„SOK SZÍVES ÜDVÖZLETTEL RÉGI BARÁTOS…”. COLEGAMENTI DI AMICIZIA DI CORIOLAN PETRANU CON STORICI MAGIARI

„Sok szíves üdvözlettel régi barátos...” (“With kind regards, your old friend...”). Coriolan Petranu’s Friendly Connections to the Hungarian Historians. Coriolan Petranu is the founder of modern art history education and scientific research in Transylvania. He had received special education in this field of study that is relatively new in the region. He started his studies in 1911 at the University of Budapest, attending courses in law and art history. During the 1912-1913 academic year he joined the class of Professor Adolph Goldschmiedt (1863-1944) at the Friedrich-Wilhelm University in Berlin. The professor was an illustrious personality from the same generation as art historians Emil Mâle, Wilhelm Vögte, Bernard Berenson, Roger Fry, Aby Warburg, and Heinrich Wölfflin, specialists who had provided a decisive impetus to art historical research during the twentieth century. In the end of 1913, Coriolan Petranu favored Vienna, with its prestigious art historical school attached to the university from the capital of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. There he completed and perfected his education under the supervision of Professor Josef Strzygowski (1862-1941). The latter scholar was highly appreciated for his contributions to the field of universal art history by including the cultures of Asia Minor (Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Persia), revealing the influence that this area had on proto-Christian art, as well as by researching ancient art in Northern Europe. In March 1920 the young art historian successfully defended his doctoral dissertation entitled Inhaltsproblem und Kunstgeschichte (”Content and art history”). He thus earned his doctor in philosophy title that opened him access to higher education teaching and art history research. His debut was positively marked by his activity as museographer at the Fine Art Museum in Budapest (Szepműveszeti Muzeum) in 1917-1918. Coriolan Petranu has researched Romanian vernacular architecture (creating a topography of wooden churches in Transylvania) and his publications were appreciated, published in the era’s specialized periodicals and volumes or presented during international congresses (such as those held in Stockholm in 1933, Warsaw in 1933, Sofia in 1934, Basel in 1936 and Paris in 1937). The Transylvanian art historian under analysis has exchanged numerous letters with specialists in the field. The valuable lot of correspondence, comprising several thousands of letters that he has received from the United States of America, Great Britain, Spain, France, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Hungary, Poland, the USSR, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Egypt represents a true history of the stage and development of art history as a field of study during the Interwar Period. The archive of the Art History Seminary of the University in Cluj preserves one section dedicated to Hungarian letters that he has send to Hungarian specialists, art historians, ethnographers, ethnologists or colleagues passionate about fine art (Prof. Gerevich Tibor, Prof. Takács Zoltán, Dr. Viski Károly, Count Dr. Teleki Domokos). His correspondence with Fritz Valjavec, editor of the “Südostdeutsche Forschungen” periodical printed in München, is also significant and revealing. The letters in question reveal C. Petranu’s significant contribution through his reviews of books published by Hungarian art historians and ethnographers. Beyond the theoretical debates during which Prof. Petranu has criticized the theories formulated by Prof. Gerevich’s school that envisaged the globalization of Hungarian art between the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period and that also included in this general category the works of German masters and artists with other ethnic backgrounds, he has also displayed a friendly attitude and appreciation for the activity/works of his Hungarian colleagues (Viski Károly and Takács Zoltán). The previously unpublished Romanian-Hungarian and Hungarian-Romanian set of letters discussed here attest to this. REZUMAT. „Sok szíves üdvözlettel régi barátod...” („Cu multe salutări dragi, vechiul tău prieten...”. Legăturile prietenești ale lui Coriolan Petranu cu istorici maghiari. Coriolan Petranu a fost întemeietorul învățământului și al cercetării științifice modeme în domeniul istorici ariei din Transilvania. Beneficiar al unei educații deosebite în acest domeniu de specializare relativ nou la noi, C. Petranu își încep studiile în anul 1911 la Universitatea din Budapesta frecventând cursurile de jurisprudență și istoria artei, continuate apoi, în anul universitar 1912-1913 la Universitatea Friederich-Wilhelm din Berlin, la clasa profesorului Adolph Goldschmiedt (1863-1944), eminentă personalitate din generația istoricilor de artă Emil Mâle, Wilhelm Vögte, Bernard Berenson, Roger Fry, Aby Warburg și Heinrich Wölfflin, specialiști care au dat impulsuri hotărâtoare exegezei de artă din secolul XX. La sfârșitul aceluiași an, 1913, va prefera Viena cu prestigioasa sa școală de istoria artei de pe lângă Universitatea din capitala imperiului Austro-Ungar, în vederea completării și desăvârșirii cunoștințelor acumulate până atunci. Aici va studia cu Profesorul Josef Strzygowski (1862- 1941). savantul apreciat pentru îmbogățirea conținutului disciplinei istoria universală a artei prin înglobarea în ea și a culturilor Asiei Mici (Siria, Mesopotamia, Armenia și Persia), cât și prin relevarea influenței acestei zone asupra artei protocreştine iar pe un alt palier prin cercetarea artei străvechi din nordul Europei. În martie 1920 tânărul istoric de artă va susține cu brio teza de doctoral Inhaltsproblem und Kunstgeschichte („Problema conținutului și istoria artei”), eveniment care-i va aduce titlul de doctor în filosofie, deschizându-i accesul spre învățământul universitar și cercetarea în domeniul istoriei artei, debutul său fiind marcat pozitiv prin activitatea sa de muzeograf la Muzeul de Arte Frumoase din Budapesta (Szepműveszeti Muzeum), 1917-1918. Coriolan Petranu a fost exegetul arhitecturii vernaculare românești (topografierea bisericilor de lemn din Transilvania), cu lucrări apreciate, publicate în volumele și revistele de specialitate ale vremii sau prezentate la Congresele internaționale (Stockholm 1933, Varşovia 1933, Sofia 1934, Basel 1936 și Paris 1937). Istoricul de artă transilvan a purtat și o bogată corespondență cu specialiștii în domeniu, valorosul său epistolar de câteva mii de scrisori primite din Statele Unite ale Americii, Anglia, Spania, Franţa, Elveţia, Olanda, Danemarca, Suedia, Norvegia, Finlanda, Estonia, Letonia, Cehoslovacia, Austria, Ungaria, Polonia, U.R.S.S., Serbia, Bulgaria și Egipt, reprezentând o adevărată istorie a stadiului și evoluției disciplinei Istoria artei în perioada interbelică. În arhiva Seminarului de Istoria Artei al Universității din Cluj se păstrează și secțiunea scrisorilor maghiare, care au fost adresate colegilor maghiari în specialitate, istorici de artă, etnografi, etnologi sau iubitori ai artelor plastice (Prof. Gerevich Tibor, Prof. Takács Zoltán, Dr. Viski Károly, Contele Dr. Teleki Domokos). Importantă și edificatoare este corespondența cu Redactorul revistei müncheneze „Südostdeutsche Forschungen”, Fritz Valjavec, din care rezultă contribuția importantă a lui C. Petranu prin recenziile sale asupra lucrărilor istoricilor de artă și a etnografilor maghiari. Dincolo de disputele teoretice de critică a teoriilor școlii Prof. Gerevich, de globalizarea artei maghiare din perioada medievală până în epoca premodernă, de includere sub acest generic și a creației/operelor maeștrilor germani și nu numai, profesorul clujean a manifestat și o atitudine prietenească și de apreciere a activității/operelor colegilor maghiari (Viski Károly și Takács Zoltán). Epistolarul româno-maghiar și maghiaro-român inedit, publicat în acest studiu, o certifică. Cuvinte cheie: Transilvania, corespondență, arhitectură vernaculară, reviste, fotografii, Gerevich Tibor, Viski Károly

Deutsch Kamm, Kimme und die Bedeutung von idg. *ǵombho-, *ǵembh-

Deutsch 'Kamm' ist mit 'Kimme' verwandt und weiter mit russ. 'zub' "Zahn", 'zjabnut'' "frieren", albanisch dhamb "schmerzen", gr. gómphos "Pflock, Dübel", altindisch 'jambh' "beißen" u.a. Der Artikel diskutiert die Möglichkeiten semantischer Rekonstruktion und zeigt die Auseinanderentwicklung der Bedeutungen

„Külföldtudományok” a berlini egyetemen a II. világháború idején = “Foreign studies” at the university of Berlin during WWII

Providing intellectual support for National Socialist Germany’s expansive foreign policy goals was among the priorities of German academic and intellectual life of that period. Institutions were set up with the goal of undertaking hard research or some more easily understood mixture thereof (mainly of ideological persuasion) and disseminating the findings to a wider audience or, in other words, advancing the development of a new-thinking intellectual elite. With the war ongoing, there soon arose a political need for a full-range of studies related to “foreignness”, which would provide scientific cover for any potential political pursuits, namely from the most trustworthy of German scientists, and of course within close proximity to the Reich’s leadership, which is to say, in the capital of the Reich. For this reason the University of Berlin created a so-called Faculty of Foreign Studies, which this summary wishes to analyze, in addition to the related academic institute’s operation, institutional background, organizational arrangement and ultimately the academic concept as it related to the states of the East and Southeastern European region

Von der Deutschtümelei zum Deutschnationalismus, von der Volksgeschichte zum Volkstumkampf

Die vorliegende Dissertation verfolgte die Entstehung und Entwicklung von Deutschtümelei und Deutschnationalismus seit Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zu des-sen unseliger Verquickung mit der deutschen Volkskunde, Volks- und Kulturbodenfor-schung und dem sich daraus entwickelnden nationalsozialistischen Kultur- und Volks-tumskampf, als dessen Vollendung die menschenverachtende „angewandte und kämp-fende Wissenschaft“ in Gestalt der seit 1930 gegründeten außeruniversitären Südosteu-ropainstitute und des dort „tätigen“ wissenschaftlichen Personals anzusehen ist. Schon seit dem Mittelalter wurde von „Deutschen“ gesprochen, gemeint waren aber immer nur die durch die gleiche Sprache, nämlich „deutsch“ in verschiedensten Dialek-ten, verbundenen „Deutschsprachigen“, eine sogenannte deutsche Nation gab es nicht, auch wenn ab der Frühen Neuzeit immer öfter dem Terminus „Heiliges Römisches Reich“ der Zusatz „deutscher Nation“ beigefügt wurde, entsprach das nicht den Tatsa-chen. Ein „Deutsches Reich“ gab es erst ab 1871. Seltsamerweise sprach man trotzdem schon im Mittelalter von „deutscher Kolonisation“ in Ost- und Südosteuropa. Bestimmte Formen der deutschen Geschichtswissenschaft haben das „Deutsche“ immer mit dem westeuropäischen Kulturkomplex gleichgesetzt und alle Einflüsse und Entwicklungen im ost- und südosteuropäischen Raum pauschal dem Deutschtum zuge-schrieben. Kein oder kaum ein Wort fiel über die lateinische Kirchentradition, die uni-versalistisch und über-, also auch vor- und international war, unter deren Mantel der von Kolonisten aus dem deutschen Binnenraum besorgte Kulturtransfer erfolgte. Diese Art der Geschichtsschreibung, die das deutsche Volk und seine Geschichte zum ausschließ-lichen Forschungsobjekt erhob, übertrug Kategorien der Volksforschung vorbehalts- und differenzlos auf die vornationalen Zeitabschnitte. Stereotypisch wurde, fast gebets-mühlenartig, das deutsche Kulturbringertum angestrengt und obsessiv auf die „deut-schen Kulturleistungen“ im Osten und Südosten verwiesen. Man nahm einfach nicht zur Kenntnis, dass allgemeine Kultur- und wissenschaftliche Prozesse, die auf dem Aus-tausch von Werten beruhten, niemals einseitig erfolgten, weil sie ein stetes Nehmen und Geben bedingten. Daher waren auch die aus dem binnendeutschen Raum siedelnden Kolonisten keinesfalls nur überlegene Geber, sondern ebenso auch Empfänger. Eine Hauptursache ihres Jahrhunderte währenden Fortbestandes als Gruppe(n) war genau das, was die solipsistische Volksgeschichts- und Volkstumsforschung a priori aus-schloss, nämlich die Bereitschaft von der anderssprachigen, zuweilen anderskonfessio-nellen Mehrheitsbevölkerung der Gastländer bestimmte Haltungen und Umgangsfor-men, selbst technische Errungenschaften, anzunehmen und sich zueigen zu machen. Die Südosteuropahistoriographie der Deutschen war als „kämpfende Wissenschaft“ eng verbunden mit der Volkskunde. Max Hildebert Böhm hielt bereits 1932 den „Kampf“ für die „gegebene Urform der Völkerbegegnung“ und offenbarte sich schließ-lich 1935 als Programmatiker der faschistischen „Heim ins-Reich-Bewegung“: „Der Grundbefund, von dem aus allein ein Verständnis für die südostdeutsche Volkstumslage gewonnen werden kann, ist das instinktsichere Überlegenheitsbewusstsein, mit dem der Deutsche als Missionar, als Kolonist, als Gutsherr und Bauer, als Städtegründer, als Träger gewerblichen und geistigen Fortschritts den Südosten seit mehr als einem Jahrtausend als zusätzlichen deutschen Lebensraum einem wachsendem Volk erschlossen hat“. Man sprach vom „aristokratischen Verhältnis des Deutschen zu seiner südosteuropäischen Umwelt“, seinem „eigentümlichen Herrenbewusstsein, das seine Kraft aus einem großartigen gesamtvölkischen Zielbild, dem Drang nach Osten“ schöpfe. Damit wurden massiv ideologische Positionen besetzt, die auch anderswo in der Volkskunde wirksam waren und die faschistische Gleichschaltung ermöglichten. Zur Forschungslage wäre zu bemerken, dass sich die Geschichtswissenschaft erst in den letzten dreißig Jahren intensiver mit den Problemen Volkstum, Volksgeschichte und den dazu gehörenden Forschungseinrichtungen, dem Anteil der Geschichtswissenschaft und ihrer Historiker am Volkstumskampf im Osten und Südosten, sowie dem Miss-brauch und der Pervertierung von „Deutschtum“ und „deutschem Volkstum“ durch das nationalsozialistische Regime beschäftigt hat. Es wurde versucht, an ausgewählten Paradigmen und Quellentexten die ganze Ab-surdität und teilweise Lächerlichkeit der Deutschtümelei im Allgemeinen, der allge-genwärtigen, zeitgenössischen Germanophilie und des nationalsozialistischen Kampfes an den Kultur- und Volkskampffronten aufzuzeigen. Die Instrumentalisierung und insti-tutionelle Vernetzung der Volkstumswissenschaft mit dem sogenannten Deutschtum im Dienste des Nationalsozialismus sowie die Hintergründe der NS-Volkstums- und Kul-turpolitik und des Volkstums- und Kulturkampfes führten letztlich zur Errichtung der teils mit äußerst fragwürdigen Tätigkeiten agierenden außeruniversitären Südosteuro-painstitute, die durch anerkannte Wissenschaftler dem NS-Regime die wissenschaftli-chen Begründungen für seine verbrecherischen Vorgehen in Südosteuropa (ethnische Säuberungen und „Umvolkungen“) lieferten bzw. zu liefern hatten.The intent of this dissertation is to reconstruct the origin and development of hyper Germanness and German Nationalism since the early 19th century until its unfortunate amalgamation with German ethnology and the so called “Volks- und Kulturboden-forschung” with the result of the National Socialist cultural and racial struggle. The foundation of the independent Southeastern European Institutes established 1930 apart from the university and his “active” scientific staff are the cynical completion of the inhuman “angewandte und kämpfende Wissenschaft” (applied and fighting science). Already in the Middle Ages under “Germans” one understood only people which spoke the same language “german” with its various dialects which were the so called “Deutschsprachigen”. A German Nation did in fact not exist even though in the Early Modern Times to the term “Holy Roman Empire” often the expression “of German Na-tion” was added, but this didn’t correspond with the facts: a “German Empire” only started in 1871, but strangely enough the term “German Colonisation” in Eastern and Southeastern Europe has been used already existed since the Middle Ages. Certain trends in German Historiography treated always “German” as only equiva-lent to the Western European Culture Complex and all the positive influences and de-velopments within the Eastern and Southeastern Region were exclusively described as result of “Germanness”. No or hardly a word was mentioned about the universalistic and international Latin Church tradition which actually contributed to the culture trans-fer by colonists coming from central german regions. This kind of historiography treat-ing as sole object the german population and its history mentioned stereotypically the “German cultural achievements” in the east and southeast obsessively as success of the one and only German Culture. They ignored the fact that cultural and scientific process-es are based on the exchange of knowledge and experience and not a one way develop-ment. Therefore the german colonists were not only superior “bringers” of german cul-ture but also recipients of the eastern and southeastern european culture. A main reason of the centuries lasting existence of the german groups in this region was just what the solipsist folk history and “Volkstumsforschung” a priori excluded, based on the will-ingness of the local host population to accept and partly adopt attitudes and manners including. The historiography of the south-eastern (Südosteuropahistoriographie) of Germans as a “fighting science” closely connected with the folklore. Max Hildebert Boehm con-sidered already in 1932 a “fight” as the “natural archetype of nations encounter” and finally revealed himself 1935 as programmatic fascist of the “home to-Reich-movement” (Heim-ins-Reich-Bewegung): “The basic finding, obtained from which alone we may understand of the Southeast German ‘Volkstumslage’ may be possible, the instinctive superiority consciousness with which the German has a missionary, as a colonist, a landowner and farmer, as a founder of cities, as support industrial and intellectual progress opened the Southeast for more than a millennium as additional German living space grows, people are”. One spoke of the“aristocratic relationship” between the Germans to his Southeast European Environment”, his “peculiar and dominant ‘Herrenbewusstsein’, that his en-ergy from a grand total ethnic target image, the urge ‘Go to East’” scoop. Massively ideological positions have been filled, which were effectively elsewhere in folklore and allowed the fascist conformity. For research would be able to notice that the study of history in the last thirty years had been engaged intensive with the problems of folklore, folk history and the associat-ed research institutions, the proportion of historiography and its historians on racial struggle in the east and southeast, and the abuse and perversion “Germanness” and “German nationality” was employed by the Nazi regime. An attempt was made at selected paradigms and source texts reveal the absurdity and ridiculousness of some “Germanomania” in general, the ubiquitous, contemporary “germanophilia” and the Nazi campaign to the culture and people fighting fronts. The exploitation and Institutional networking “Volkstumswissenschaft” with the so-called “Germanness service of National Socialism” and also the background of the Nazi “na-tional-folklore” and culture policy. Also as the nationality and cultural struggle ulti-mately led to the establishment of some operating with highly questionable activities outside the university Southeastern Europe institutions which by recognized scientists Nazi regime, the scientific justification for his criminal actions in Southeast Europe de-livered (ethnic cleansing and “Umvolkungen”) and had to deliver

Landesgeschichte mit und ohne Land

Historische Kommissionen sind neben der universitären Forschung und der Landesgeschichte spezifische Institutionen der Auseinandersetzung mit und der Deutung von Vergangenheit einer räumlichen Entität. Durch die enge Bindung an eine politische Einheit wird ihre Geschichte in hohem Maß durch veränderte Grenzziehungen bestimmt. Das zeigt sich deutlich an der tiefen Zäsur, die das Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs für die Entwicklung der Historischen Kommissionen markiert. Die meisten westdeutschen Historischen Kommissionen konnten ihre Tätigkeit über 1945 hinaus fortsetzen, also weiter Landesgeschichte „mit Land“ betreiben. Anders war dagegen die Lage der ostdeutschen Historischen Kommissionen. Bei ihnen ging durch die Grenzverschiebungen nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg der enge Bezug zwischen Forschung und Forschungsgegenstand verloren. Sie betreiben seit ihrer Wiedergründung in der Bundesrepublik Landesgeschichte „ohne Land“. Wie wirkte sich diese zweigeteilte Geschichte auf die Zielsetzung, die Arbeit, das Selbstverständnis und die Wirkung der Historischen Kommissionen aus? Mit Antworten auf diese Fragen greift der Band ein Forschungsdesiderat auf

Adalékok a német "völkisch" történetszemlélet fogadtatásához a Horthy-korszak Magyarországán

Following her defeat in WWI, within the spirit of a reevaluated “auswärtige Kulturpolitik”, Germany attempted to move closer to the states of our region by using new historiographical tools. Per their “folk6 and cultural soil” reconstruction, the Germans questioned the respective ethnic group’s nationstate6related historical conceptions and emphasized their own revisionist needs. In other words, a “popularist war” replaced the earlier interstate diplomacy even within academia. Hungary – like the other states of the region – felt threatened by Germany within the sphere of scientific policy. Therefore, decisive resistance was witnessed. Beyond these feelings of threat, this counteraction was also motivated by the fact that the German “cultural slide” theory sharply contradicted contemporary Hungarian founding ideology, the Hungarians’ sense of historical mission and their leadership role within the Carpathian Basin, as well as their desire to prove a cultural supremacist theory contra their neighboring peoples. The Hungarians’ more6or6less unanimous dismissal is also proof that the Hungarian historiography of the period was capable of overcoming its own – indeed huge – inner divisions and showing a united front to defend Hungarian interests against these offensive manifestations

Adalékok a német "völkisch" történetszemlélet fogadtatásához a Horthy-korszak Magyarországán

Following her defeat in WWI, within the spirit of a reevaluated “auswärtige Kulturpolitik”, Germany attempted to move closer to the states of our region by using new historiographical tools. Per their “folk6 and cultural soil” reconstruction, the Germans questioned the respective ethnic group’s nationstate6related historical conceptions and emphasized their own revisionist needs. In other words, a “popularist war” replaced the earlier interstate diplomacy even within academia. Hungary – like the other states of the region – felt threatened by Germany within the sphere of scientific policy. Therefore, decisive resistance was witnessed. Beyond these feelings of threat, this counteraction was also motivated by the fact that the German “cultural slide” theory sharply contradicted contemporary Hungarian founding ideology, the Hungarians’ sense of historical mission and their leadership role within the Carpathian Basin, as well as their desire to prove a cultural supremacist theory contra their neighboring peoples. The Hungarians’ more6or6less unanimous dismissal is also proof that the Hungarian historiography of the period was capable of overcoming its own – indeed huge – inner divisions and showing a united front to defend Hungarian interests against these offensive manifestations