history was not created, as ac- cording to the argumentation of the Faculty of Philosophy, this subject needed no separate department, since the other professors touched upon Austrian ­history. The chair for Hungarian history was occupied by the lawyer Árpád Kerékgyártó, while the department for universal history was led by Ferenc Som- hegyi, who studied philosophy at various Catholic seminaries. Árpád Horvát kept the chair for the auxiliary sciences (Szentpétery 1935: 438–454). None of them studied abroad or earned habilitation; yet, at this point, their Hungarian citizenship and commitment to Magyar national history was more important than their academic quality. As Hungarian was introduced at the colleges of law, too, Krones, Zahn, and Stumpf-Brentano had to leave: Krones went to Graz to teach first at a gymnasium and from 1865 at the university, Zahn became an archivist at the Johanneum (Höflechner 2015: 473), while Stumpf-Brentano was appointed to the Innsbruck University. By the early 1860s, the Hungarian aca- demic landscape was purged of non-Hungarians and the history of Austria did not form the subject of either research or teaching. The only exception from this rule was Ferdinand Zieglauer, who stayed in Hermannstadt, as the local College of Law still instructed in German (this was the legacy of the Transylva- nian Saxon origin of this school). In 1867, the Compromise sanctioned Hungary’s special status in the Habsburg monarchy. In the same year, the Hungarian Historical Association was founded and it immediately started to publish its journal Századok (Luki- nich 1918). Together with the Historical Commission of the Hungarian Acad- emy of Sciences (established in 1854), it published a vast number of sources and supported research into Hungarian history (Fráter 1966). In 1874, the Hun- garian National Archives were modernized and became open to researchers (Lakos 2006, 81–111). Due to the Compromise, Hungary delegated archivists to imperial archives in Vienna, who helped Hungarian researchers even with ­access to sensitive documents (meaning sources with unpleasant content for the Habsburgs) (Ress 2010). In 1872, a second Hungarian university was founded in Kolozsvár/Cluj. Fol- lowing the Budapest model, three chairs for history were created for Hungarian history, for universal history, and for auxiliary historical sciences. Károly Szabó was appointed to the Hungarian history chair, Gedeon Ladányi read univer- sal history, whereas the auxiliary sciences were taught by Henrik Finály (Gaal 2001: 53–54). There is no need to emphasize that all of them were Hung­ arian;

east central europe 44 (2017) 341-366 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:37:47PM via free access

350 Varga

Szabó and Ladányi received their education in Hungary only, whereas Finály attended the Polytechnicum and the University of Vienna. The next decades witnessed an autonomous development of Hungarian his- torical scholarship. The specialization of the historical scholarship was most tangible at the University of Budapest. In 1879, the chair for universal history was divided into three departments for ancient, medieval, and modern history, respectively. The chair for Hungarian history was also divided into medieval and early modern sections. After a chair for Hungarian cultural history was cre- ated in 1898, the former two rather focused on political history. In 1910, a chair for the history of the ancient Near East was created. A department of Southeast European history was planned but was not established until the interwar pe- riod (Szentpétery 1935: 527–585). On the eve of the Great War, the University of Budapest had altogether eight chairs of history. Around 1910, the universi- ties of Berlin and Vienna had also eight history departments (in Vienna the number reached eleven by 1918); this means that the University of Budapest kept the pace of specialization with the best Austrian and German universi- ties (Kolař 2008: 273, 395). In Kolozsvár, specialization was far more modest: only a chair for Hungarian cultural history was created (1892) and even the de- partment for auxiliary sciences was converted to a chair for archaeology (1899) (Gaal 2001: 76). Needless to say, all professors at Hungarian universities were citizens of the country. Until the 1880s, most history professors had studied in Hungary only. From the 1880s, in addition to their specialized education in history at Hun- garian universities, they tended to attend foreign universities, too. Their first choice was Germany: nine professors-to-be attended universities in the Ger- man Empire, whereas a mere four studied in Vienna and attended the course of the IfÖG.6 Whereas in the 1870s the IfÖG was able to provide substantial knowledge to young Hungarian historians, by the turn of the twentieth cen- tury the paleographic training at Hungarian universities emerged to the same rank and there was no further need to study in the imperial capital. Gyula Szekfű, who became the most influential historian in interwar Hungary, spent his early­ career in Vienna. Becoming familiar with the IfÖG, he even claimed that it trained “artisans” instead of historians with a wide intellectual horizon (Glatz 1974).

6 Three of them were extraordinary members, which meant that they did not take the final exam. They were László Fejérpataky (1877–1879), Lajos Szádeczky-Kardoss (1879–1881) and Antal Áldássy (1891–1893). The ordinary fellow was Ede Wertheimer, who taught in Kolozsvár for a very short period only.

east centralDownloaded europe from 44 Brill.com10/02/2021 (2017) 341-366 10:37:47PM via free access

Making and Unmaking of an Austrian Space 351

The result of these developments was a full-fledged, autonomous scientific community. With its early and complete institutionalization, the Hungarian historical scholarship was beyond question the most elaborate in the Habsburg monarchy and the least dependent on the Viennese academic infrastructure.

The Second Wave: Croatia and Galicia

The second wave of separation of the imperial space of historiography started in the 1870s in Croatia and in Galicia. The idea of an independent academic space centered on Zagreb dates back at least to 1848, when a Zagreb-based university was initiated. This awkward wording is the result of the unclear concept behind these initiatives: in theory, a Yugoslav space and science were imagined but the very political realities (the fact that the other South Slav countries, particularly Serbia, lay outside the Habsburg monarchy and the controversial relations between Croatian and Serbian intellectuals) had to be acknowledged by the Croatian politics. The first institutions of this academic space bore the name South Slav: it was the Society of Yugoslav History and Antiquities/Društvo za jugoslavensku povjesnicu i starine, established in 1850, which published­ an irregular Arkiv za pověstnicu jugoslavensku (Matković and Buczynski 2006: 1277). More significant developments followed the liberal reforms and the ­Croatian-Hungarian Compromise (Nagodba) of 1868, which provided Croa- tia with autonomy in cultural and educational matters. In 1866 the Yugoslav Academy of Arts and Sciences/Jugoslavenska akademija znanosti i umjet- nosti was established in Zagreb (Brunnbauer 2010). Eight years later, the Uni- versity of ­Zagreb was founded with chairs for Croatian and universal history. Matija Mesić was appointed to the chair of Croatian history, while Natko No- dilo became professor for universal history. Mesić studied in Zagreb, Prague, and Vienna, while Nodilo was educated in Zara/Zadar and Vienna. Further ­professionalization at the University of Zagreb followed in 1893, when the chair for universal history was divided into departments for ancient history (Nodilo) and medieval and modern history (Vjekoslav Klaić, a graduate of the University of Vienna). In 1908, Milan Šufflay, a former extraordinary student of the IfÖG and a graduate of the Zagreb University, was appointed extraordinary professor for auxiliary sciences. This means that in Zagreb four history chairs existed on the eve of the Great War; the level of specialization was thus less elaborate than in Vienna and Budapest but corresponded to that of the smaller universities of the Habsburg monarchy. The University of Vienna remained an important institution for Croatian historians: both ­successors of Mesić of the

east central europe 44 (2017) 341-366 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:37:47PM via free access

352 Varga chair of Croatian history, Tadija Smičiklas and Ferdo Šišić, attended it for some semesters; the former completed the IfÖG as first among Croatian scholars (Boranić 1925: 110) In the following decades, the University of Zagreb and the Yugoslav Acad- emy emerged as the backbones of Croatian historiography (the Society of ­Yugoslav History and Antiquities lost its initial dynamics, suspended its histor- ical journal, and instead focused on archaeology) (Tomić 2016). The ­Academy published sources of Croatian history in its yearbook Starine since 1869. The institutional network of the Croatian historiography was thus incomplete: a professional journal devoted to history only was not established, and thus Croatian historians had to publish their works in non-specialized journals. The specialization at the university was also less elaborate than at other universi- ties of the Habsburg monarchy, forcing Croatian historians-to-be to rely on the expertise of the University of Vienna. Nonetheless, the autonomy and inner integration of the Croatian histori- ography was beyond doubt. Even the professors for universal history focused on Croatian history (Klaić authored one of the most important works on me- dieval Croatia). Despite the adjective “Yugoslav” in the names of the Academy and the Society, de facto both of them, together with the University of Zagreb, functioned as Croatian national institutions. In Galicia, the 1860s witnessed the start of methodological innovation, yet, at that point within the Austrian academic community. In 1861, the Viennese Heinrich Zeissberg was appointed to the chair of history in Lemberg. Having studied at both at the University of Vienna and at the IfÖG, Zeissberg was the first important modern historian at this university. Although he lectured in German, he learned Polish and published important works on medieval Pol- ish history. In 1869, his chair was divided into Austrian and universal history departments. Zeissberg kept the chair for universal history, while the Moravian German Robert Rösler, a graduate of the University of Vienna and the IfÖG, was appointed to the chair of Austrian history (Lundgreen 2005: 166). In the same year, separation of chairs took place in Cracow, too, but with a significant difference. During the 1860s Walewski taught universal history while Wachholz focused on Austrian history. In 1869 a separate chair for Polish history was created by appointing Józef Szujski, a Galician scholar receiving education in Cracow and Vienna, to extraordinary professor (Wöller 2014: 53). In 1871, Galicia became practically self-governing in domestic matters (Maner 2007: 139–146). In Cracow, Polish instruction replaced German im- mediately. In Lemberg, within a few years Polish became the dominant lan- guage of instruction; German and Ruthenian disappeared from the lectures of the ­Faculty of Philosophy in 1876 and 1882, respectively (the department

east centralDownloaded europe from 44 Brill.com10/02/2021 (2017) 341-366 10:37:47PM via free access

Making and Unmaking of an Austrian Space 353 of ­philology was, obviously, exempt of this process) (Binder 2003: 190). Zeiss- berg and Rösler had to leave Lemberg; the former went to Innsbruck, the lat- ter to Graz. Replacing Zeissberg, Ksawery Liske became the first profession- ally trained Polish historian at the chair of universal history. Liske was born in the Province of Posen/Poznań (Prussia) and was educated at the best German universities of the time (Breslau/Wrocław, Berlin, and Leipzig). The chair for Austrian history was occupied by the Galician Izydor Szaraniewicz, who stud- ied theology and was thus methodologically less trained. The specialization of the discipline ­developed further in 1883, when a separate chair for Polish history was created, occupied by the Cracow graduate Tadeusz Wojciechowski. Further specialization took place in 1907 in the establishment of a chair for modern history (Lundgreen 2005: 166–169). In Cracow, Walewski and Wacholz died in the mid-1870s. A department for Austrian history was created as late as 1876, offered to the Galician Stanisław Smolka, a graduate of Göttingen. The Galician Polish community of historians became practically inde- pendent from the Habsburg academic historical space from the 1870s. The ­structure of the history chairs at the two Galician universities was quite simi- lar: the central departments were the chairs for Polish, Austrian, and general history. In fact, professors of Austrian history practiced Polish history, too. ­Szaraniewicz published mainly on Ruthenian history; his successor Ludwig Finkel ­specialized in early modern Poland. In Cracow, both Smolka and his successor Anatol Lewicki focused mainly on medieval Poland; Smolka even left his chair for Austrian history for the department of Polish history in 1883. The Galician Polish research infrastructure became almost complete by the late 1880s. In 1872, the Cracow Academic Society was transformed into a Cracow Academy of Learning/Akademie Umiejętności w Krakowie, which soon became the most prestigious Polish academic institution (Brzozowski 1990). The year 1879 witnessed the foundation of a Polish National Museum in ­Cracow. In 1886, a Historical Association/Towarzystwo Historyczne was estab- lished in Lemberg, which started to publish Kwartalnik Historyczny, the first solid Polish academic journal for history, in 1887. This journal discussed almost exclusively Polish history (Wöller 2014: 56; Hadler 1999). The making of a Galician Polish scientific community meant a radical de- tachment from the Austrian space of historical scholarship. The last professors in Lemberg to have attended the IfÖG were Zeissberg and Rösler. Indeed, since the Polonization of the University of Lemberg, professors with the exception of Wojciechowski did not even study at Austrian universities outside Galicia. From the four full professors appointed around and after the turn of the ­twentieth century, only one was Galician (Ludwig Finkel), but even he complemented his Lemberg education with studies in Berlin and Paris. Among the other­ three,

east central europe 44 (2017) 341-366 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:37:47PM via free access

354 Varga

Bronislaw Dembiński originated from Prussia and studied in Breslau and Ber- lin; Stanislaw Zakrzewski and Szymon Askenazy came from Congress Poland (the former studied mainly in Cracow, and made study trips to ­Vienna and Berlin, while the latter studied in Warsaw and Göttingen) (Lundgreen 2005: 168–69). In Cracow, Jozef Szujski and Stanisław Henryk Krzyżanowski (first ex- traordinary professor of auxiliary sciences, later full professor of Polish history) were the only professors to have studied in Vienna; the latter was the only full professor at a Galician university since 1871 to have completed the course of the IfÖG, too. The other professors were mostly Galicians receiving their edu- cation either in Cracow or in Lemberg, in a few cases in Germany. Polish history dominated the subject of research by Galician scholars. As opposed to a mere three habilitations in Austrian history, twelve persons ha- bilitated in Polish history at the two Galician universities (Surman 2012: 317). Thus it is not surprising that the Commission for Modern Austrian History, a research network established in 1901 to deepen research into early modern ­history, had one Galician member only: the Lemberg professor of univer- sal history Bronisław Dembiński participated between 1916 and 1918 (Fellner 2001: 248). Papers in Kwartalnik Historyczny discussed Polish history mostly and source publications by the Ossolineum and the Historical Committee of the Cracow Academy of Sciences covered all territories of the former Polish Commonwealth (Surman 2014). Jan Surman summarized this as the follow- ing: “Galicia topically detached itself from the Habsburg universities, gradually moving towards the creation and analysis of Polish collective imagination and history, which were banned or steered in pro-Habsburg direction in the first years after the 1848 revolution” (Surman 2012: 318).

The Making of Parallel Spaces: Bohemia

The third wave of the making of a national academic space took longer than the first two. Due to the large German-speaking minority and the advanced and deep-rooted position of German language in the high culture in the Bohemian­ lands, the development of a Czech academic space was far more contested than in the other discussed cases. In contrast to Hungary, Croatia, and Galicia, where the national languages replaced German and local scholars substituted German-Austrians immediately after political conditions became favorable, in the Bohemian lands this process took several decades and led to a double aca- demic infrastructure. At the University of Prague, bilingual education was demanded first by ­students in 1848. In 1866, completely bilingual education was introduced (Lemberg 2003). In practice this meant that the government appointed full

east centralDownloaded europe from 44 Brill.com10/02/2021 (2017) 341-366 10:37:47PM via free access

Making and Unmaking of an Austrian Space 355 and extraordinary professors for the same chair, trying to find the balance be- tween the German and the Czech lecturers (Kolař 2008: 42). The main question of the following years was whether a university with two equal languages could function. The answer was negative: due to increasing tensions between Czech and German politics, professors, and students, the university was divided into two monolingual institutions in 1882 which hardly maintained any contact with each other (Maurer 2000). Most professors chose the German university but the historians’ choices were more balanced: two full and two extraordinary professors preferred the German university, while the Czech one attracted one full and two extraordinary professors. Similar to Galician universities, the Czech University of Prague also estab- lished a chair for Bohemian history besides the chairs for general and Austrian history. Yet, also professors of Austrian history engaged mostly in research into Bohemian topics: the professors of this department, Václav Tomek, Antonín Rezek, Josef Pekař, and Kamil Krofta, belonged to the most prestigious scholars of Czech history. National separation took place at the other academic institutions, too. The publications of the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences were printed mostly in German until the 1840s, in both Czech and German until the 1880s, and finally mostly in Czech after the 1880s (Schwippel 1995). Yet, the increasing Czech domination in the Royal Bohemian Society did not satisfy proponents of Czech scholarship. In 1890, the Emperor Francis Joseph Czech Academy of Sciences, Literature, and Arts/České akademie císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy, slovesnost a umění was established to promote exclusive Czech scholarship. As the last important institution, a professional journal under the title Český časopis historický has been published since 1895 with a focus on Czech national history. However, the detachment of the Czech academic space from the Austrian was less definite than in the Hungarian and Galician cases. The leading Czech historian of the fin-de-siècle, Jaroslav Goll, encouraged a number of Prague students to attend the IfÖG.7 None of the professors of the Czech University of Prague studied in Germany; if they completed their genuine Prague studies, then they went to Vienna. Between its 1897 foundation and 1916, the Commis- sion for Modern Austrian History had only Czechs as non-German members: Antonín Rezek served as first chairman (resigned in 1902) and Jaroslav Goll (between 1900 and 1918) (Fellner 2001).

7 They were Gustav Friedrich (professor of auxiliary sciences from 1918), Kamil Krofta (associ- ate professor of Austrian history from 1912), and Jozef Šusta (associate professor of universal history from 1907).

east central europe 44 (2017) 341-366 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:37:47PM via free access

356 Varga

The Incomplete Systems

In addition to these four full-fledged academic spaces, a number of others­ emerged, albeit not creating a complete system of institutions. The most suc- cessful among them was the Ukrainian space. The Lemberg-based Shevchenko Scientific Society/Naukove Tovarystvo imeni Shevchenka (1873) functioned as a de facto academy and published the general academic journal Zapysky ­Naukovoho tovarystva im. Shevchenka (1892) (Wöller 2014: 57, 71). A Ukrainian national museum was founded in 1909 in the same city (Yaniv 1996). At the Lemberg University, a Ukrainian language chair for universal history with a focus on Eastern Europe was created in 1894; the awkward wording was the result of a Polish-Ukrainian-Viennese compromise but in fact the major pr­ ofile of the department was Ukrainian history. The first candidate of the Min- istry of ­Culture and Education was the respected Kiev professor Volodymyr Antonovych; yet, he felt himself too old to take on the burden of developing a new department. Instead of himself he recommended his talented student Mykhailo Hrushevsky, who was regarded politically ideal and thus won the chair. The fragility of this new-born scientific space is shown by Hrushevsky himself: when invited to the chair in Lemberg, he was a mere 24 years old, had not earned even his Master’s degree, and knew no world languages but only Slavic ones. Before moving to Lemberg as full professor, he completed his Mas- ter’s degree but he did not feel the need to earn either a PhD or to ­habilitate— in fin-de-siècle Austria he was the only full professor of history without these qualifications (Plokhy 2005). Despite these formal shortcomings, Hrushevsky developed a new, democratic master narrative on Ukrainian history, chal- lenged the Polish national reading of Galicia, and thus became a key figure in the making of Ukrainian nationalism. The impetus of a Romanian historical community became visible in 1912 when a chair for Southeast European history with a focus on the history of ­Romanians was established at the University of Czernowitz. This department was created to fulfil the demands of Romanian nationalist youth in Bukovina. The Bukovina-born and Vienna-educated (doctorate and habilitation) Ion Nistor was appointed to this chair and did not hide his Romanian national- ist agenda, even though the language of instruction was German (Michelson 2010). Yet, neither in Bukovina nor in Hungary (Transylvania) did a Romanian historical school emerge; the center of the Romanian historical scholarship was to be found in the Kingdom of Romania. Other national academic communities were less successful. In Hungary, even secondary education was largely Magyarized and either an institution of higher learning or any professional academic body in any language but Magyar

east centralDownloaded europe from 44 Brill.com10/02/2021 (2017) 341-366 10:37:47PM via free access

Making and Unmaking of an Austrian Space 357 belonged to the world of absurdity. In Cisleithania, several groups demanded the establishment of new universities: Galician Ukrainians demanded their own university in Lemberg, German Catholics called for a Catholic university in Salzburg, Slovenes preferred a university in Ljubljana/Laibach, Italian ini- tiatives for either a faculty of law or an entire university included locations in Innsbruck, Rovereto, Trieste, and Vienna, and even the founding of a second Czech university in Moravia was discussed. For a variety of reasons, including political and fiscal ones, none of these initiatives materialized.8 Thus, Italian, Slovenian, Serbian, and Slovak intellectuals created semi-academic associa- tions and journals but the other key elements of academic infrastructure were not available for them.

The Forced Space: German-Austrian Historians

A consequence of the detachment and autonomous development of the above discussed academic spaces was the making of a Germanophone scientific ­community in the Cisleithanian part of the Habsburg monarchy. Although Ger- man was still the lingua franca of historians in any province of the Habsburg monarchy, it was in fact considered as a language of just one national space. The backbone of the German-Austrian space were the Alpine universi- ties (Vienna, Graz, and Innsbruck), Vienna being obviously in the dominant position. The German university in Prague and the University of Czernow- itz (­established in 1875 as an eastern outpost of Germanophone scholar- ship) completed this system. Specialization was most elaborate in Vienna, where in 1914 historical scholarship was divided among eleven departments; at the other Germanophone­ universities, the number of departments was approximately half. A typical career pattern of a German-Austrian historian involved training, doctoral degree, and habilitation in Vienna (if the person was a medievalist, the training included the course of the IfÖG), a junior position at some other

8 In 1866 the imperial government referred to the insufficient number of Slovene and Italian scholars for the establishment of a Slovene or Italian university, respectively. On the eve of wwi, the university question became a heated issue in the Austrian parliament and the rival nationalist groups supported or blocked it according to their actual interests. For instance, in 1913 the Italian deputies in the Austrian Parliament allied with German parties and the establishment of an Italian faculty of law in Trieste was decided. During the debate, a Slove- nian and a Ukrainian university was demanded, too. Yet, the Italian faculty fell victim to the obstruction of Czech deputies which adjourned the session of the parliament (Schusser 1972, 19–20, 414–26).

east central europe 44 (2017) 341-366 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:37:47PM via free access

358 Varga

Germanophone university of the Monarchy, and finally professorship again in Vienna. For instance, Heinrich Zeissberg earned his qualifications in Vienna, and became associate and then full professor in Lemberg. Due to the Poloni- zation of the Lemberg University, he had to change to Innsbruck, but there he spent one year only before he occupied a chair in Vienna. August Fournier also studied and habilitated in Vienna. He became full professor of universal history at the German University of Prague, which he left first for the Technical University in Vienna, to end up at the University of Vienna. An often-quoted bon mot reveals the hierarchy of the German academic space: Austrian schol- ars were “sentenced to Chernivtsi, pardoned to Graz, promoted to Vienna” (­Surman 2012: 252). After the wave of invitations of scholars from Germany in the 1850s, outsiders had quite limited chances to earn positions at history de- partments of the Germanophone Austrian universities. No historian trained at Czech, Galician, Hungarian, or Croatian universities entered a history depart- ment of an Austrian Germanophone university and only a handful of scholars from Germany earned a position there (the Kassel-born Max Büdinger taught universal history in Vienna from 1872, whereas the Aachen-born Ludwig Pastor habilitated in Graz and lectured in modern history in Innsbruck from 1881).9 In contrast to the initial membership composition of the Imperial Acad- emy of Sciences, from the 1850s non-German historians were rarely honored by membership. Between 1854 and 1918, twenty historians were elected as ordi- nary members of the Imperial Academy of Sciences and they were all German. What non-German historians could achieve was corresponding membership: two Czech (Beda Dudík in 1865 and Tomek in 1876) and three Hungarian (Sán- dor Szilágyi in 1896, Árpád Károlyi in 1910, Albert Berzeviczy in 1916) scholars were honored by this award, but no one from Galicia or Croatia. (The Com- promise created separate Hungarian citizenship, therefore only corresponding membership could be offered to Hungarian scholars, who counted as foreign- ers). This low number actually meant that the Imperial Academy of Sciences honored as many French historians with corresponding membership as non- German historians of the Habsburg monarchy.10 This absurd situation made the renowned linguist Vatroslav Jagić, one of the few non-German professors of the University of Vienna and an ordinary member of Imperial Academy of Sciences, to claim that the Imperial Academy was a pure German institution.

9 Austrian universities were in general less appealing than German ones, because the aca- demic salaries were higher in the German Empire. 10 They were Eugène de Rozière, Ulysee Robert, Georges Perrot, Gabriel Monod and Louis Duchesne (Meister 1947: 393).

east centralDownloaded europe from 44 Brill.com10/02/2021 (2017) 341-366 10:37:47PM via free access

Making and Unmaking of an Austrian Space 359

Jagić criticized the Viennese academy also for its diplomatic relations: accord- ing to him, the Imperial Academy maintained relations with academies in the German Empire but ignored Slavic societies (Gottas 1997: 57). The narrowing research focus is tangible in source publications and ­research agendas. The Diplomataria et Acta series of the Fontes rerum Austria­ carum contained mostly medieval sources from the Alpine lands and about the dynasty in particular, the editors being exclusively Germanophone schol- ars.11 The focus of the book series Archiv für Kunde österreichischer Geschichts­ quellen was similar to the Fontes, though it was less explicit in concentrating on the imperial core. During and shortly after his Lemberg period, Heinrich Zeissberg published papers about Polish history in the Archiv. Hungarian history was discussed on these pages by Alfons Huber (professor of Austrian history in Innsbruck, then in Vienna) in the 1880s and occasionally by Franz Krones. The Czernowitz professor Raimund Friedrich Kaindl used the same journal to publish a few papers about Galician and Hungarian history. Oth- erwise, topics related to geographical core of the Habsburg lands (i.e., Alpine and Bohemian provinces); the central administration and the dynasty and the history of the Holy Roman Empire dominate the agenda of the Archiv.12 Here too, the authorship is dominated by Germanophone scholars: between 1848 and 1877, 89 were Germans from Austria, 26 Germans from Germany, and a mere three Czech and Italian Austrians published in the Archiv (Pischinger 2000: 237). The source collections of the Commission for Modern Austrian His- tory covered ­exclusively documents related to the central administration and Austrian foreign policy (Fellner 2001: 229–230). The uncertainties of the very subject of German-Austrian history and iden- tity (caught between a pan-German national and cultural and an Austrian po- litical identity) certainly hindered the research agenda of the German-Austrian historians. These uncertainties and the forced making of the German-Austrian community may explain why the infrastructure of the German-Austrian com- munity of historians remained incomplete. No association was founded to promote German-Austrian history; instead, regional associations having a nar- rower but more tangible focus, channeled the attention of a larger audience to historical scholarship. Since there was no Austrian nation, neither was an Aus- trian national museum established; in this field, again, provinces maintained their dominant position (Raffler 2007: 150–54). A comprehensive journal

11 See the table of contents: https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/%C3%96sterreichische_Gesc hichtsquellen_(Fontes_rerum_Austriacarum). 12 See its table of contents: http://legacy.fordham.edu/mvst/magazinestacks/aeog1.html.

east central europe 44 (2017) 341-366 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:37:47PM via free access

360 Varga

­devoted to Austrian history was not launched either: the IfÖG’s Mitteilungen (published from 1880) focused on medieval history and was source-oriented. A German sub-community of historians crystallized in Bohemia. As ear- ly as in 1862, an Association for the History of Germans in Bohemia/Verein für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen was funded to counterbalance the emerging Czech national reading of the past. This society published its own ­journal (Mitteilungen des Vereines für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen) and a number of source editions and monographs, edited and written by Bohe- mian ­German scholars (Oberdorffer 1962). In the division of the Prague uni- versity into two institutions in 1882 and the 1891 establishment of a de facto academy, the Association­ to Promote German Scholarship, Arts, and Literature in ­Bohemia/Gesellschaft zur Förderung deutscher Wissenschaft, Kunst und ­Literatur in Böhmen (which was a response to the creation of a Czech acade- my a year ­before), the institutionalization of the Bohemian German academic­ community was completed (Míšková and Neumüller 1994). Most professors at the ­University of Prague originated from the Bohemian lands and studied in Prague. This was indeed the case with the most powerful members of the ­Seminar of Hist­ ory, Adolf Bachmann and Emil Werunsky (Kolař 2008: 72). Only the Bavarian ­Konstantin Höfler, the Tyrolian Julius Jung, and the Hungarian Jewish Samuel Steinherz took root in Prague. The other few ­non-Bohemian historians ­employed in Prague used this opportunity as a springboard to more prestigious universities in Austria and Germany. The publications of the Association for the History of Germans in Bohemia concerned mostly Bohe- mian topics, urban and local history being important issues. The German pro- fessors in Prague had a somewhat wider spectrum, as their research agenda connected Bohemian and German imperial history (Reichsgeschichte). Thus, the Bohemian German community of historians formed an autonomous aca- demic space and at the same time was part of a larger community of German historians.

Conclusion

Most European governments were able to make the boundaries of their states and those of the professionalized epistemic communities correspond, and thus turn the scientific communities into agents in the making of modern, integrat- ed nation-states. The Habsburg Monarchy certainly had the impetus of this process during the Vormärz, when academic life was organized in provincial framework with a potential to become imperially integrated. During the 1850s an integrated scientific community emerged, although the level of integration

east centralDownloaded europe from 44 Brill.com10/02/2021 (2017) 341-366 10:37:47PM via free access

Making and Unmaking of an Austrian Space 361 varied from institution to institution. This unity, however, was short-lived and disappeared step by step after 1867. Even though some central institutions, most importantly in the natural sciences (like the Central Bureau for Meteo- rology and Terrestrial Magnetism in Vienna), were able to integrate scholars from the entire Habsburg Monarchy, the general pattern was the emergence of scientific communities based on language, strongly associated with “national- ity” (Surman 2012: 484). On the eve of the Great War, the only institutions relevant for historical ­research having a focus on the Habsburg monarchy in its entirety were the ar- chives: the Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, the Hofkammerarchiv and the Krieg- sarchiv. The extension of the archival system beyond Vienna was fragile and accidental: Hungary (and by the same token, Croatia) were ab ovo exempt, whereas in the Cisleithanian part of the Monarchy the imperial network of ar- chives was incomplete, as in a handful of provinces (Upper Austria, Carinthia, Carniola, Silesia, the Littoral) no state archives were established (Hochedlinger­ 2013: 165). Historical associations, being the most dynamic institutions of ­historical inquiry around the middle of the century, and universities, the key lieux de l’histoire from the last third of the century, gradually became detached from the imperial academic community and became parts of national spaces which often transgressed existing political borders. The flow of the academ- ics was restricted to the national systems and national history dominated ­research agendas. Cisleithanian universities were under the control of the imperial ­government; yet, the Ministry of Culture and Education had to en- dure the increasing national pressure which led to the introduction of na- tional languages of instruction, the creation of imperially funded chairs for national ­history, and the preference for scholars fitting to the national agenda. The monumental attempt to imperialize the structure of historical scholarship largely failed. The dynamic of this failure was clearly and immediately driven by high poli- tics. An empire-wide space of historical research existed in fact only during the 1850s, the only period in the Habsburg Monarchy of completely centralized ad- ministration. After the failure of neo-absolutism, it was the October Diploma­ and the Compromise which gave way to the formation of the Hungarian aca- demic system; the Hungarian-Croatian Compromise and the introduction of Galician autonomy ensured the making of Croatian and Galician Polish sci- entific communities; in Bohemia, the emergence of Czech academia mirrored Czech-German political confrontation; in Galicia and in Bukovina the rising Ukrainian and Romanian nationalisms forced the establishment of history departments practically centered on national history at the state-sponsored universities.

east central europe 44 (2017) 341-366 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:37:47PM via free access

362 Varga

Pieter Judson has recently demonstrated the vital structures that held the Habsburg monarchy together. He ascribes a particular role to state-driven in- stitutions in the empire-building process (Judson 2016). Although employed in most cases by state-run universities, the altogether few hundred professional historians hardly fit into this picture. By forming national communities and promoting national agendas, professional historical scholarship was indeed a centrifugal force and certainly undermined the Habsburg monarchy.

Bibliography

Binder, Harald. 2003. “Der nationale Konflikt um die Universität Lemberg.” In Místo národních jazyků ve výchově, školství a vědě v Habsburské Monarchii/Position of na­ tional languages in education, educational system and science of the Habsburg Mon­ archy, 1867–1918, edited by Harald Binder, Barbora Křivohlavá, and Luboš Velek, 183–215. Prague: Výzkumné centrum pro dějiny vědy. Boranić, Dragutin, ed. 1925. Sveučilište Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca u Zagrebu 1874–1924: ­Spomenica akademičkoga senata [The University of the Kingdom of Serbs, ­Croats, and Slovenes in Zagreb 1874–1924: A memorial of the university sen- ate]. 1925. ­Zagreb: Tisak zaklade tiskare Narodnih Novina. Brunnbauer, Ulf. 2010. “Croatia.” In Atlas of European Historiography: The Making of a Profession 1800–2005, edited by Ilaria Porciani and Lutz Raphael, 102–103. Basing- stoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Brzozowski, Stanisław. 1990. “Die Entstehung der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Krakau.” In Galizien um die Jahrhundertwende: Politische, soziale und kulturelle Verbindungen mit Österreich, edited by Karlheinz Mack, 89–97. Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik. Cella, Sergio. 1988. “De Leva, Giuseppe.” Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 36. Accessed 30 September 2017. http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/giuseppe-de -leva_(Dizionario-Biografico)/. Curato, Frederico. 1973. “Girolamo Turroni professore di storia nell’Università di Pavia.” In Studi in onore de Carlo Emilio Ferri, vol. 2, 179–209. Milan: Dott. A. Giuffre. Dopsch, Heinz. 2002. “Geschichtsvereine in Österreich: Anfänge und Entwicklungen – Leistungen – Aufgaben.” Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte 138: 67–94. Fellner, Fritz. 2001. “… ein wahrhaft patriotischer Werk”: Die Kommission für Neuere Geschichte­ Österreichs. Vienna: Böhlau. Fráter, Jánosné. 1966. A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Történettudományi Bizott­ ságának működése (1854–1949) [The operation of the Commission of History of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, 1854–1949]. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Aka- démia Könyvtára.

east centralDownloaded europe from 44 Brill.com10/02/2021 (2017) 341-366 10:37:47PM via free access

Making and Unmaking of an Austrian Space 363

Gaal, György. 2001. Egyetem a Farkas utcában. A kolozsvári Ferenc József Tudománye­ gyetem előzményei, korszakai és vonzatai [University in the Farkas Street: The ante- cedents, periods, and connections of the University of Cluj]. Cluj: Erdélyi Magyar Műszaki Tudományos Társaság. Glatz, Ferenc. 1974. “Szaktudományos kérdésfelvetések és történetpolitikai koncep- ció. A fiatal Szekfű Gyula bécsi éveinek történetéből [Professional questions and ­historical-political concept: From the history of the years the young Gyula Szekfű spent in Vienna].” Történelmi Szemle 17, no. 3: 396–420. Gottas, Friedrich. 1997. “Universitäten, wissenschaftliche Gesellschaften und Akade- mien in Mitteleuropa des 19. Jahrhunderts.” In Mitteleuropa: Idee, Wissenschaft und Kultur im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, edited by Richard G. Plaschka, Horst Haselsteiner, and Anna M. Drabek, 42–61. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Hadler, Frank. 1999. “Századok – Kwartalnik Historyczny – Český Časopis Historický: Drei Konstanten ostmitteleuropäischer Historiographiegeschichte.” In Historische Zeitschriften im internationalen Vergleich, edited by Matthias Middel, 145–159. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsanstalt. Hochedlinger, Michael. 2013. Österreichische Archivgeschichte: Vom Spätmittelalter bis zum Ende des Papierzeitalters. Vienna; Munich: Böhlau; Oldenbourg. Höflechner, Walter. 2015. Das Fach “Geschichte” an der Philosophischen resp. Geisteswis­ senschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Graz: Vertretung und Institution von den An­ fängen bis zur Gegenwart. Mit Bemerkungen zu Wien und Prag. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. Höflechner, Walter. 2017. “Die Thun’schen Reformen im Kontext der Wissenschafts­ entwicklung in Österreich.” In Die Thun-Hohenstein’schen Universitätsreformen 1849–1860: Konzeption – Umsetzung – Nachwirkungen, edited by Brigitte Mazohl and Christoph Aichner, 28–52. Vienna: Böhlau. Judson, Pieter M. 2016. The Habsburg Empire: A New History. Cambridge, ma; London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Kolař, Pavel. 2008. Geschichtswissenschaft in Zentraleuropa: Die Universitäten Prag, Wien und Berlin um 1900. Leipzig: ava Akademische Verlagsanstalt. Lakos, János. 2006. A Magyar Országos Levéltár törtenete [The history of the Hungarian National Archives]. Budapest: Magyar Országos Levéltár. Lemberg, Hans. 2003. “Universität oder Universitäten in Prag und der Wandel der Lehrsprache.” In Universitäten in nationaler Konkurrenz: Zur Geschichte der Prager Universitäten im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, edited by Hans Lemberg, 20–32. Munich: Oldenbourg. Lentze, Hans. 1962. Die Universitätsreform des Ministers Graf Leo Thun-Hohenstein. ­Vienna: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. Lhotsky, Alphons. 1954. Geschichte des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 1854–1954. Graz: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf.

east central europe 44 (2017) 341-366 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:37:47PM via free access

364 Varga

Lukinich Imre. 1918. A Magyar Történelmi Társulat története 1867–1917: Alapításának félszázados évfordulójára [The history of the Hungarian Association for History 1867–1917: On the 50th anniversary of its foundation]. Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat. Lundgreen, Peter. 2005. “Die Universität Lemberg und ihre Historiker (1784–1914).” Jahr­buch für Universitätsgeschichte 8: 157–183. Maner, Hans-Christian. 2007. Galizien: Eine Grenzregion im Kalkül der Donaumonar­ chie im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Munich: ikgs Verlag. Matković, Stjepan, and Alexander Buczynski. 2006. “Das kroatische Vereinswesen.” In Politische Öffentlichkeit und Zivilgesellschaft, edited by Helmut Rumpler and Peter Urbanitsch, vol. 1, 1273–1299. Vol. 8 of Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Maurer, Trude. 2000. “National oder supranational? Prag und Czernowitz: Zwei deutsche Universitäten in Ostmitteleuropa (1875/1882–1914).” Zeitschrift für Ostmitteleuropa­ -Forschung 49, no. 3: 341–82. Meister, Richard. 1947. Geschichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 1847–1947. Vienna: Adolf Holzhausen. Michelson, Paul E. 2010. “Ion I. Nistor and the Development of Romanian Historiogra- phy in Bucovina to the Union of 1918.” Codrul Cosminului 16, no. 1: 59–81. Míšková, Alena, and Michael Neumüller. 1994. Společnost pro podporu německé vědy, umění a literatury v Čechách (Německá akademie věd v Praze): Materiály k dějinám a inventář archivního fondu, 1891–1945/Die Gesellschaft zur Förderung deutscher ­Wissenschaft, Kunst und Literatur in Böhmen (Deutsche Akademie der Wissen­ schaften in Prag): Materialen zu ihrer Geschichte und Inventar des Archivbestandes 1891–1945. Prague: Archiv Akademie věd České republiky. Oberdorffer, Kurt. 1962. “Der Verein für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen 1862– 1938.” Bohemia 3: 9–29. Oberkofler, Gerhard. 1969. Die geschichtlichen Fächer an der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Innsbruck 1850–1945. Innsbruck: Universität Innsbruck. Ottner, Christine. 2014. “Historical Research and Cultural History in Nineteenth-­ Century Austria: The Archivist Joseph Chmel (1798–1858).” Austrian History Year­ book 45: 115–133. Pichler, Rupert. 2006. “Vereinswesen und politischer Raum in Lombardo-Venetien.” In Politische Öffentlichkeit und Zivilgesellschaft, edited by Helmut Rumpler and ­Peter Urbanitsch, 1: 909–940. Vol. 8. of Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918. Vienna: ­Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Pischinger, Gudrun. 2000. “Vom ‘Dilettanten’ zum Fachwissenschaftler: Die Historische Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1847 bis 1877 und die Professionalisierung der Geschichtswissenschaft.” Mensch, Wissenschaft, Magie 20: 221–242.

east centralDownloaded europe from 44 Brill.com10/02/2021 (2017) 341-366 10:37:47PM via free access

Making and Unmaking of an Austrian Space 365

Plokhy, Serhii. 2005. Unmaking Imperial Russia: Mykhailo Hrushevsky and the Writing of Ukrainian History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Porciani, Ilaria, and Jo Tollebeek. 2012. “Institutions, Networks and Communities in a European Perspective.” In Setting the Standards: Institutions, Networks and ­Communities of National Historiography, edited by Ilaria Porciani and Jo Tollebeek, 3–26. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Raffler, Marlies. 2007. Museum-Spiegel der Nation? Zugänge zur historischen Muse­ ologie am Beispiel der Genese von Landes- und Nationalmuseen in der Habsburgermonar­ chie. Vienna: Böhlau. Redlich, Oswald. 1914. “Zur Geschichte des historischen Seminars an der Univer- sität Wien.” In Festschrift des Akademischen Vereines deutscher Historiker in Wien: ­Herausgegeben anläßlich der Feier des 25jährigen Bestandes, 159–70. Vienna: Selbstverlag. Ress, Imre. 2010. “Adalék a dinasztikus tudományos elit nacionalizálódásához az ­Osztrák-Magyar Monarchiában a bécsi udvari levéltárak példáján (1867–1885) [The nationalization of the dynastic academic elite in the Austro-Hungarian Monar- chy as shown in the example of the archives in Vienna, 1867–1885].” In Political, social, economic and cultural elites in the Central- and East-European States in mo­ dernity and post-modernity: Hungarian-Bulgarian History Conference Budapest, May ­14–15, 2009, edited by Gábor Demeter and Penka Peykovska, 13–37. Sofia; Budapest: n. p. Řezník, Miloš. 2014. “Wácslaw Wladiwoj Tomek, das Ministerium für Cultus und Unter- richt und die Einführung der historischen Seminare in Österreich: Die Institution- alisierung der Geschichswissenschaft zwischen Staat, Nation und akademischer Neuorientierung.” In Geschichtsforschung in Deutschland und Österreich im 19. ­Jahrhundert. Ideen – Akteure – Institutionen, edited by Christine Ottner and Klaus Ries, 139–57. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Schusser, Adalbert. 1972. “Zur Entwicklung der italienischen Universitätsfrage in ­Österreich (1861–1918): Untersuchungen über das Verhalten von Regierung und ­Parlament zur Schaffung einer italienischen Rechtsfakultät.” PhD. diss., University of Vienna. Schwippel, Jindřich. 1995. “Königlich böhmische Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (böhmisch oder tschechisch?).” Germanoslavica 2 (7), no. 1: 73–81. Surman, Jan. 2012. “Habsburg Universities 1848–1918: Biography of a Space.” PhD. diss., University of Vienna. Surman, Jan. 2014. “Objektivität, Bestandsaufnahme, Territorium. Galizische Quell- eneditionen und ihre Verortung zwischen wissenschaftlichen und ideologischen Ansprüchen.” In Geschichtsforschung in Deutschland und Österreich im 19. Jahr­ hundert. Ideen – Akteure – Institutionen, edited by Christine Ottner and Klaus Ries, 198–222. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

east central europe 44 (2017) 341-366 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:37:47PM via free access

366 Varga

Szentpétery, Imre. 1935. A Bölcsészettudományi Kar története [The history of the ­Faculty of Philosophy]. Budapest: Királyi Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda. Tomić, Filip. 2016. “The Institutionalization of Expert Systems in the Kingdom of ­Croatia and Slavonia: The Founding of the University of Zagreb as the Keystone of Historiographic Professionalization, 1867–1918.” Hungarian Historical Review 5, no. 2: 305–331 Török, Borbála Zsuzsanna. 2016. Exploring Transylvania: Geographies of Knowledge and Entangled Histories in a Multiethnic Province, 1790–1918. Leiden: Brill. Urmann, Martin E. 2014. “Geschichtswissenschaftliche Forschungsbedingungen an der Universität Innsbruck im Tiroler Umfeld: Julius Ficker und seine historische Schule.” In Geschichtsforschung in Deutschland und Österreich im 19. Jahrhundert. Ideen – Akteure – Institutionen, edited by Christine Ottner and Klaus Ries, 158–179. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Wöller, Burkhard. 2014. “Europa” als historisches Argument: Nationsbildungsstrat­ egien polnischer und ukrainischer Historiker im habsburgischen Galizien. Bochum: Winkler. Yaniv, Sofiia. 1996. “National Museum.” Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine. Accessed 30 September 2017. http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pag es%5CN%5CA%5CNationalMuseum.htm.

east centralDownloaded europe from 44 Brill.com10/02/2021 (2017) 341-366 10:37:47PM via free access