![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
For a long time, the late period of the Habsburg Monarchy has been characterized as a battlefield of nation-building elites who employed historical scholarship (among other means) to promote nationalistic ideas. More recent studies, however, have examined and called attention to the powerful structures which held this monarchy together. In the age of historicism, the Habsburg Monarchy also needed a plausible historical narrative on which it could base claims of the legitimacy of its rule. This narrative was created first and foremost by Viennese historians. Yet there were historians in the Habsburg Monarchy’s regional centres who made significant contributions to the development of concepts of an imperial history, too. In this article, the author examines their efforts. Until around 1900, supranationalism and regionalism were the dominant concepts in the historical writings of the authors in the Military Frontier and Bukovina and also in the works of the renowned Prague historian Anton Gindely. Loyal to Vienna, some Hungarian historians reassessed national history in order to reconcile it with the imperial past. Transnational history was also a method of demonstrating the congruity of national and imperial interests. In the age of high nationalism, historians thus contributed to both national and imperial cohesion.
Notes
1. See for instance this classic work: Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy 1809–1918.
2. Komlosy, “Imperial Cohesion, Nation-Building, and Regional Integration in the Habsburg Monarchy.”
3. Cohen, “Our Laws, Our Taxes, and Our Administration.”
4. Unowsky, “Dynastic Symbolism and Popular Patriotism.”
5. Cole, “Differentiation of Indifference?” 110.
6. Berger and Conrad, The Past as History, 163.
7. Urbanitsch, “Pluralist Myth and Nationalist Realities,” 103.
8. Ibid., 105.
9. Unowsky, The Pomp and Politics of Patriotism.
10. Klimó, Nation, Konfession, Geschichte, 152–7.
11. Hanák, Der Garten und der Werkstatt, 101–15.
12. Unowsky, “Dynastic Symbolism and Popular Patriotism,” 255.
13. Ottner, “Historical Research and Cultural History in Nineteenth-Century Austria,” 117–18.
14. Porciani and Raphael, Atlas of the Institutions of European Historiographies, 1800–Present, 146–59.
15. Ottner, “Historical Research and Cultural History in Nineteenth-Century Austria.”
16. Kernbauer, “Konzeptionen der Österreich-Geschichtsschreibung,” 258–9.
17. Ibid., 256.
18. Lhotsky, Geschichte des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 1854–1954.
19. Kernbauer, “Konzeptionen der Österreich-Geschichtsschreibung.”
20. Leitsch, “East Europeans Studying History in Vienna (1855–1918),” 150.
21. Řezník, “Wácslaw Wladiwoj Tomek.”
22. Tomek justified this method here: Tomek, “Über die Behandlung der österreichischen Gesamtgeschichte.”
23. Tomek, Geschichte des österreichischen Kaiserstaates.
24. Tomek, Handburch der österreichischen Geschichte.
25. Baár, Historians and Nationalism: East-Central Europe in the Nineteenth Century.
26. Havránek, “Anton Gindely - ein Historiker zwischen zwei Nationen.”
27. While Francis Joseph promised Bohemian politicians that he would pass this act to acknowledge Bohemian state rights and symbolically strengthen the position of the lands of the Crown of Saint Wenceslas, in fact he never did. Evans, “Communicating the Empire,” 131.
28. Gindely, Geschichte des dreissigjährigen Krieges.
29. Havránek, “Anton Gindely - ein Historiker zwischen zwei Nationen,” 155.
30. The petition is reprinted in Goll, Rozdělení Pražské university Karlo-Ferdinandovy roku 1882 a počátek samostatné University české, 88–93.
31. The statement by Jaroslav Werstadt are quoted by Plaschka, Von Palacký bis Pekař, 35.
32. Plaschka, “Zum hundertsten Todestag Anton Gindelys,” 84.
33. Cramer, The Thirty Years’ War and German Memory in the Nineteenth Century, 126–7.
34. Gindely, History of the Thirty Years’ War, 2: 159–60.
35. Cramer, The Thirty Years’ War and German Memory in the Nineteenth Century, 128–36.
36. Gindely, Bethlen Gábor és udvara 1580–1629.
37. Maurer, “National oder supranational?,” 355–77.
38. Hamann, “Anton Gindely - ein altösterreichisches Schicksal.”
39. Kolař, Geschichtswissenschaft in Zentraleuropa, 2: 62.
40. Vaniček, “Die Vorzeit und erste Geschichtsperiode der österreichischen Monarchie;” Vaniček, Handbuch der Österreichischen Vaterlandskunde für Obergymnasien.
41. Vaniček, Ein arbeitsames Leben.
42. Vaniček, Specialgescichte der Militärgrenze aus Originalquellen und Quellenwerken geschöpft, 1: III.
43. Ibid., 1: 12 and 406.
44. Ibid., 4: 601.
45. Schwicker, Geschichte der Österreichischen Militärgrenze.
46. Krischan, Banatforschung Als Aufgabe, 190–208.
47. Pesty, “A Temesi Bánság Monographiái.”
48. Schicker’s work resembled Vaniček’s so deeply that he was even accused of plagiarism: Ballagi, “A Határőrvidék és legújabb monographusa.”
49. Varga, “Rise and Fall of an Austrian Identity in the Provincial Historiography of Bukovina.”
50. Szekfű, “Károlyi Árpád, a történetíró.”
51. Károlyi, Bocskay szerepe a történetben, 16–17.
52. Károlyi, Buda és Pest visszavívása 1686-ban, VII.
53. Károlyi, Bocskay szerepe a történetben, 19.
54. Károlyi, “A huszonkettedik artikulus (Az 1604: XXII. törvénycikk).”
55. Ludwig Thallóczy, Oestereich-Ungarn und die Balkanländer mit besonderer Rücksicht auf das okkupierte Serbien, 7–11.
56. Ludwig Thallóczy, “Geschichte,” 188.
57. Lajos Thallóczy, “Bosznia, mint történelmi szintér.”
58. Lajos Thallóczy, “Magyar-szerb történeti összeköttetések 1526-ig.”
59. Okey, “A Trio of Hungarian Balkanists,” 258.
60. Lajos Thallóczy, “Magyarország és Raguza.”
61. Bertényi, “A ‘magyar birodalmi gondolatról’ – az I. világháború előtt.”
62. Ludwig Thallóczy, Oestereich-Ungarn und die Balkanländer mit besonderer Rücksicht auf das okkupierte Serbien, 5.
63. Ibid., 87–108.
64. Dénes, A történelmi Magyarország eszménye.
65. Trogrlić, “Šufflay, Milan von; Ps. Alba Limi, Eamon O’Leigh.”