Seite - 374 - in Rudolf Eitelberger von Edelberg - Netzwerker der Kunstwelt

374 Matthew Rampley As problematic as his dismissive attitude towards the Slovaks of Upper Hungary may be, it can be tempered, perhaps, by the fact that for Henszlmann it was always possible to become Hungarian. Being Hungarian was not a matter of biology or of destiny, but of choice, a key liberal tenet. Indeed, as an assimilated German-speaker, Henszlmann was himself testimony to this idea. As such, this paralleled the view of Austrian Liberals, including Eitelberger, for whom German was the common supra-national language of culture and science. The significance of this ideological position, especially in relation to Eitelberger, will be explored in the next section, but a preliminary summary can be made of the impor- tance of the Böhm circle. For it not only provided a methodological template for Ei- telberger’s burgeoning interest in the history of art. It also provided a crucial formative social environment. Eitelberger was of a generation that grew up with liberal visions of culture and politics that were shared on either side of the River Leitha. It was based on the idea of an imagined community that transcended local identities and differences, including those of class. As Eitelberger would later state : “[D]ie Kunst ist nur eine […]. Es gibt nicht eine Kunst für die Armen und eine Kunst für die Reichen […].”30 He shared this view with his counterparts Henszlmann and Pulszky, and their later com- mon involvement in museums was also intricately bound up with this broader ideolog- ical vision, for museums would serve as tools of mass communication. Not merely the museums in Vienna and Budapest, but also those in regional centres across the crown- lands of Austria-Hungary, including Kassa/Košice. Eitelberger’s friendship with the “Hungarians” Böhm, Henszlmann and Pulszky may also inform interpretation of a little discussed text from the 1850s : his report on the medieval architecture of Hungary.31 It was the outcome of two topographical tours un- dertaken in 1854 and 1855 at the behest of the Central-Commission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Baudenkmale (Central Commission for Research and Preservation of Built Monuments). Such topographical studies were one of the central functions of the Central Com- mission, namely, to survey the hitherto little known areas of the Monarchy in pursuit of adopted a Hungarian identity.” I. Henszlmann, Ungarns sprachverschiedene Völkerstämme, in : Vierteljahresschrift aus und für Ungarn, I, 1843, p.  46. 30 “Art is just one thing […]. There is no such thing as art for poor people and art for the rich […].” R. Eitelberger von Edelberg, Das deutsche Kunstgewerbe (Betrachtungen aus Anlass der Münchner kunstgewerblichen Ausstellung im Jahre 1876), in : idem, Gesammelte kunsthistorische Schriften, vol.  2 (cit. n.  4), pp.  344–369, esp. p.  345. 31 R. Eitelberger von Edelberg, Bericht über einen archäologischen Ausflug nach Ungarn in den Jahren 1854 und 1855, in : Jahrbuch der k. k. Central-Commission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Baudenkmale, 1, 1856, pp.  91–140. Open Access © 2019 by BÖHLAU VERLAG GMBH & CO.KG, WIEN