In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

epilogue: conTinuiTy and rupTure afTer 1918 Today, as at all times, the future belongs to youth. Without looking back very much, it will have to build anew. That is its entitlement and also its obligation . It will have to reorient itself in many ways, in scholarship too, for it will hardly have escaped the notice of the attentive observer that scholarship is also undergoing a crisis. —max dvořák In 1917 the eminent Italian art historian Adolfo Venturi contributed to a volume entitled Monumental Dalmatia.1 The book was a survey of the architectural remains from antiquity onward of the eastern Adriatic coastline, with contributions on the history, art, and culture of Dalmatia by Venturi, the journalist and novelist Pompeo Molmenti , and the ancient historian Ettore Pais. In art-historical terms the work was of little significance; it provided no new insights and uncovered no new material. Instead, it was meant as a piece of pure propaganda. The central thrust of all the contributions was an emphasis on the essentially Italian character of the culture of Dalmatia. As Pais stated, the widespread idea that Dalmatia was not Italian was “false and utterly mistaken. . . . Dalmatia is and always has been Italian.”2 It is, of course, well known that Italy, and more specifically Venice, exerted a massive cultural influence on the Dalmatian coast; indeed, Dalmatia having been a Venetian territory from 1420 until 1797, this was hardly unexpected. However, Monumental Dalmatia was claiming something more radical: the complete absence of any cultural heritage that could be meaningfully described as Slavic. Instead, it argued for a fundamental continuity between the present and the ancient Roman world, which the irruptions of the “numerous peoples and barbaric hordes” from Hungary, Croatia, and Bosnia had failed to interrupt. Indeed, for Venturi himself, the reassertion of Venetian rule after 1420 saved Dalmatia from a wretched history hitherto dominated by “lawlessness, . . . invasions , . . . piracy and martyrdom.”3 epilogue 213 The date of publication of this work, 1917, provides the clue to what motivated it; as the price for its entry into the 1914–18 war on the side of Britain and France, Italy had demanded a number of the territories of the Habsburg Empire, including Dalmatia . Monumental Dalmatia was an attempt to legitimize such a demand by shoring up the notion that the region’s culture was to be considered a peripheral part of Italian culture. That it was published in English makes this all the more transparent, since it was addressed to overseas policy makers who would need to be convinced of the correctness of the Italian claim. Italians did, of course, constitute a small portion of the population, but the majority of the inhabitants were either Croats or Serbs. Venturi was undeterred by this demographic statistic, for he argued that this numerical advantage did not outweigh the qualitative superiority of the Italians: “if we give due weight to the intellectual, moral and social value of the Italian element we shall find the actual importance of the apparently inferior Italian percentage raised to its highest coefficient,” for the Italians form the “old guard of civilization.”4 Venturi’s article can be seen as paralleling Max Dvořák’s support for the ideological justifications for the war, and it exemplified the ways in which art historians were drawn into military conflict. When the war ended, in November 1918, this involvement in political and military affairs continued. The breakup of Austria-Hungary presented numerous political and legal issues, but of particular concern for the present were the disputes over ownership of the artistic and cultural heritage of the former Habsburg state. It was by no means self-evident that the new Austrian Republic should inherit these Habsburg possessions, and the successor states of Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia all laid claim to various works of art and historical documents, as did Italy, as a victorious power, parts of which (Lombardy, Venice, and the southern Tyrol) had once been Austrian territories.5 A commission was eventually established to adjudicate between the rival claims, with advice from lawyers, historians, and art historians. A leading role on the Austrian side was taken by Hans Tietze, who effectively reduced to a minimum the losses suffered by the new state, and ensured that the collections maintained, for the most part, their integrity. Tietze published a short booklet outlining the Austrian position, but the volume was notable for its inclusion of an open letter by Dvořák addressed to Italian art historians.6 The letter contained...

Share