Page - 375 - in Rudolf Eitelberger von Edelberg - Netzwerker der Kunstwelt

Across the Leitha 375 a proper understanding of the scope of its artistic and architectural heritage. It is also possible that under neo-absolutism, such documentation was encouraged since, as with mapping in general, it was part of the apparatus of political control on the part of the central imperial authorities. Undertaken only five years after the War of Independence, this was in certain respects a politically charged action, for post-revolutionary Hungary was still regarded with a degree of suspicion by members of the imperial administra- tion, and this was accompanied with a vision of it as economically, socially and cultural backward. In his Memoires of 1897 Jacob Falke, for example, recalled travelling through Hungary in 1854, visiting the “unentwickelte Kulturstadt” (culturally undeveloped city) of Pest and experiencing the bucolic charms of the countryside where old habits and customs were still preserved.32 Eitelberger was himself not immune to such patronizing attitudes. His report noted : “Der Reisende muss […] weite von Cultur noch wenig berührte Strecken durchwan- dern, bevor er an ein interessantes Denkmal gelangt […].”33 Yet despite such lapses, and regardless of the ultimate political objectives of his tour, his immediate purpose was to combat the absence of Hungary on the art historical map. He complained, for example, about the absence of reference to Hungary in any of the recently published standard works of art and architectural history, singling out, by way of contrast, Henszlmann’s study of Košice cathedral as a noble exception.34 His first step, therefore, was to counter prevailing myths about Hungary. These included the idea that nothing of any art his- torical value had survived the invasions of the Mongols in the thirteenth century and then the gradual imposition of Ottoman rule after the Battle of Mohács in 1526. Or that whatever existed from the pre-Habsburg era was essentially Byzantine. In contrast, Eitelberger argued, Hungary possessed a rich legacy of historic architecture, and its early medieval monuments were clearly in the mainstream of the western architectural tra- dition. For, he noted : “Sie haben eine entschiedene Verwandtschaft mit den Werken in den benachbarten deutschen Kronländern des österreichischen Kaiserstaates.”35 32 J. von Falke, Lebenserinnerungen, Leipzig 1897, pp.  92 f. Falke’s excursion was unrelated to Eitel- berger’s tour, even though they occurred at the same time. 33 “The traveler must […] wander through long stretches of land little touched by culture before he reaches a monument of any interest.” Eitelberger, Bericht über einen archäologischen Ausflug nach Ungarn (cit. n.  31), p.  93. 34 Eitelberger mentions, specifically, F. Kugler, Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, Stuttgart 1842, and C. Rosenthal, Vollständige Uebersicht der Geschichte der Baukunst von ihrem Ursprunge an bis auf die neueste Zeit, Berlin 1842. 35 “They have a decisive relationship with works in the neighbouring German crownlands of the im- perial Austrian state.” Eitelberger, Bericht über einen archäologischen Ausflug nach Ungarn (cit. n.  31), p.  94.