Seite - 171 - in Die Repräsentation der Habsburg-Lothringischen Dynastie in Musik, visuellen Medien und Architektur - 1618–1918

The Presentation of the Habsburg Dynasty in Bosnia and Herzegovina 171 provincial government nor the Joint Ministry of Finances opposed its construction. On the contrary, the Ministry financed the entire project27, taking into consideration the opinion of the historian Lajos Thallóczy who considered that the discovery of the tombstones was of political significance as it recalled the fight in which “Croatian, Hungarian and Austrian troops” had participated to defend Bihać from the Otto- mans.28 He also held that the monument to the Croatian nobility itself would not question the integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but would serve as a “symbol of joint combat of the people of today’s Monarchy”, although it would be desirable to include one “calming motive which would show peace between the Christians and the Turks”.29 It is possible that all the reasons mentioned above made Minister Kállay choose the proposal made by architect Karl Pařik, who formed the monument as a sarcophagus with the coat of arms of the Croatian nobility, of Bihać and of Austro- Hungary, with a recognisable vocabulary of neoclassical architecture, suitable for the expression of universal, supranational values.30 It is true that the monument had nei- ther imperial nor Habsburg emblems, although the justification for its construction was sought in historical events and relations that the Habsburgs had with the occu- pied territories – Thallóczy even suggested publishing a special issue in the bulletin of the National Museum (Glasnik Zemaljskog muzeja) on the occasion of raising the monument, which would “additionally clarify and illuminate the meaning of Krajina and Bihać under the House of Habsburg”.31 What is surprising about this occupational period, which is generally labelled as the time of administrative absolutism and of almost repressive policies of the Pro- vincial Government32, is the fact that the Regime used neither monumental statuary nor the figure of the Emperor himself for the promotion of its own policy or the demonstration of power of the Habsburg cultural mission. From the very beginning of the occupation, the Regime introduced rituals which were supposed to encourage the population to respect the Monarchy and the Habsburg dynasty, and they were actually in no way different from the rituals in other parts of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Corpus Christi and the Emperor’s name day were regularly marked with church services and solemn processions, and on the Emperor’s birthday “special re- ligious ceremonies during which priests, ministers and rabbis exhorted their flocks to associate religious devotion with imperial loyalty”33 were held. The representatives of all religions, but also of individual pro-regime circles gave adoring deputations and statements of loyalty during such celebrations and visitations of members of the ruling family.34 The press kept coming out as a rule with a narrative about the ben- eficial development and welfare which was brought upon Bosnia and Herzegovina by the cultural mission of the Habsburg dynasty, led by “the benevolent ruler who is adorned with virtues of a parental kindness, generosity and the broadest love for all