Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen

 

[This is an unedited text of a pdf, Eventually we hope to make it properly available either here or through a link] 

Journal of the History of Collections, v 8, n 2, 1996, p 193 - 200. 

IMPERIAL CULTURAL POLICY AND THE JAHRBUCH DER KUNSTHISTORISCHEN SAMMLUNGEN IN WIEN

ERIKA ESAU

In 1876, the Austrian Imperial house devised an elaborate cultural programme intended to enhance the status of the Habsburg monarchy by emphasizing its cultural achievements and artistic holdings. Part of this programme was the establishment of Das Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, a scholarly journal that would present articles on art objects within the vast imperial holdings. Now more than 100 years old, the Jahrbuch's contents embody the evolution of art-historical thought. A close reading of its volumes also gives insight into the cultural attitudes of its publishers, as well as evidence of the impact of political events on cultural policy and production.

It would be no exaggeration to state that the one-hun-
dred-year history of the Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen
S ammlungen in Wjen (hereafter referred to as the Jahr-
buch or JKSW) mirrors the history of its grand house,
Vienna's Kunsthistorisches Museum.' On an even more
significant scale, a study of the beginnings of this journal
reveals fascinating facts about the vast imperial bureau-
cracy which supported the Austro-Hungarian Empire -
the last of the Habsburg dynasties. Indeed, one can say
that the early volumes oftheJahrbuch serve as important
vehicles for examination of the elaborate cultural policies
which marked the last years of Kaiser Franz Joseph's
reign. The Jahrbuch's long run has also spanned the
major political upheavals of twentieth-century Vienna, a
fact which only occasionally tainted the journal's scho-
larly pages, but which certainly played a part in its pro-
duction. One of the major wonders of this publication,
in fact, is that, amid such catastrophic events, it consis-
tently presented some of the most influential and impor-
tant scholarship in the development of modem art-
historical thought.
The impetus for the creation of such a journal
occurred in 1876, when an elaborately conceived cultural
programme was initiated by the Austrian Imperial
house. As a means of enhancing the Emperor's prestige
through glorification ofHabsburg cultural achievements,
this programme proposed to organize the vast imperial
art collections, which would then be displayed in a monu-
mental public museum .Such a decision was in keeping
with developments ill other European nations of the
nineteenth century, and Austria sought to rival and
exceed any other country in the grandeur of its cultural
manifestations.
As administrator and 'Protektor' for this immense pro-
ject, the Emperor appointed Count Franz Folliot de
Crenneville (I8IS-88), a high-ranking member of the
Imperial staff. Like most members of Kaiser Franz Jose-
ph's elite inner circle, de Crenneville was a military man;
he went about his task as a field marshall organizing
troops. Along with the organization of the collections
o
Esau
themselves and the construction of a museum to house
them, the general programme of 1876 called for a publi-
cation which would serve 'as the scholarly organ of the
Imperial art collections'. 2 This publication would present
the most important scholarship concerning the enor-
mous number of art-works in the possession of the
Imperial hose. Initial plans spoke of appointment of an
editorial committee responsible for the publication, but
this idea was abandoned when de Crenneville appointed
Quirin von Leitner (1834-93) to the staff of the fledgling
museum. Another military man and scholar, Leitner
had already been actively involved in the organization of
the Ambras-Sammlung, one of the largest Habsburg col-
lections, which had originally been housed in a Tyrolean
castle until it was removed to Vienna during the Napo-
leonic Wars.
Along with his other tasks for the new cultural pro-
gramme, Leitner became the sole editor for theJahrbuch.
In 1879, he began preparations for the first volume of
the annual, a task which occupied him for two years.
(The first volume bears the date 1883, although it actually
appeared in 1882.) At the same time, Leitner saw to the
publication in 1880-2 of a facsimile edition of Freydal,
the little-known volume of woodcuts devoted to the tour-
nament of Maximilian I's time. This publication would
be the first of the Museum's many editions of major
Maximiliana.
Another person of singular importance to the scholarly
success of the new Jahrbuch was Albert llg (1847-()6).
llg trained under Rudolf Eitelberger, the visionary
Director of the Museum fur Kunst und Industrie. De
Crenneville recognized Ilg's abilities as a meticulous and
prolific scholar and, in 1876, recruited him from the
other Museum to become curator, and eventually Direc-
tor, at the Kunsthistorisches Museum. Despite an
aggressive and idiosyncratic nature, llg became one of
the major forces behind the early endeavours of the Jahr-
buch and would serve as a frequent contributor to the
publication until his death.
The high scholarly standards set by the Jahrbuch were
evident from the first volume, as were the aims of this
new venture. The preface to volume I, written by de
Crenneville, outlined the goals quite precisely. Officially
titled Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des
Allerhdchsten Kaiserhauses, the journal would be divided
into two sections: 'The first section is dedicated to objects
in the collections of the Imperial house and to the artistic
endeavours of this ancestral house, specifically historical
and critical discussions. ,3 The emphasis here was on
'scientific', i.e. 'toissenschafilich', and scrupulously
unbiased essays of the highest scholarly quality. Topics
covered in the first volume represented every major
group of the new Museum's collections; this organiza-
tional approach would be the format most often used
throughout the journal's publication history. Among the
first articles were discussions of Egyptian sarcophagi and
Roman medallions, essays by llg on the Rosselino
Madonna and Adriaen de Fries, an inventory of the
Museum's Flemish and other tapestries, and a reproduc-
tion and explanation of Maximilian I's Triumph.
As the house-organ of the Museum, these articles were
meant to be impressive examples of the depth and impor-
tance of the imperial art collections, many of which had
rarely been studied by serious art historians." In keeping
with the oft-stated representational function of the jour-
nal, these articles also sought to emphasize imperial,
especially Habsburg, themes. Along with the admirable
facsimile publications of the three great works of Maxi-
milian's day (Freyda/, and in 1888, Weisskunig and
Theurdank), articles on other aspects of Maximilian's
•
Esau 2
patronage appeared throughout the [88os and [890s.
Another great Habsburg monarch, Rudolph II, was a
favorite theme of Ilg, and served as a useful figure in the
attempts to compare Franz Joseph to his cultural ances-
tors.
As impressive and scholarly as theJahrbuch's first sec-
tion was, it was the publication's second section which
would be its most enduring achievement. The purpose
of this section was to publish primary resource materials
from Habsburg archives concentrating on items which
pertained in any way to art-objects. The publication of
immense numbers of original documents - inventories,
accounts, bills of sale, marriage contracts, wills and letters
- dating from as early as the thirteenth century, provided
an unprecedented body of knowledge for the fledgling
field of art-historical scholarship. The goal of compre-
hensiveness in this monumental undertaking was
announced in volume 1: here it was stated that any docu-
ment which could conceivably be considered as pertain-
ing to art-works would be included. The first Regesten,
as this section was called, contained documents from the
Haus-, Hof-, und Staats-Archiv in Wien - one of the lar-
gest Habsburg repositories. Included were documents
from the thirteenth century up to the sixteenth century.
Later volumes would include material from archives out-
side of Vienna, but within the Habsburg realm; these
included items from the archives of Prague, Madrid and
the other cities of Austria.
Not only was the second section an admirable example
of organizational skill; the Jahrbuch also contained quite
complete indexes for both sections in each volume. This
recognition of the need for classification and ordering of
information was one of the most extraordinary aspects
of the early Jahrbuch volumes. It was a concern that
stemmed largely from the introduction of the innovative
historical methods then taught at the University of Vi en-
na's Institut fur Osterreichische Geschichtsforschung.
Most of the Museum's early curators began their studies
at this institute, a fact which is significant to the subse-
quent development of what would be called the Viennese
School of Art History. The empirical basis of their meth-
odology can be directly attributed to this historical train-
ing. The principal organ for this group of art historians
was theJahrbuch.
One of the graduates of the Institut was a contributor
to the first Regesten. He was Heinrich Zimmermann
(1855-1928),5 and his name would be associated with
the Jahrbuch until his death forty-six years later. In
1884, Zimmermann was appointed as the first librarian
of the Museum; in 1889, he succeeded Leitner as the
editor of the Jahrbuch (he had been editor of the Regesten
since 1885). Since this time, it has been customary for
the Museum's librarian to take on the additional respon-
sibility of the editorship of the Jahrbuch. An outstanding
archivist with a prodigious memory and impeccable
proof-reading skills, Zimmermann was the ideal person
to oversee a publication as rigidly demanding as theJahr-
buch, As stated in the journal's tribute to him upon his
death, his thirty-six years as editor marked the golden
era of the publication." The direction and scope of the
journal were largely determined by the contributions of
Zimmermann in theJahrbuch's early years.
The appearance of the first volume was bailed as a
major event. Printed by the art-publishers Adolf Holz-
hausen on fine paper in a large format (26 36 em), the
volume contained 31 copper-plates in heliogravure and
etching, 72 zincographic text-illustrations and 70 wood-
cuts as supplement.' To a modem audience accustomed
to colour photographic reproduction, it is often difficult
to recognize the tremendous breakthrough represented
Esau 3
by the new reproductive techniques of the nineteenth
century. The Museum staff, and especially the editor
Leitner, were justly proud of these reproductions, and
guarded the secrets of their processes jealously. A
request, for example, by a French art-historian for a
photograph of the famous Bellerephon group was ada-
mantly rejected; the next copy oftheJahrbuch, however,
contained a reproduction of the requested piece." There
were other stipulations aimed at controlling access to the
contents: reprint rights were rarely granted, even to the
authors, and Leitner stipulated that only Austrians
could prepare the Regesten - apparently on the basis that
the Archives might contain state secrets. (This last
requirement was later waived, as foreign archives were
included.)
This protectiveness may have been motivated by more
than patriotic fervour. Despite generous subsidies from
the Emperor, the luxurious production of the Jahrbuch
necessitated a high sales price (one copy cost 60 Gulden,
at a time when the average curator earned 1,000 Gulden
a year). Public institutions in Vienna and throughout
Europe often had to request a donation copy from the
Emperor in order to obtain one for their libraries. The
publisher Holzhausen, who had complete control over
distribution, even required that the imperial administra-
tion purchase its own gift copies at full cost. Serious
financial difficulties continued throughout the decade,
causing more dependence on the subvention of the
Emperor's treasury. The situation seemed to improve
somewhat in 1890, when Holzhausen was replaced as
publisher by Tempsky, although the specific reasons for
this change were never clear. The significance placed
upon the Jahrbuch within the imperial cultural pro-
gramme, however, is apparent from the fact that funds
were always provided and the quality of production was
never sacrificed. Most notably, the journal's high stan-
dards of scholarship remained, seemingly undisturbed
by external pressures.
In spite of these financial woes, major facsimile repro-
ductions - always expensive undertakings - continued
to appear in the first years. Volumes 6 and 7, both appear-
ing in 1888, were devoted to two of the great art works
of Maximilian's reign, the Weisskunig and the Theur-
dank. The latter volume was based on the original 1517
edition - unlike earlier facsimile editions based on the
1519 edition - and included a detailed historical analysis
by Simon Laschitzer along with the reproduced places.
These volumes represented the final instalments in the
Jahrbuch's publication of Maxirniliana. The following
year a lavish printing by Penndorf of the Heroon of Gjol-
bashi-Trysa appeared as a supplement to volume 9; the
Heroon was an ancient relief uncovered by an Austrian
expedition to the Near East, and heralded with great
patriotic enthusiasm," Such productions were highly
coveted by most museums and universities, and did
much to enhance the status of the Museum and its publi-
cations. Circulation, however, remained very small
while the Jahrbuch's- scholarly prestige continued to
grow.
The logical concentration on Habsburgian themes in
no way limited the Jahrbuch's choices of topics, since
the Habsburgs had collected in every possible field and
in overwhelming abundance. An example of the innova-
tive approaches to the subject which were explored by
the Museum's curators can be seen in volume 5 (1887).
The volume's Regesten, by the renowned (and eccentric)
scholar Theodor Frimmel," comprised an inventory of
the Museum's library - a library built upon the collection
of Maximilian I as it was preserved through the
Ambras-Sammlung. In his foreword to this inventory,
Esau 4
Frimmel outlined a plan whereby the Jahrbuch's first
section would include lengthy essays based upon the
material covered in the second section. In this case, the
inventory included holdings from 1200 to the sixteenth
century, with greatest emphasis on items pertaining to
Oilier. Section I contained illustrations from Oilier's
Kunstbuch. Logistical problems seem to have prevented
this plan from being carried out consistently, although it
was obvious that several contributions to Section I
depended heavily upon primary resource material accu-
mulated in various instalments of Section II.
The Jahrbuch's position as the standard-bearer of
Kunsttaissenschaft - serious, empirically-oriented studies
- reached its peak in the 1890s. It was in this era that the
ground-breaking research of Franz Wickhoff (1853-
1909) and his followers appeared in the journal, estab-
lishing the first generation of the so-called Viennese
school of art history. Wickhoff's first work in the Jahr-
buch. was in 189 I, as editor of the Italian drawing collec-
tion at the Albertina. Even this seemingly
straightforward topic gave Wickhoff the opportunity to
display his bitingly sarcastic style and his rigid insistence
on precise scientific analysis of art-works. In his intro-
duction to this inventory his disdain of any popular, sen-
timentalized discussion of art was clearly evident: 'This
index is not meant for a large public who are looking for
fleeting entertainment, but it should bring the object
before the eyes of the professional.' He then launched
into an attack of Morellian connoisseurship, a common
target in all of his writings.
Wickhoff spawned a school of followers, young scho-
lars eager to rid art-historical studies of the purely emo-
tional, romanticized views so prevalent in the
nineteenth century, and to replace it with an empiri-
cally-based methodology, grounded in facts and precise
observation of the object in its historical context. The
Jahrbuch became the primary organ for espousing these
views. Wickhoff's most famous study, Die Wiener Gen-
esis, appeared as a supplement to volume 16 in 1895.
Described as the first complete history of Roman art,
this study still serves as the basis for an extrinsically
oriented approach to art-objects.
Two ofWickhoff's most ardent disciples - the second
generation of the Viennese school- made their first con-
tributions to theJahrbuch in 1892. They were Julius von
Schlosser (1866--1938) and Alois Riegl (1858-1905).
Schlosser carne to the Museum in 1897 as an assistant;
he was Director of Arms and Armour and Decorative
Arts from 1902 until the 1920S, when he was involved
with teaching at the University, and left the Museum.
His first article for the Jahrbuch, on the Fulda Miniature
manuscript in the Hofbibliothek, reflected an early inter-
est in German art; the essay was certainly in keeping
with the journal's efforts to consider neglected areas of
art. Schlosser's later articles concentrated on Italian art,
the field in which he made his greatest contributions.
Riegl, who in 1892 was curator of textiles at the
Museum fur Kunst und Industrie, has been called the
most influential and exciting mind of the Viennese
school. His first article in the Jahrbuch was a study of
oriental carpets - one of the very few articles on non-
Western art to be published in the journal. This early
study presented some of Riegl's stimulating ideas on the
evolution of pattern and ornament. Later, Riegl left
museum work to teach at the University. Significantly,
he continued to publish his major studies in theJahrbuch
- an indication of the close connection between the
Museum and the University throughout the Museum's
history. In 1902, the Jahrbuch published Riegl's 'Das
hollandische Grupenportrat', one of his most complex
Esau 5
theoretical expressions and the source ofhis controversial
concept of Kunstmollen.
Riegl's best student, the representative of the third
generation of the Viennese school, was Max Dvorak
([874-[92[). Dvorak published his greatest work in the
2)Jahrbuch; in [903, volume 24 contained 'Der Ratsel
der Kunst der Bruder van Eyck', one of the landmark
studies of the period. This volume also included articles
by Schlosser on Ghiberti, and Wickhoff on Bonifazio's
workshop, plus several other substantial contributions
by other Museum curators. The sheer scholarly power
of the Jahrbuch in these years is difficult to imagine
today. The number of major articles appearing in its
pages in the two decades from 1890 to 1910 was unsur-
passed by any other publication of the time.
Concerned as it was with intellectual content, the
Jahrbuch rarely included any editorial information; few
references were ever made to the political or social situa-
tion of the day. This fact often makes it difficult to deter-
mine the underlying causes for changes in the
publication's appearance or frequency, or to gain any
sense of how political realities affected its publication. In
the 1900s, for example, several double issues were
issued: volume 26 was published for 1906/7 with similar
double years through 1913/14. No explanation for this
was given in the publication; it was perhaps due to
changes in the direction of the Museum itself.
At this time, new ideas concerning the educational
purpose of the Museum began to emerge; curatorial
duties were redefined with less time available for uninter-
rupted research. Under the leadership of Gustav Gluck,
who became Director in 1911, a major rehanging of the
galleries began. This project occupied most of the cura-
tors' time for several years, and they perhaps found it
impossible to contribute a significant article every year.
This fact, coupled with financial cutbacks to the
Museum, may have necessitated a more limited publica-
tion schedule.
In any event, the quality of the Jahrbuch was not jeo-
pardized. This period, in fact, represented an expansion
of topics covered within its pages. Previously, the major-
ity of articles dealt with classical or Renaissance art, pre-
ferably with a Habsburg emphasis. Although
concentration on Habsburg themes remained strong,
the 'discovery' of new periods for study caused a broad-
ening of available topics. Particularly significant was the
new recognition of the Baroque era. The popularity of
this period increased with the studies of Hans Tietze
(1880-1954) and Erika Tietze-Conrat (1883-1958).
Tietze's first article for the Jahrbuch, on Annibale Car-
racci's Galeria in the Palazzo Farnese, was a major contri-
bution to volume 26 (1906/7). This volume also
included Arpad Weixlgfutner's discussion of Prince
Eugen's Prunkschrank, another Baroque theme (the
Prunkschrank has since been determined to be a fake).
Weixlgartner (1872-1962) joined the Museum staff in
1906 and was editor of the Jahrbuch from 1927 until the
Nazi takeover.'! Along with the Tietzes, he helped to
make Baroque art an acceptable scholarly concern.
The lack of editorial commentary was especially
noticeable in the volumes published during World War
I: volume 31 appeared in 1913/14, volume 32 in 1915,
volume 32 in 1915, volume 33 in 1916, and volume 34 in
1918. The only indication of the political situation of the
time is that no specific 'Protektor' was named as pub-
lisher; publishing responsibility until 1916, however,
was still given as 'seiner kaiserlichen und koniglichen
Apostolischen Majestat Oberstkiimmererarnte.' By
volume 34, this imperial patronage was eliminated from
the credits.
Esau 6
The first two volumes after the war - volume 35 in
1920121 and volume 36 in 1923125 - also made no men-
tion of the new political order in Austria. Contributors
still included many of the same names as before the war,
including Ludwig Baldass (who joined the Museum in
1911),12 Leo Planiscig, Gustav Gluck and Erika Tietze-
Conrat. Notably, these volumes contained no Regesten,
the first time since its inauguration that this valuable sec-
tion was omitted.
Volume 36 (1923/25) was the last volume of the first
series. Apparently, this decision was planned in advance,
as the volume contained an index to the entire run up to
this date. This index was prepared with great thorough-
ness by Zimmermann, who by this time suffered from
severe eye problems. 1926, then, marked the beginning
of a new series under a new name. No longer was this
the Jahrbuch of the imperial house; it became simply the
Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien .
The first volume of this new series contained an intro-
duction by Leo Planiscig, the new editor. This introduc-
tion was the first explanation ofJKSWs status after the
war and the political reshaping of the Austrian nation.
The statement is relevant enough to be quoted in its
entirety:
In the years which followed the political and economic devasta-
tion, we let the flame of our yearbook glow only as a spark, well
guarded from violent acts of reform which were the order of
the day, and by which it was intended to change the stuff of
science and art from a fundamental level, just as had happened
with control of the state. For twenty-four years, guided by one
of the most prudent and caring editors, Heinrich Zimmer-
mann, the 'Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des
A1lerhiichsten Kaiserhauses' held the first and noblest place
among the great art-historical publications of world renown; in
thirty-six volumes, not only the Viennese school of art history,
but also scholars from the entire world were given the opportu-
nity to present the results of their research in an exemplary
manner. Indeed an apology for this oldest of art-historical pub-
lications need not be written here! We want to look into the
future and, even if we keep in mind the tradition which con-
tinues - and which gives us a great responsibility - to create
something new and living. The female is not extinguished, we
want only to see it bum brightly again!
We are beginning - in keeping with the times - a new series
oftheJahrbuch. Format and scope will be maintained. Reject-
ing cheap popularity, the uncompromisingly scholarly spirit
will be maintained - the spirit which identifies this publication.
A small group of benefactors are making possible the publica-
tion, which was once accomplished through the munificence of
the Emperor. The generosity of the publishing house Schroll
& Co., in whose hands we now believe our Jahrbuch to be
secure, has relieved a portion of our concerns. The reception
from foreign and domestic friends encourages our plans.
Hofrat Zimmermann is departing from the editorship. We
younger ones recognize his accomplished work, and we want
to honour him; he showed us the way, which we, always in his
debt, want only to continue ...
This immensely telling and nostalgic statement was
the only reference to the difficulties faced by the
Museum at the collapse of the Empire. Gone was the
generous support of the imperial policy-makers, to be
replaced by a handful of private donors intent on seeing
the Jahrbuch continue; the publisher now was listed
simply as the staff of the Kunsthistorisches Museum.
When one considers the near-anarchic situation existing
in the Vienna of the 1920S, one can appreciate all the
more the sometimes desperate efforts of the Museum to
maintain a journal of the Jahrbuc h's standards.
Despite the obstacles faced by the new staff, one can
barely sense a change in the new series - at least not in
terms of scholarly content. As mentioned, the only sig-
nificant difference was the omission of the Regesten, a
Esau 7
major loss for all art historians. Volume [ was dedicated to
Julius von Schlosser, who was retiring from the
Museum. Articles included Planiscig on JacopeUo daI
Fiore, Baldass on Bosch, Ernst Kris on the 'Stil "Rus-
tique? ', Gluck on Velasquez, and Otto Benesch's 'Sei-
centostudien'. Such impressive contributions in the face
of financial and political difficulties were testament to
the determination of the Museum to maintain the Jahr-
bueh at all costs.
The only sign of the changing political situation at this
time was a slight shift in thematic concentration: articles
in the 1920S and 1930S showed some preference for
topics in Austrian art. Not only was there less money
available to conduct foreign research, but here was also a
need to establish a national identity after the dissolution
of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Volume 4 (1930), for
example, edited by Weizlgiirtner, contained essays by
Hans Tietze on the building of St Stephan's Cathedral;
Ernst Kris on Austrian sculpture of the fifteenth century;
Otto Benesch on Old Austrian panel painting; and
Ludwig Baldass on the Master of the Grazer Dom. In
many cases, these essays were the first serious studies of
the topic; as such, they preserved theJahrbueh's commit-
ment to the discussion of neglected areas of art history.
As in the past, the only reflective or editorial informa-
tion appeared in the obituaries and tributes to museum
colleagues. Volume 3 (1929) contained Weizlgartner's
laudatory essay on Zimmermann, providing scarce back-
ground on the man and the journal as he edited it.
Volume 5 (1931) was dedicated to Gustav Gluck on his
sixtieth birthday and included an article by Baldass on
the history of the galleries. The article concentrated espe-
cially on Gluck's rehanging of the galleries and ended
with list of Museum acquisitions under his directorship.
Many of the art-works listed here were originally part of
aristocratic collections broken up after the war as inflation
took its toll.
By 1932,evenJKSWwas touched by the encroaching
politicization which would soon affect all of Austria's
institutions. A short tribute in volume 6 to Gustav
Benda, a collector who had donated his works to the
Museum, contained a strong statement in support of the
'Gross Deutschland' sentiments which were used to jus-
tify Austria's 'Anschluss' or annexation to Germany
under Hitler. For a journal which had scrupulously
avoided any political leanings in the past, this statement
was an unfortunate omen.
In spite of growing political unrest, the Jahrbueh's
scholarship remained impeccable throughout the 1930s.
Of major importance were Ernst Gombrich's study of
Giulio Romano (volumes 8 and 9lr934 and 1935), Karl
de Tolnai on Breugel (volume 8/1934), Gustav Gluck's
three-part work on Habsburg portraits (volumes 7, 8
and II/1933, 1934, and 1937), and the Tietzes' 'Tizian-
Studien' (volume 10/1936).
From its contents, volume 12 (1938) appeared to be a
normal publication; it was dedicated to Hermann Julius
Hermann, retiring birector of the Museum. Upon
closer examination, however, certain semantic alterations
appeared which alluded to the political realities of the
time. Weixlgartner was no longer editor, but was suc-
ceeded by Erich Strohmer;" the publisher was listed as
'Leiter des Kunsthistorischen Museums' - a more offi-
cious title than 'Direktor' had been, and more appropri-
ate to the new administrative order. More significantly,
the publication was labelled as 'printed in Germany',
although the firms involved in the printing remained
uncharged, all of them in Vienna. This volume was the
last until 1944, the only volume published during
World War II. Volume 13, edited by F. Dworschak, con-
Esau 8
tained a simple, non-polemical foreword, in which tri-
bute was paid to Paul Buberl, a contributor to the
volume who died during the war. The foreword also
announced progress on the previously planned three-
volume Festschrift in honour of the fiftieth anniversary
of the opening of the KunsthistorischesMusewn's build-
ing (1891-1941). The Festschrift, written with great skill
by curator Alphons Lhotsky, finally appeared in 1945; it
remained, until Herbert Haupt's comprehensive study
of the Museum in 199[,15 the most complete record of
the Musewn's development and the people who worked
there.
Unlike World War I and its aftermath, when somehow
the Jahrbuch managed to continue, World War II and
the subsequent occupation of Austria made publication
of the journal impossible. No volwnes appeared again
until 1953. These volwnes were now printed in a smaller
format, a concession to economic considerations. Under
the new Austrian government, institutions such as the
Kunsthistorisches Musewn were subsidized by the
State. The Jahrbuch, then, once again received funding
from State resources, although hardly as generous as
those provided under the Emperor. In the introduction
to the new volume, the editor - at this time E. M. Auer
- affirmed the Museum's desire to continue in the scho-
larly tradition of the Jahrbuch and stressed a commit-
ment to publish not only research from Museum staff
members, but to include the works of the best foreign
scholars as well. The introduction also listed those mem-
bers of the Museum who had died since the 1938
volume; among those for whom no obituary was printed
in theJahrbuch were Julius von Schlosser (1866-1938),
Leo Planiscig (1887-1952), and Gustav Gluck (1871-
1952).
The introduction also announced a change in number-
ing: now all volumes since the beginning of the Jahr-
buch's publication would be run consecutively; the
numbering of the new series would also be indicated.
This volume, then, became volume 50 (N .f. XIV): the fif-
tieth volwne by the old nwnbering and the fourteenth
in the new series. Each subsequent volume has included
both numbers, to the confusion of many a librarian and
user. (For the purposes of this paper, the new series num-
bering will be ignored.) The editorial staff apparently
felt that no division should be made between the pre-
World War I volumes and those that followed, as such a
distinction would, philosophically, necessitate another
new series at this time.
As was expected, articles continued to emphasize art-
works in the Museum's collection. Of major importance
in the 1950S were a series of articles on Giorgione, by
Ludwig Baldass and other curators. Baldass's first work
on this artist had appeared in the 1944Jahrbuch where
he gave a comprehensive analysis of the controversy sur-
rounding the Dresden Giorgione. Further ground-
breaking studies included Erwin Neumann's 'Florenti-
ner Mosaik aus Prag' (1957) and 'Materialien zur
Geschichte der Scagliola' (1959), as well as numerous
articles on the Musewn's enormous arms and armour
collection by Bruno Thomas and Ortwin Gamber.
Other articles of interest in this period included one of
the journal's infrequent articles on nineteenth-century
art: Werner Hofmann wrote on Daumier's graphic work
in volume 52 (1956). Volumes continued to be dedicated
to Musewn staff members. Volume 51 (1955) honoured
EmstBuschbeckand volume 53 (1957) celebrated Weixl-
gartner's eighty-fifth birthday.
Despite its smaller size and less elaborate format -
reproductions were now black-and-white photographs -
the post-War JKSW still presented significant art-his-
•
Esau 9
Journal title and title change: Jahrbuch der kunsthistor-
ischen Sammlungen des Allerhiichsten Kaiserhauses
(1883-1918); Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlun-
gen in Wien (1918-).
Volumes and issue data: Annual. Vols 1-36 (1882-1925);
new series, vols 1-13 (1926-1944; no volumes 1938-
1944); combined numbering 1953- ,e.g. vols 50-
(n.s. XJV- ).
Publisher and Place of Publication: 'Herausgerber'
always Kunsthistorisches Museum, under the auspices
of 'Oberstkiimmereramt des Kaiserhauses', 1882-1918;
then simply as published by 'Beam ten des kunsthistor-
isches Museums', 1918- ; 'Verlag': AdolfHolzhausen,
Vienna (1882-1890); G. Tempsky, Vienna *1890-
1925); Anton Schroll, Vienna (1926- ); Editors:
Qpirin von Leitner (1882-1889); Heinrich Zimmer-
mann (1889-1925); Leo Palniscig and Erich Strohmer
(1926); Arpad Weixlgiirtner (1927-1937); Erich Stroh-
mer (1938 and 1944); E. M. Auer (1953-1973); Georg
Kugler (1973- ).
Esau 10
torical scholarship. In 1958, a separate monograph, L.
Luchner's 'Denkrnal eines Renaissancefursten', was
published by the Museum as part of the Jahrbuch.
Financial exigencies, however, made this practice unfea-
sible, and no other monographs have been published
since then. Anton Schroll continued as the printing
house, as it had been since 1926.TheJahrbuch also con-
tinued to be printed without advertisement. Until very
recently, all articles were published in German. This
policy frequently required that foreign articles be trans-
lated, as was the case with John Shearman's essay on Psy-
che's Loggia in the Villa Farnesina and Raphael's
graphic style (volume 59/1963). It is only since the 1980s
that a very few articles have appeared in English and
French.
In 1973 Dr Georg Kugler became the Museum's
librarian and editor of the Jahrbuch. At the same time,
the publication revived a second section of resource
material similar to the indispensable Regesten of the old
series. Volume 82/83 (1986/87) consisted of the essays
presented at a symposium on Albrecht Oilier's animal
and plant studies, held at the Albertina in 1985; similarly,
volume 84/86 (1989/90) presented the results of the sym-
posium which accompanied the exhibition 'Prag urn
1600'. IN 1988, volume 84 included a general index of
the volumes since 1926, prepared by the Museum's
archivist Herbert Haupt. Finally, the centenary of the
Museum's opening was commemorated in 1991 with a
volume of articles by members and friends of the
Museum (volume 87).
The Jahrbuch is now more than one hundred years
old. Its age alone makes it one of the most important art
history publications. The impact of its scholarship in the
formative years of art-historical studies cannot be over-
stated. The Jahrbuch persisted, despite financial and
political limitations, in its presentation of impeccably
thorough research focusing on the holdings of the
Kunsthistorisches Museum. Founded as a scholarly
symbol of imperial prestige, the Jahrbuch fulfilled this
purpose; with the Empire gone, it remained as the voice
of the Museum, increasing knowledge of its collections
and contributing to the development of modern
approaches to art-historical thought.
APPENDIX I
PUBLICATION HISTORY
Notes and references
The following sources have been used extensively: Trevor Fawcett
(ed), The Art Press: Two Centuries of Art Magazines (London,
1976), esp. p. 14; Udo Kultermann, Die Gmhichu der Kunst-
geschicht« (Vienna, 1966), for information on the scholars of the
Viennese School of Art History; Alphons Lhotsky, Fests.hrift tks
kunsthistorischen Museums zur Feier desfonfzigjiihrigen Bestandes,
3 vols (Vienna, 1941-45); L. Lutzeler, Kunsterfahrung und Kunst-
wissenschaft, 3 vols (Freiburg, 1975), for information on the art his-
torians in the Jahrbuch and samples of their work.
I. One could indeed speculate that theJahrbuch's title influenced
the naming of the museum itself; the journal first appeared in
1882, while the museum opened, with the official and unusual
name ofDas Kunsthistorische Museum, in 1891.
2. H. Zimmerman, 'Q!.Urin von Leitner', Jahrbuch IS (1894),
p. 404. All translations from German by the author.
3. Preface,Jahrbuch I (1883).
4. It is interesting to note that the contributors were well-paid for
their contributions, and at least one essay, by Wartnegg, was
rejected 'with good will' as not good enough to be included.
See A. Lhotsky, Festschrift des Kunsthistorischen Museums zur
Peier des fonfzigjiihrigen Bestandes (Vienna, 1941-45), m,
P·589·
5. Until 1906, he spelled his name Zimerman.
6. A. Weixlgiirtner, 'Heinrich Zimmerman', Jahrbu.h n.s. 3
(1929), p. I.
7. ~oted in Lhotsky, op. cit., (note 4), vol. Ill, p. S88.
8. Ibid., p. 593.
9. For a recent analysis of the Hernon of Golbashi-Trysa, see
Wolfgang Oberleitner, 'Das Heroon von Trysa: Ein lykisches
Furstengrab des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr.', Antik« Welt: Zeits-
shrift for Archiiologie und Kulturgeschichte 25 (Summer
1994), (special issue).
10. For a fascinating discussion of this unusual and difficult man,
see ibid., pp. 649-50.
I I. See Franz Gluck's obituary to Weixlgarmer in Mitteilungen
der Museen Osterreichs 10 (1961), pp. 71-5.
IZ. See Gunther Heinz, 'Ludwig Baldass t', Mitteilungen des
Musun Osterreich: IZ (1963), pp. 172-3.
13. Hermann's career is discussed briefly by August Liehr in Mit-
uilungen des Instituts for osterreichisclu:Geschichtsforschung 64
(1956), pp. 469-70.
14. Strohmer's unfortunate circumstances and the sad situation
leading to his succession are discussed by Hermann Fillitz.
Mittei/ungsblat der Museum Osterreichs II (196z), pp. IZ3-8.
See also Herbert Haupt's discussion of the Museum under
the National Socialists in H. Haupt, Das Kunsthistorisch»
Museum: Die Geschichte tks Houses am Ring (Vienna 1991),
pp. IZ3-'75·
15. See Haupt, op. cit. (note 14)·
Esau II
illustrations: Black-and-white reproductions; in early
volumes, heliogravures, lithography and photography,
some in colour.
Index sources: Each volume of the Jahrbuch has its own
index; the entire run of Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen
Sammlungen des Allerhiichsten Kaiserhauses (vols I-36)
also has a complete general index included in vol. 36.
Vol. 84 (1988) includes a general index for the years
I926-88. As of I910 (vol. 29), the Jahrbuch is also
indexed in Repertoire d'art et d'archeologie;Jahrbuch der
kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien has also been in
Art Index from 1929 (vol. 1 of the Index) and in RlLA
since that index's inception (1973); it is currently indexed
in BHA, the successor to RILA.
Address for correspondence
Dr Erika Esau, Art History Department, The Australian National
University, Canberra, ACT ozoo, Australia.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Fr. Dr Anna Spitzmuller for her valu-
able assistance; she provided personal reminiscences of those
involved with the Jahrbuch, as well as many pages of information
from sources not readily available outside Vienna.