Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T05:05:46.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Historical Research and Cultural History in Nineteenth-Century Austria: The Archivist Joseph Chmel (1798–1858)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2014

Christine Ottner
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the nineteenth century, history developed into an independent discipline with important cultural and intellectual functions in both the academic world, as well as in society at large. Specific circumstances contributed to the rise in importance of this discipline: On the one hand, the emergence of an educated bourgeoisie and rising nationalist movements influenced the study of history; whereas on the other hand, public demands for assurances of continuity, as well as conservative efforts for restoration, also played an important role in history's growth in importance. Historicism, which began to establish itself in late-eighteenth-century Germany, had its forerunners in research approaches that grew out of the late Enlightenment. Concepts of cultural science [Kulturwissenschaft] developed by scholars of the late Enlightenment paved the way for the rise of the historical discipline during the first half of the nineteenth century.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Austrian History Yearbook , Volume 45 , April 2014 , pp. 115 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 2014 

Introduction

During the nineteenth century, history developed into an independent discipline with important cultural and intellectual functions in both the academic world, as well as in society at large. Specific circumstances contributed to the rise in importance of this discipline: On the one hand, the emergence of an educated bourgeoisie and rising nationalist movements influenced the study of history; whereas on the other hand, public demands for assurances of continuity, as well as conservative efforts for restoration, also played an important role in history's growth in importance.Footnote 1 Historicism, which began to establish itself in late-eighteenth-century Germany, had its forerunners in research approaches that grew out of the late Enlightenment. Concepts of cultural science [Kulturwissenschaft] developed by scholars of the late Enlightenment paved the way for the rise of the historical discipline during the first half of the nineteenth century.Footnote 2

In this respect, the interdependence between the natural sciences and the humanitiesFootnote 3 must not be overlooked,Footnote 4 and such interdependence had a lasting influence on their relationship. The question of the character of the Enlightenment concept of science, oriented toward the natural sciences, has also received scholarly attention.Footnote 5 Some scholars even saw the modes of thinking of the early modern Bollandists and MauristsFootnote 6 as partly following the theoretical model of the natural sciences. This also holds true for strategies of systematically collecting and examining historical sources such as the compilation by German and Austrian Benedectine monks in the “Aevum diplomaticum.” In the opinion of some authors, even the philological-critical method and the beginnings of historicism were indebted to the theoretical model of the natural sciences.Footnote 7

In contrast to these views, others have raised the question of methodological imprints left on the natural sciences by philology and history, in particular in the light of the collection, examination, and classification of “facts.”Footnote 8 With respect to the positivistic empiricism that prevailed in the first half of the nineteenth century, we can assume a permanent parallelism between humanistic modes of thinking and those employed by the natural sciences. A very interesting insight into this entanglement is offered by Jacob Grimm's keynote speech on the occasion of a meeting between scholars of law, history, and language in Frankfurt in 1846. He subsumed all of these disciplines under the concept of the “inexact sciences,” which he distinguished from subjects such as mathematics or chemistry, but also from classical philology with its fixed rules of textual criticism.Footnote 9 Without going into detail on the debate over scientific conceptions of the late Enlightenment and of historicism, it may be added that Johann Gustav Droysen's Historik, published in 1868, also constitutes a reaction of the historical sciences against the claim to truth on the part of natural sciences.Footnote 10

At the end of the eighteenth century, Vienna was, next to monastic centers of research, an important point of reference for historical research within the Habsburg monarchy: in a way inspired by the enlightenment practice of the field of universal history.Footnote 11 At the same time, dispensing with the belief in general progress, writing the history of the state in a pragmatic style was the order of the day.Footnote 12 In the 1790s the philosophical teachings of Immanuel Kant had been studied keenly; after all, the Studienrevisionshofkommission [Court Commission responsible for educational matters] even dealt with the idea of introducing Kant's philosophy at educational establishments.Footnote 13 However, notwithstanding all these discussions, the official task of a teacher in history was merely to train students to become useful if quiescent citizens, content with the government of the day.Footnote 14

Until the beginning of the nineteenth century, the aforementioned powerful convents and monasteries of the baroque period, in which the tradition of studying historical sources was still alive, remained influential.Footnote 15 Parallel to their rising “national consciousness,” the educated classes in various regions also began to organize themselves in new scholarly associations: They founded libraries, museums, and archives in order to deal with their own past on an empirical basis.Footnote 16 The cultivation of romantic-national ideas soon found expression in the journal Vaterländische Blätter für den österreichischen Kaiserstaat, which was even supported by government circles. It appeared for the first time in 1808 and appealed to “love of the fatherland through knowledge of the fatherland.”Footnote 17

However, this appeal to nation and people was soon withdrawn in order to protect dynastic, feudal, and bureaucratic principles.Footnote 18 In the wake of conservative efforts to establish peace and order as defined at the Congress of Vienna, government circles viewed any kind of historical study with distrust.Footnote 19 Even contacts with editorial projects in medieval history, such as the Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde [Society for Older German Historical Knowledge], founded in 1819, were not welcome—in spite of endeavors on the part of Georg Heinrich Pertz, director of the Society, who took great pains to advance the interests of his Society in Austria successfully during several visits to Vienna. However, the cooperation of Austrian scholars with the undertakings of the society, mainly the edition of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, ultimately seems to have been tolerated tacitly.Footnote 20 Judging by some contacts a few Austrian scholars admittedly had with the Monumenta and other typical German editorial undertakings, it appears that even in the Vormärz era a tendency toward historical research based on a thorough study of sources had taken root in Austria.Footnote 21

Apart from the historical tradition in some Austrian monasteries such as Melk or St. Florian, the already mentioned associations and museums for provincial and regional history (Landesvereine, Landesmuseen), which existed among others in Bohemia, Styria, or Lower Austria, also provided a framework for historical research in the 1830s.Footnote 22 Moreover, the establishments and collections of the Viennese court should also be stressed as institutional cornerstones: the Münz- und Antikenkabinett for numismatics, archaeology, and ancient history; the Hofbibliothek [Court Library], where philologists, including slavicists, translated and edited old texts; and finally the Geheimes Hausarchiv [Secret/Privy House Archive], where those who were so close to numerous historical sources cultivated paleographical and genealogical studies.Footnote 23 Access to the Archive was restricted by the Staatskanzlei [State Chancellery] that would not have made its holdings available to a larger scholarly community.Footnote 24 In this context it is important to point out that before the Ministerium für Cultus und Unterricht [Ministry of Culture/Religion and Education] under Leo Thun-Hohenstein implemented the great reforms, the universities of the monarchy served more as educational institutions than as research centers. The professors were not supposed to do research in archives and collections and had no possibility of dealing with primary archival sources because they were limited to using previously published material and historical studies.Footnote 25

Der Österreichische Geschichtsforscher: A Journal for Collecting Historical Sources

Seen against this background, the situation of Austrian historical research is exemplified by the professional career and the scientific program of Joseph Chmel, a Moravian-born “historian-archivist.”Footnote 26 Chmel endeavored passionately to counter contemporary journalism and the mere collecting of anecdotes with serious editions of historical sources, without which scientific historiography would not be possible.Footnote 27 Chmel's initiatives and his professional career have already been dealt with in some older studies.Footnote 28 It is nevertheless worthwhile to take a closer look at his scientific practices and theories, which can be deduced from his work reports, accounts of his journeys, his lectures and articles, his extensive correspondence, and his disputes with colleagues.

Chmel received his academic training at the Augustinian Abbey of St. Florian. Here, the archivist Franz Kurz (1771–1843) had already been pursuing historical studies based on a close reading of sources since the turn of the century and in doing so had founded a “historical school.”Footnote 29 Kurz aroused and boosted Chmel's interest in the history of Habsburg rulers in the late Middle Ages. In 1830, Chmel made several trips to archives and libraries, including those of Vienna. For his research on the “History of Austria under Emperor Frederick III,” he planned to collect as much historical material as possible in order to present his results to the public in the form of appropriate publications.Footnote 30 At the same time he also met Georg Heinrich Pertz, for whom he completed several editions of historical sources. Chmel became a passionate collector of historical sources, and in 1834 he was appointed “second archivist” of the Secret House Archive in Vienna.Footnote 31 In spite of severe censorship, time and again Chmel produced historical publications.Footnote 32 He once confessed that his passion for charters and medieval history was so great that he had even dreamed of them.Footnote 33

Chmel was also among the twelve Viennese scholars and government officials who unsuccessfully attempted to found an Austrian Academy of Sciences in 1837.Footnote 34 These twelve scholars, representatives of natural sciences as well as the humanities, argued in a political way that stressed the importance of “national honor.” They referred among others to scientific academies in Prussia and in Bavaria that functioned as rallying points of “German culture.” They asserted that they did not want Austria to be outstripped by these foreign organizations. The main scholarly task of the Academy should be to encourage a scientific empiricism that should deal with “the phenomena of nature” and “historical facts.” “True objectivity” was their declared aim—however, scholars should try to reach this target only via collaboratively organized collecting, practices that were also in accordance with the situation in the Vormärz era. In the light of the diverse scholarly fields represented by the petitioners, it is surprising that only “history” was mentioned explicitly: Researchers from all the different parts of the monarchy, they argued, should participate in a well-organized historical “source collection-program.”Footnote 35

Shortly before that initiative was undertaken, Chmel had reported in the periodical Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichts- und Staatskunde on a journey to some archives in monasteries, a journey that was solely designed for his collection of historical sources. In this article, he also declared his “enthusiastic passion” for patriotic history—a history that he regarded to be extremely difficult because of the diversity of the Habsburg lands, all of which had to be included.Footnote 36

Apart from the plans to establish an Academy, which temporarily miscarried, Chmel tried to realize these goals on his own and published several short-lived periodicals. Among these publications a periodical called Der Österreichische Geschichtsforscher deserves mention in the first place, although only two volumes were published in 1838 and 1841/42, respectively.Footnote 37 Chmel saw the periodical as a historical “repository” for the “widely dispersed” historians of the monarchy: “[I]nformation stemming from manuscripts, charters and books” was provided as a guide to material equally widely dispersed. According to the ideas of the editor, the historical sources of Vienna and other parts of the monarchy should make it possible to achieve the collectively desired result of a “complete and truthful history.” In the periodical, Chmel also gave researchers clear instructions: “The Austrian historian should deliver solid building materials and should start building from below.”Footnote 38

The periodical certainly failed in its purpose of serving as an aid for historians to locate as yet unknown sources. Its structure and contents, however, were highly heterogeneous, thus making the material difficult for contemporary readers to handle. Each volume consisted of three numbers, which included—without any chronological or thematic limitation—charters [Urkunden] for an Austrian Codex Diplomaticus, as well as material on Austrian financial history, on numismatics, on sigillography, on heraldry, diplomatic records, or source material on the history of the University of Vienna in the Middle Ages. At the beginning most contributions came from Chmel himself who wanted to make public some of the documents he had found during his previous travels to various archives.

Already when planning the first volume, Chmel had been at a loss regarding the principles by which he should arrange the material, which various scholars were constantly sending him in large amounts.Footnote 39 Therefore, the arrangement of the periodical mirrors exactly the “confused state of the documents” prevailing in the archives.Footnote 40 Even Theodor Sickel, later one of the great experts in paleography and diplomatics [Urkundenlehre],Footnote 41 who long before he had started his career copied some documents in the archive of Milan for Chmel, laconically stated that “the chaos of his work” corresponded to the state of the archive.Footnote 42 As editor of the periodical, Chmel accepted the manuscripts of his collaborators without asking them to make any changes.Footnote 43 Yet, more often than not there were no indications as to the provenance and the history of the texts they sent.Footnote 44 They often dispensed with specific information on cartularies or archival signatures. The form of presentation in the periodical comprised excerpts of manuscripts, texts of Regesta, as well as complete texts. Basically the entire periodical adds up to collections of materials; only now and then does one find smaller articles.Footnote 45

In every number there was also an appendix called a Notizenblatt, in which Chmel offered to his expert readers bibliographical information, as well as information on projects undertaken by numerous researchers in the lands of the Habsburg monarchy, to the extent that he knew about them.Footnote 46 This part of the periodical acquaints us with Chmel's extensive network of correspondents, mainly librarians and archivists, but also civil servants in filing departments and teachers in secondary schools who were active as historical researchers. His private correspondence bears witness to lively contacts with researchers in various parts of the monarchy, especially Moravia and Bohemia, and among others, with František Palacký, official historian of the Bohemian Estates.Footnote 47 This is in keeping with the general findings of present-day scholars who argue that the connection between Cisleithanian Austria (in the geographical sense)—here the Habsburgs’ “German hereditary lands”—and Bohemia was much more fundamental and enduring in intellectual terms than its connection to Hungary or Galicia.Footnote 48 It may also be interesting that Chmel vehemently supported the translation of some late medieval letters published in Palacký's Archiv Český, not into German, but into Latin, “for the good of the historical researchers of all the nations.”Footnote 49

In his Geschichtsforscher, Chmel gives the impression of being a focal point for historical research on “Austria,” by which he meant the history of the Gesamtstaat Footnote 50 even in the 1840s.Footnote 51 Nevertheless, the topics covered by this periodical remained de facto restricted mainly to the history of Lower and Upper Austria.

After the appearance of its second volume, Chmel abandoned the journal Geschichtsforscher. Its circulation was low, and public interest in a periodical of this kind was lacking in Austria.Footnote 52 The numerous contributions sent in to Chmel as editor, along with the experience of his own journeys, made him aware of the enormous mass of material stored in all archives in the Habsburg monarchy.Footnote 53 However, he found it nearly impossible to select critically which materials should be published. He preferred simply to have everything printed and wanted everybody to help him in this respect.Footnote 54 The establishment of the Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Vienna in 1847 was auspicious for Chmel. Here, he held several central positions and initiated many monumental undertakings, such as the so called Monumenta Habsburgica or the Fontes Rerum Austriacarum.Footnote 55 Both projects aimed at editing historical sources. The first one dealt with materials about the Emperors Frederick III and Maximilian I,Footnote 56 whereas the second was divided into two subseries: the Diplomataria et Acta dealt with diplomatic records in general, and the Scriptores dealt for example with diaries of popular medieval scholars and chroniclers.Footnote 57

With regard to the Fontes, we should briefly examine the different meanings of the term “Austria” in circulation around 1848, as with the example of the Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, established in that year as an editorial undertaking by the Academy at Chmel's instigation. On the one hand, this series sought to edit historical sources for the whole monarchy. On the other hand, Res Austriacae should be considered only one of altogether five projects (the other ones being Res Hungaricae, Polonicae, Bohemicae, and Italicae) and as one of five parts representing the so-called German hereditary lands [deutsche Erbländer].Footnote 58 Although the official program of the Academy eventually differentiated between these “five different groups,”Footnote 59 all editions were published as part of the Fontes Rerum Austriacarum without any further discussion of this question. We therefore find documents relating to Venetian history or the Hussite period in Bohemia under this general title.Footnote 60 Furthermore, the general conception of the Fontes did not refer to Southern Slavs as a group, which indicates that these five categories were defined in a historical-territorial rather than in an ethnic and linguistic sense: The Southern Slavs belonged to the “German hereditary lands” as well as to the lands of the Hungarian Crown of St. Stephen.Footnote 61 Elsewhere Chmel himself explicitly mentioned “five nationalities” (see below) after 1848, which could be an indication that his concept of nationhood was still based on this historical-territorial model. At the same time, he also expressed a more critical view with regard to a treatise written by Joseph Alexander Helfert, the secretary of state in the Ministerium für Cultus und Unterricht, who had advanced a highly politicized interpretation of Nationalgeschichte” in 1853.Footnote 62 I briefly explain Helfert's model and Chmel's critical view of it below (see below).

Chmel himself described his political views as “moderately conservative,”Footnote 63 but he certainly cannot be considered to be a political or politicized historian because he was mainly interested in research and not at all in day-to-day political business, as he himself admitted.Footnote 64 It is difficult to determine his exact position in the heterogeneous political field around 1848. Unlike his colleague the Bohemian historian and politician František Palacký, Chmel did not address questions of individual liberties or of national movements of the peoples of the monarchy.Footnote 65 Accordingly, his patriotism attached mainly to Upper and Lower Austria. In this context Palacký once criticized Chmel's source editions as being too “provincial” and suggested instead an editorial undertaking with “European character.”Footnote 66 It is not surprising that Palacký's project, aiming at publishing the sources of the famous late medieval Councils of Constance and Basel, was closely linked with the Czech nationalist movement. Chmel in return initiated the aforementioned Monumenta Habsburgica project that, not coincidentally, sought to focus on the rise Habsburg dynastic power in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.Footnote 67

A Conception of Cultural History

The idea of centralizing historical research also influenced Chmel's practice as a dedicated archivist of the Secret House Archive. By processing archival material and making it available for research, he tried to give the archive a more scholarly profile.Footnote 68 In this respect, he also tried to have several records transferred to Vienna from provincial repositories. He also regarded charters and documents as living beings, which suffered from being incompetently stored in damp cellars, where they risked being spoiled.Footnote 69

Chmel's changing organizational concepts, which were met with resistance from the state chancellery, enable us to catch a glimpse into his historical-political understanding of the monarchy. In the early 1840s, he argued for the establishment of a big central archive in Vienna, the center of the empire. In 1849, he developed the plan of an “organic” relationship between the Viennese central archive and the provincial archives.Footnote 70 The growing strength of historical research in the various Crownlands of the monarchyFootnote 71 made him change his mind. In Chmel's opinion, each Crownland had its own “special” history and therefore should have its own archive, with a “business relationship” with the Viennese headquarters, which should also supervise the cooperation between center and provinces.Footnote 72 In order to achieve this goal, it would have been necessary to offer competent archivists solid instruction, yet at that time the appropriate resources did not exist in Austria. Referring to the École des Chartes in Paris, Chmel advocated the founding of a historical-diplomatic seminar where archivists, as well as teachers of history and future professors, should be prepared for their jobs, trained to work systematically with sources.Footnote 73

The organizational plan for the Austrian archives, as well as the arrangement of the periodical Der österreichische Geschichtsforscher, is clearly connected with Chmel's views on historical research based on sources as preparing the ground for an extensive Austrian historiography. In Chmel's concepts, we see a close interaction between his political and scientific ideas. He regarded Austria as an “historic state,” whose justification for its historical existence rested on a long tradition that had to be confirmed by serious research.Footnote 74 In numerous statements, he emphasized that the research of primary historical sources should lay the foundation for every kind of historical scientific activity. Furthermore, he highlighted the multinational character of the imperial state, the equal status of its lands, and the charge for a peaceful coexistence of the “Austrian peoples.”Footnote 75 Despite his openness toward the different languages that were spoken within the monarchy, in 1847 he also focused on “strengthening the German nationality” in his collection of “language-monuments.”Footnote 76

After 1848, Chmel became more critical of nationalism and denied the very existence of a “German nation,” a concept that in his opinion only could be realized by bloody violence.Footnote 77 Instead he focused on the positive side of the continuance of the monarchy as a single state and stressed the inner connection between its different nationalities.Footnote 78 In a review published in a little-known journal, he modestly raised doubts about the interpretation of national historyFootnote 79 offered by Joseph Alexander Helfert's treatise mentioned above. As a champion of the neoabsolutistic era of centralization, Helfert had proclaimed Nationalgeschichte to be the history of the Austrian Gesamtstaat andGesamtvolk in 1853. But it was exactly here that Chmel saw a problem. In his view, there was indeed a Gesamtstaat, but no Gesamtvolk because of the different “ethnographic” nationalities of the Austrian Empire. This is a very interesting argument because it shows that in this context he did not neglect newly developing ideas about nationality based on language. But at the same time Chmel seemed to be politically naïve. After 1848, he tried to make the best of a bad job by stressing the positive aspects of the continuance of the monarchy. For this purpose, he returned to the diplomatic records of the late medieval Habsburg rulers again and again.Footnote 80

As an historian of Austria's late medieval history, Chmel was convinced he had found in this period “a school for an education of the human race.” According to him, this period, of course closely connected with the rise of the Habsburgs, proved a guide and trendsetter for current developments. He also identified himself with ideals of the Enlightenment, “with their undeniable progress in Humanität, civilization and culture.”Footnote 81 In addition to this, he considered “patriotic history” to be “the whole cultural history.”Footnote 82 Chmel's historico-cultural ideas evoke those of the German theologian and philologist Johann Christoph Adelung, who had tried his hand at a Versuch einer Geschichte der Cultur des menschlichen Geschlechts. Adelung defined “culture” as a “transition from a more sensual and animal state into intensely intertwined connections of social life.”Footnote 83 Adelung's faith in progress clearly comes to the fore here, as he believed that the human race was involved “in perpetual progress concerning people as well as culture.”Footnote 84 Chmel's view, however, differed significantly from this philosophically based historiography.Footnote 85 In his view, cultural history was based on source material and related only to the Habsburg Gesamtstaat. Chmel considered cultural history to be a product of preliminary work with historical sources, and he tried to combine cultural history with his general idea of the Gesamtstaat.

It was only in 1857 that Chmel developed a concrete concept for a “cultural history” in a lecture given at the Imperial Academy, in the presence of scholars of both the Philosophisch-Historische Klasse and the Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse. Chmel conceptualized “the task of a history of the Austrian Empire,” drawing up a comprehensive plan, chronologically divided into ancient, medieval, and modern history.Footnote 86 He pleaded for ethnographic and linguistic research work in the field of ancient history. For the period from the eighth to the early sixteenth centuries, he advocated giving special attention to the history of religion and church history in a series “Austria Sacra” with subdivisions for a “Hungaria Sacra,” “Bohemia Sacra,” and “Italia Sacra.” In his opinion, an “Austria nobilis,” an exploration of the history of the nobility, was as necessary as a history of the middle classes or the peasantry to a broader understanding. The union of the lands under Habsburg rule, effected in the late Middle Ages, was of great importance to him in light of constitutional history, and he placed great emphasis on the deliberations of feudal diets.Footnote 87

Chmel's ideas about the unity of the Habsburg monarchy after 1848 do come to the fore conspicuously in his proposals for covering the period after 1526. Apart from the history of customs and manners, this should include a history of science, of literature and the arts—as a kind of “mental union of the Habsburg lands.”Footnote 88 He also assigned military history, dealing with the origins of a common “Austrian army” a prominent place in this program, because Chmel saw in the army the function of creating a common identity, necessary for the solidarity of the various nationalities.Footnote 89 This conception of cultural history again references the kind of source work typically propagated by Chmel. It also makes clear that notwithstanding his undeniably close association with the history of Habsburg rulers, Chmel dissociated himself from a purely dynastic-political historiography of the kind that other protagonists of the Vormärz era supported.Footnote 90

Chmel's understanding of political history, by which he meant constitutional history in the first place, is certainly worth closer inspection. Obviously, he did not see cultural history as something that contrasted with political history. Although “political forms” should be considered only as far as they “hinder or further the course of culture,”Footnote 91 he did look upon cultural history not only as a product of the kind of empirical studies that covered the history of religion and church history, law and constitutional history, and the history of literature and the arts, but also as a result of political history, which was “woven together with everything”Footnote 92 and which occupied “one of the most important places” within cultural history.Footnote 93

Already at the beginning of the nineteenth century, Karl Franz Suntinger had published an ingenious approach to “cultural history” in Austria in his Darstellung der Cultur und der Humanität des kaiserlichen oesterreichischen Hofes.Footnote 94 The book, which remained largely unknown, measured the court's significant influence on the “mind and culture of its peoples.”Footnote 95 Based on a definition of culture as a “gradual cutting loose from the absolute reign of the senses and the self-determination by reason”Footnote 96 and of humanity as basic quality of human nature,Footnote 97 Suntinger described the imperial collections and court institutions. For this purpose, he emphasized the “humanity of the imperial family.”

Apart from this specifically Austrian publication, it is extremely difficult to gain a clear impression of the development of German cultural historiography from the late eighteenth century onward. Too great are the differences in methods and themes applied by various protagonists that in the middle of the nineteenth century eventually concentrated themselves on “general cultural history,”Footnote 98 when new areas of emphasis emerged: a shift from political structures of states to those of society; interaction between economy, daily life of the people and culture; the organization of collections of material cultural items; and a shift in interest from dynastic to collective and everyday activities and mentalities and to the role of the middle classes.Footnote 99 Parallel to this concentration on man's growing into a civilized state, another trend began to appear: cultural historians began to work empirically. Yet, none of the argumentative approaches existing within the close weave of German cultural historiography were generally accepted. It could also happen that the term “cultural history” was used to mean different things by one and the same author. One of the most important lines of interpretation classified cultural history as political history,Footnote 100 an opinion that, to my mind, squares with Chmel's concept. Even the idea of progress (also adopted by Chmel), which became one of the central notions of cultural history, can probably be seen in this context.Footnote 101

Relating to the collecting activities within the different trends of cultural history, the Saxon cultural historian and librarian Gustav Klemm should be mentioned here: for him collecting and writing cultural history were closely connected.Footnote 102 In 1851, he published an interesting article in the papers of the Imperial Academy in Vienna. Here, he tried to distinguish between cultural history and cultural science.Footnote 103 Whether Klemms's article had any direct influence on Chmel cannot be established, yet the manuscript by Klemm was read at a meeting of the Division for Philosophy and History in July 1851, a meeting at which Chmel was present.Footnote 104

In the context of Chmel's programs of source collecting and of his politically permeated cultural history, it is worthwhile considering his criteria for choosing his sources. In his own research studies, Chmel concentrated on the eras of Emperors Frederick III and Maximilian I. In his eyes, diplomatic material constituted not only the highlight of every archive;Footnote 105 he further regarded historical research based on charters [Urkunden] as the “basis for all history.”Footnote 106 Nevertheless, he incorporated many other kinds of material in his Regesta chronologico-diplomatica Friderici IV. Romanorum Regis (Imperatoris III.), if he supposed it to be of importance, for example in regard to diets of the late Middle Ages:Footnote 107 “Charters and chronicles alone are not enough,” he remarked once.Footnote 108 However, in this case, he came into conflict with the key figures behind the Regesta Imperii and the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, who deemed Chmel's mixed Regesta to be confusing and useless.Footnote 109

References to Johann Gottfried Herder and the Natural Sciences

Chmel was convinced that the Austrian Empire as a “cultural state” [Culturstaat] had a specific quality of its own: Consisting of “five different nationalities,” the empire would be a “shining example” of humanity that possessed priority over any nationalist ambitions. Especially after 1848, he was still convinced that Austria would be “visibly protected by divine providence”—according to him a further proof of the high value of humanity over any national ambitions.Footnote 110

In his statements on humanity, Chmel sometimes directly referred to Johann Gottfried Herder as the “preacher of humanity.”Footnote 111 According to Herder, humanity was the norm guiding the actions of the individual and his/her moral development, as well as the goal of the world-historical process: “In all states and societies mankind would have absolutely nothing else in mind than humanity”—and humanity could be learned through education.Footnote 112 His concept of humanity may have attempted to unite Christian traditions with the conceptual world of the late Enlightenment. As is well known, Herder's notion of humanity and of people was to have a lasting effect well into the nineteenth century.Footnote 113 This was controversially discussed in the context of the so-called spirit of nationFootnote 114 that occurred across Europe, something that does not have to concern us here. In passing, it should, however, be noted that historians have adopted a number of different positions when analyzing the importance of Herder. Historians no longer view him solely within the narrower context of historicism in Germany.Footnote 115 One of these revisionist tendencies originated in multidisciplinary research on the history of science. Peter Hanns Reill, for example, has investigated the influence of the scientific concepts that were available in the late eighteenth century on historical science in early nineteenth century.Footnote 116 In particular, Reill refers to the influence of the natural sciences on Herder, emphasizing that Herder, too, was well acquainted with discussions within the field of natural sciences: Quite often he used physical phenomena to explain and illustrate moral, social, historical, or religious truths.Footnote 117

As a priest comparatively void of theoretical thoughts, the question of Joseph Chmel's relationship with the natural sciences also appears significant, both in regard to his model Herder and in view of his own conception of cultural history. There is no doubt that, among all kinds of science, history was for him the one “with the most immediate effect, if it teaches truth and is not partisan.”Footnote 118 Already in his periodical Geschichtsforscher, Chmel drew the attention of his readers to the importance of history, the research of which he considered equal in rank to that of the natural sciences. Referring to a recent discovery on the field of microbiology, he pointed out that also in history nothing was too small or insignificant as not to merit being explored.Footnote 119 In his lectures and reports, one finds remarks that allow us to conclude that he was well aware of the influence of the natural sciences, especially in the context of his historical-political reflections. Shortly after 1848, for example, he underlined the “organic” character of the Austrian Empire and its nationalities and he declared the Empire not only a historical culture-state, but also “a most peculiar natural phenomenon” and the “practical solution to a grand problem of nature.”Footnote 120

In the course of a controversy with his Bohemian colleague František Palacký, Chmel discussed the importance for the state and the nations of various editorial undertakings involving historical documents. In this context, he wrote: “You know ….as well as me that the present time is more devoted to positive and material values and less to the wavering and ambiguity of philosophy and history; for a number of reasons the natural sciences got the better of the aforementioned [human sciences] for a long time, at least as far as our fatherland is concerned.”Footnote 121 Nevertheless, he recognized the importance of geological, physical, and geographic studies for the historical sciences, and he pleaded emphatically for the bringing together of knowledge concerning historical affairs with that of the natural sciences.Footnote 122

Historical Research versus Historiography

I would like to add some remarks about the relationship between concepts of “historical research,” “historiography,” and “historical science” in the context of Chmel's era.Footnote 123 During the first half of the nineteenth century, “research” was associated with the general tendency to establish history as a positivist empirical science. Although Chmel's ideas were far removed from the intellectual reflections of many of his famous contemporaries, he, too, recognized that historical science was an “empirical science.” In his view, historical science was “the most dependent of all sciences,” because it was dependent on “evidence”—in his estimation obviously even more than the natural sciences.Footnote 124

These tendencies are also reflected in the periodical Geschichtsforscher, to which we will return for a moment. A reviewer of the periodical criticized not only the presentation of partially redundant and worthless material, but also the general aggregative character of the journal, which consisted in the uncritical collection of various sources. In the reviewer's opinion, such collections of historical sources should be undertaken first of all as a governmental initiative and secondly by academic societies and not by a single person.Footnote 125

In his reply to this criticism, Chmel emphasized the need for a “central point” of all the isolated efforts and tendencies within Austrian historical research;Footnote 126 however, he refused to accept a monopolization of knowledge by the state. In addition, he justified the structure and the content of his periodical by hinting at the “mixed” readership of such magazines: on the one hand, the magazine should “popularize” historical knowledge; on the other hand, it should be interesting for an academic audience as well. Chmel claimed that his periodical was only intended as medium for “research and collection” and should not be seen as a “historical journal.”Footnote 127 In his opinion, a researcher should “bring the unknown to light.”Footnote 128

In the following decades, the term “research” became central and indispensible for practical historical work. To a great degree this can be seen as a result of the work of Johann Gustav Droysen, who offered practical advice on methodological questions to “researchers,” thus describing research as an area of action and interaction.Footnote 129 Chmel and his Geschichtsforscher, however, were far removed from this position. Even the title of the periodical recalls the less professionalized eighteenth century, in which “the researcher” differed little from the “friend of history” or the “scholar.” Chmel's view on historical research was very much determined by the idea of jointly organized collective activities. Yet, by subsequently publishing his materials, he hoped to fulfill the expectation of “letting the sources speak for themselves.”Footnote 130

Chmel always saw himself as passionate “collector and carter [Kärrner].”Footnote 131 Collecting historical material was an essential element of his scientific practice. The majority of his publications are reminiscent of this material approach.Footnote 132 Very often they bear the title: “Charters, letters and documents.” Such wording demonstrates empirical requirements so typical of him and of his times, and in addition to this, it hints at contemporary differences over historical research and historiography. He himself repeatedly grappled with this problem—always with the same result, namely that a “composition” would become waste paper [Makulatur] when new historical sources emerged.Footnote 133

Around 1845, Chmel frequently referred to the innumerable preparatory works necessary for a sound treatment of Austrian history, and he stressed the equal standing of all the Habsburg Crownlands. Hence, he demanded a “synchronic, comparative, parallelizing” kind of “historical narration.” An historiographer not only had to be well informed regarding the various peoples of the empire but knowledgeable about their languages as well—“Humanity ennobled by Christianity” was for Chmel also the ideal basis for a historiographer.Footnote 134 Chmel urged the historian to explain how the various kingdoms and peoples had been gradually brought together under the rule of the dynasty and united into the Austrian state.Footnote 135

Chmel's only composition was a monograph on the history of the Emperor Frederick III. and his son Maximilian I. The book was published in two volumes around 1840 and was by no means a “readable” publication. It was in general a collection of materials with extensive summaries of chronologically ordered historical sources. However, the author added to his text a lot of archival evidence and explanations of sources, and he included material of all kinds in order to be able to present not only the two emperors but also the “totality of the organism of the state and of the church and their interconnection.”Footnote 136

Chmel's attempts at synthesis can by no means be compared to corresponding texts penned by his much more famous contemporary Leopold von Ranke. As is well known, Ranke, too, paid some attention to the shaping of the late-medieval Empire in his Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker.Footnote 137 Compared to these texts, Chmel's style is as “dry” as the “dry” sources he used, as he himself admitted.Footnote 138 He was entirely aware of his status as an “autodidact in matters historical” and he did not ascribe to himself a good quality of writing.Footnote 139 However, Ranke's selectivity with regard to research in archives and the study of primary sources has to be considered as well in any comparison. In spite of his visits to several archives,Footnote 140 scholars working in the field certify that in general he was not particularly interested in exhaustive documentation and painstaking inspection of the relevant files.Footnote 141 By contrast, Chmel as an archivist often gave the impression of being “smothered” by the load of documents available to him.Footnote 142

Conclusion

During the Austrian Vormärz era, the historian archivist Joseph Chmel developed a concept of source-based historical research out of his historical-political understanding of the monarchy. His reflections on humanity and nationality within the Habsburg multinational state were based on the ideas of Johann Gottfried Herder and have to be seen along with the historical-cultural concepts he used. These concepts reveal Chmel's dynastically oriented view of historiography, which has its roots in the baroque scholarship of the monasteries.

In contrast to the contemporary mania for journalistic writing, Chmel thought of himself mainly as a serious if humble, tireless connoisseur, collector, and editor of historical material. For this very reason, his work was far removed from the intellectual and theoretical reflections of his better-known contemporaries. But this is exactly why he represents an interesting combination of cultural historian and antiquarian collector. This tradition also shaped historicism in the nineteenth century, an insight that has been demonstrated using the example of the famous classical scholar Theodor Mommsen.Footnote 143 Chmel's comprehensive understanding of history as a source-oriented science, however, did not allow him to develop clear research questions that in turn would have allowed him to master his historical material. The daily confrontation with extensive historical sources as an archivist certainly played a major role in this quality of his work. However, contemporaries often also blamed the philological-historical disciplines for not having a master plan, for copying, comparing, and examining. For this reason, these disciplines ran the risk of getting bogged down in details, as Mommsen pointed out in his inaugural address to the Prussian Academy of Sciences in Berlin, made just a few months before Chmel died.Footnote 144

In spite of activities that were very often unsystematic and hectic, Chmel strongly influenced the development of Austria's methodological historical research based on original sources. Many ideas proposed by him were later adopted and realized by the Institut für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, founded in 1854 in the context of Thun's education reforms and located at the University of Vienna. Whether Chmel exerted any direct influence on the foundation of this institute remains unclear. He did not become its new director, thanks perhaps to his criticism of Helfert's “Nationalgeschichte,” which formed the ideological basis for this new institution.Footnote 145 Eventually the Institut became the central professional department for training Austrian archivists and historians in the auxiliary historical sciences such as paleography, diplomatics, and archival science—very similar to the seminar that Chmel had already suggested in the 1840s.Footnote 146 With his desire for scientific thoroughness and diligence, Chmel therefore provided essential and basic elements for the process of “professionalization” of history as a science, a transformation that began in Austria in the middle of the nineteenth century.Footnote 147

References

1 The literature on “historicism” is too extensive to provide a full overview here. In general, see: Iggers, Georg G., “Historicism: The History and Meaning of the Term,” Journal of the History of Ideas 56, no. 1 (1995): 129–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jaeger, Friedrich and Rüsen, Jörn, Geschichte des Historismus: eine Einführung (Munich, 1992)Google Scholar; and Historismus in den Kulturwissenschaften. Geschichtskonzepte, historische Einschätzungen, Grundlagenprobleme, ed. Oexle, Otto Gerhard and Rüsen, Jörn, Geschichtskultur, Beiträge zur, vol. 12 (Cologne/Weimar/Vienna, 1996)Google Scholar; Nordalm, Jens, “‘Generationen’” der Historiographiegeschichte im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert? Einige Zweifel am Methodendiskurs in den Geschichtswissenschaften,” in Neue Zugänge zur Geschichte der Geschichtswissenschaft, ed. Eckel, Jan and Etzemüller, Thomas, 284–309 (Göttingen, 2007)Google Scholar.

2 Reill, Peter Hanns, The German Enlightenment and the Rise of Historicism (Berkley, 1972)Google Scholar. Interesting aspects provides also Rudolf Vierhaus, “Geschichtsschreibung als Literatur im 18. Jahrhundert,” in Historische Forschung im 18. Jahrhundert. Organization, Zielsetzung, Ergebnisse. 12. Deutsch-Französisches Historikerkolloquium des Deutschen Historischen Instituts Paris, Pariser Historische Studien, vol. 13, ed. Karl Hammer and Jürgen Voss, 416–31 (Bonn, 1976), at 418.

3 In the context of this article, “science” and “scientific” do not only refer to the “natural sciences,” but also relate to “wissenschaftlich” in general; the different meaning in English and German is treated by Daston, Lorraine, “Die Kultur der Wissenschaftlichen Objektivität,” in Naturwissenschaft, Geisteswissenschaft, Kulturwissenschaft: Einheit—Gegensatz—Komplementarität?, Göttinger Beiträge zur Geschichtswissenschaft, vol. 6, ed. Oexle, Otto Gerhard, 9–39 (Göttingen, 1998)Google Scholar.

4 Reill, Peter Hanns, “Narration and Structure in Late Eighteenth-Century Historical Thought,” History and Theory 25, no. 3 (1986): 286–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. at 291; Reill, “Die Historisierung von Natur und Mensch. Der Zusammenhang von Naturwissenschaften und historischem Denken im Entstehungsprozess der modernen Naturwissenschaften,” in Geschichtsdiskurs, ed. Küttler, Wolfgang, Rüsen, Jörn, and Schulin, Ernst, vol. 2: Anfänge modernen historischen Denkens, 48–61 (Frankfurt, 1994)Google Scholar.

5 Fritz Wagner, “Der Wissenschaftsbegriff im Zeitalter der Aufklärung,” in Historische Forschung im 18. Jahrhundert, 14–26.

6 Sawilla, Jan Marco, Antiquarianismus, Hagiographie und Historie im 17. Jahrhundert. Zum Werk der Bollandisten. Ein wissenschaftshistorischer Versuch (Tübingen, 2009)Google Scholar; see also Ludwig Hammermayer, “Die Forschungszentren der deutschen Benediktiner und ihre Vorhaben,” in Historische Forschung im 18. Jahrhundert, 122–91, at 124.

7 Wagner, “Wissenschaftsbegriff,” 20; for philological evidence, see Müller-Sievers, Helmut, “Reading Evidence: Textual Criticism as Science in the Nineteenth Century,” The Germanic Review 76, no. 2 (2001): 162–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Daston, Lorraine, “Geschichtswissenschaft und Wissenschaftsgeschichte,” in Wissenschaftsgeschichte und Geschichtswissenschaft. Aspekte einer problematischen Beziehung. Wolfgang Küttler zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Jordan, Stefan and Küttler, Wolfgang, 11–14 (Waltrop, 2002)Google Scholar, at 14; concerning historiography, see Shapiro, Barbara, A Culture of Fact, England, 1550–1720 (Ithaca/London, 2000)Google Scholar, 34ff.

9 Muhlack, Ulrich, “Universal History and National History: Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century German Historians and the Scholarly Community,” in British and German Historiography 1750–1950. Traditions, Perceptions, and Transfers, ed. Stuchtey, Benedikt and Wende, Peter, 25–48 (Oxford, 2000), at 37Google Scholar.

10 Oexle, Otto Gerhard, “Naturwissenschaft und Geschichtswissenschaft. Momente einer Problemgeschichte,” in Naturwissenschaft, Geisteswissenschaft, Kulturwissenschaft: Einheit—Gegensatz—Komplementarität?, ed. Oexle, Otto Gerhard, 99–151 (Göttingen, 1998)Google Scholar, referring to Droysen, 114.

11 Clemens, Gabriele, “Vornationale Deutungsmuster: Universal-, Reichs- und Ländergeschichte und ihr Niedergang in Deutschland,” in Nationalgeschichte als Artefakt. Zum Paradigma “Nationalstaat” in den Historiographien Deutschlands, Italiens und Österreichs, ed. Hye, Hans Peter, Mazohl, Brigitte, and Niederkorn, Jan Paul, 73–95 (Vienna, 2009)Google Scholar.

12 Coreth, Anna, Österreichische Geschichtsschreibung in der Barockzeit (Vienna, 1950)Google Scholar; Lhotsky, Alphons, Österreichische Historiographie (Vienna, 1962), 132Google Scholar; as to syntheses on Austrian history around 1800, see Brigitte Mazohl-Wallnig and Thomas Wallnig, “(Kaiser-) Haus—Staat—Vaterland? Zur “österreichischen” Historiographie vor der Nationalgeschichte,” in Nationalgeschichte als Artefakt, 43–72.

13 Lhotsky, Österreichische Historiographie, 134; see also Winter, Eduard, Romantismus, Restauration und Frühliberalismus im österreichischen Vormärz (Vienna, 1968), 23fGoogle Scholar.

14 Bibl, Viktor, Kaiser Franz und sein Erbe (Vienna et al., 1922), 173Google Scholar.

15 Mazohl-Wallnig and Wallnig, “(Kaiser-)Haus—Staat—Vaterland,” 57f.

16 Stourzh, Gerald, “Der Umfang der österreichischen Geschichte,” in Probleme der Geschichte Österreichs und ihrer Darstellung, ed. Wolfram, Herwig and Pohl, Walter, 3–27 (Vienna, 1991)Google Scholar, esp. 8; Kernbauer, Alois, “Konzeptionen der Österreich-Geschichtsschreibung 1848–1938,” in Forschungen zur Geschichte des Alpen-Adria-Raumes. Festgabe für Othmar Pickl zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Ebner, Herwig, Roth, Paul W., and Wiesflecker-Friedhuber, Ingeborg, 255–73 (Graz, 1997)Google Scholar; for Bohemia, see, for example, Vereinswesen und Geschichtspflege in den böhmischen Ländern. Vorträge der Tagungen des Collegium Carolinum in Bad Wiessee vom 25. bis 27. November 1983 und vom 23. bis 25. November 1984, ed. Seibt, Ferdinand (Munich, 1986)Google Scholar.

17 Cited from Bibl, Kaiser Franz, 173.

18 Häusler, Wolfgang, “‘Geschichtsforschung,’ ‘Humanität,’ und ‘Nationalität’. Franz Grillparzer und der Historiker Joseph Chmel,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 100 (1992): 376–409, at 382Google Scholar.

19 Werner Maleczek, “Auf der Suche nach dem vorbildhaften Mittelalter in der Nationalgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Deutschland und Österreich im Vergleich,” in Nationalgeschichte als Artefakt, 97–131, at 118f.

20 Bresslau, Harry, Geschichte der Monumenta Germaniae Historica im Auftrage ihrer Zentraldirektion (Hannover, 1921), 99–102Google Scholar.

21 Ottner, Christine, “Joseph Chmel und Johann Friedrich Böhmer: Die Anfänge der Regesta Imperii im Spannungsfeld von Freundschaft und Wissenschaft,” in Wege zur Urkunde—Wege der Urkunde—Wege der Forschung. Beiträge zur europäischen Diplomatik des Mittelalters, ed. Hruza, Karel and Herold, Paul, 259–93 (Vienna/Cologne, 2005)Google Scholar.

22 Raffler, Marlies, Museum—Spiegel der Nation? Zugänge zur historischen Museologie am Beispiel der Genese von Landes- und Nationalmuseen in der Habsburgermonarchie (Vienna, 2007)Google Scholar; for Bohemia, i.e., Peter Burian, “Das Vereinswesen in den böhmischen Ländern,” in Vereinswesen und Geschichtspflege in den böhmischen Ländern, ed. Seibt, 39–51; Dopsch, Heinz, “Geschichtsvereine in Österreich. Anfänge und Entwicklung—Leistungen—Aufgaben,” Blätter für Deutsche Landesgeschichte. Neue Folge des Korrespondenzblattes 138 (2002): 67–94Google Scholar.

23 Lhotsky, Österreichische Historiographie, 139–50.

24 Bittner, Gesamtinventar, vol. 1, 163–69Google Scholar.

25 Miloš Řezník, “Wácslaw Wladiwoj Tomek, das Ministerium für Cultus und Unterricht und die Einführung der historischen Seminare in Österreich: Die Institutionalisierung der Geschichtswissenschaft zwischen Staat, Nation und akademischer Neuorientierung,” in Geschichtsforschung in Deutschland und Österreich im 19. Jahrhundert. Ideen—Akteure—Institutionen, ed. Christine Ottner and Klaus Ries (forthcoming, 2014).

26 This term is to be found in Auer, Leopold, “Das Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv und die Geschichtswissenschaft. Zum 250-jährigen Jubiläum seiner Gründung,” Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 48 (2000): 53–71, at 56Google Scholar.

27 Klingenstein, Grete, “150 Jahre Historische Kommission. Geschichte in ihrer Zeit,” in 150 Jahre Historische Kommission. Festvorträge, ed. Klingenstein, Grete, Plaschka, Richard G., and Haider, Barbara, 25–33 (Vienna, 1997), at 27Google Scholar.

28 Mühlbacher, Engelbert, Die literarischen Leistungen des Stiftes St. Florian bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Innsbruck, 1905), 255–365Google Scholar; Lhotsky, Alphons, “Joseph Chmel zum hundertsten Todestage,” Anzeiger der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 95, no. 23 (1958): 321–47Google Scholar.

29 Rehberger, Karl, “Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der ‘Historikerschule’ des Stiftes St. Florian im 19. Jahrhundert,” in Erbe und Vermächtnis. Festschrift zur 900-Jahr-Feier, ed. Florian, Sankt, 210–50 (Vienna/Cologne/Graz, 1971), at 230Google Scholar.

30 Actenstücke und Briefe zur Geschichte des Hauses Habsburg im Zeitalter Maximilian‘s I. Aus Archiven und Bibliotheken, 3 vols., ed. Chmel, Joseph (Vienna, 1854, 1855, 1858), vol. 1, V–XIIGoogle Scholar.

31 Blaas, Richard, “Der Archivar Joseph Chmel,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 71 (1963): 420–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 After 1848, Chmel often complained about censorship in the pre-March. Chmel, Joseph, “Ueber die Pflege der Geschichtswissenschaft in Oesterreich,” Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 4 (1850): at 29–42, at 39, n. 1Google Scholar.

33 Archive of the Abbey St. Florian, Upper Austria, Letters of and to Joseph Chmel: Joseph Chmel to Johann Friedrich Böhmer, 26 January 1836.

34 Huber, Alfons, Geschichte der Gründung und der Wirksamkeit der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften während der ersten fünfzig Jahre ihres Bestandes (Vienna, 1897), 22–24Google Scholar.

35 Promemoria wegen Errichtung einer Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 18 March 1837, cited in von Schrötter, Anton Ritter,” Bericht über die Leistungen der kais(erlichen) Akademie der Wissenschaften,” Almanach der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 22 (1872): 99–144Google Scholar, at 134–42; see also Richard Meister, Geschichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien 1847–1947 (Vienna, 1947), 209–11Google Scholar; Bretholz, Berthold, “Zur Geschichte der kais(erlichen) Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Ein Gutachten des Grafen Kaspar von Sternberg, Präsidenten der böhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Prag über den Gründungsplan vom 18. März 1837,” Sitzungsberichte 176/8 (1914): 6–18Google Scholar.

36 Chmel, Joseph, “Bericht ueber eine im Jahre 1831 unternommene kleine Reise zum Behufe der oesterr(eichischen) Geschichts-Quellen-Sammlung,” Oesterreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichts- und Staatskunde 2, no. 93 (1836): 369–71, 376, 379 f., 383 f., 388, 392, 395 f., 404, 407 f., at 369–71Google Scholar.

37 Der Österreichische Geschichtsforscher, 2 vols., ed. Chmel, Joseph (Vienna, 1838/1841–1842)Google Scholar.

38 Der Österreichische Geschichtsforscher, vol. 1, III–VIIIGoogle Scholar.

39 Archive of the Abbey St. Florian, Upper Austria, Letters of and to Joseph Chmel; Joseph Chmel to Johann Friedrich Böhmer, 14 October 1831.

40 Der Österreichische Geschichtsforscher, vol. 1, IIGoogle Scholar.

41 For Sickel's career, see Lhotsky, Alphons, Geschichte des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 1854–1954 (Graz/Cologne, 1954)Google Scholar, 45ff.

42 Archive of the Abbey St. Florian, Upper Austria, Letters of and to Joseph Chmel; Theodor Sickel to Joseph Chmel, 1 November 1854.

43 Der Österreichische Geschichtsforscher, vol. 1, 566Google Scholar.

44 See, for example, Emmert, Anton, “Monumenta Tirolensia,” in Der Österreichische Geschichtsforscher, vol. 1, 566–85Google Scholar.

45 von Karajan, Theodor Georg, “Ueber Banteidinge,” in Der österreichische Geschichtsforscher, vol. 2, 113–32Google Scholar.

46 Der österreichische Geschichtsforscher, vol. 1, 166f, 397–99Google Scholar; see Notizenblatt in vol. 1, after 201, I–XXVIIGoogle Scholar, esp. XXVI–XXVII.

47 Chmel was not only in contact with František Palacký, but also with the Moravian Archivist and Historian Peter von Chlumecky and with the Benedictine historian Beda Dudik; Archive of the Abbey St. Florian, Upper Austria, Letters of and to Joseph Chmel; Peter von Chlumecky to Joseph Chmel, 20 letters between 1852 and 1858; ibid., Beda Dudik to Joseph Chmel, 21 letters between 1849 and 1857; for Palacký see Kořalka, Jiří, František Palacký (1798–1876). Der Historiker der Tschechen im österreichischen Vielvölkerstaat (Vienna, 2007)Google Scholar.

48 Luft, David S., “Austrian Intellectual History and Bohemia,” The Austrian History Yearbook 38 (2007): 108–21, at 112Google Scholar.

49 Chmel, Joseph, “Bericht über den historischen Verein für Innerösterreich und über Palacký's Archiv Český,” Sitzungsberichte 3 (1849): 407–25, at 422fGoogle Scholar.

50 Gesamtstaat means the entity of the Habsburg monarchy, not only as a complex of various more or less independent lands, but based on a common identity for the entire state.

51 Chmel, Joseph, “Was thut der österreichischen Geschichte noth?” Oesterreichische Blätter für Literatur und Kunst 2, no. 1 (2 January 1845): 1–6Google Scholar.

52 Mühlbacher, Literarische Leistungen, 294.

53 Chmel, Joseph, “Bericht über den Fortgang einiger akademischer Unternehmungen, namentlich der ‘Monumenta Habsburgica,’” Sitzungsberichte 22 (1856): 29–90, at 32Google Scholar.

54 Johann Friedrich Böhmer to Christoph Friedrich Stälin, 15 August 1848, cited in Janssen, Johannes, Johann Friedrich Böhmer's Briefe, vol. 1 (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1868), 516Google Scholar.

55 Ottner, Christine, “Zwischen Wiener Localanstalt und Centralpunct der Monarchie: Einzugsbereich und erste Geschichtsforschungsunternehmen der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften,” Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 143, no. 1 (2008): 171–96Google Scholar, esp. 185f.

56 See note 31.

57 Archive of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Sitzungsprotokolle der historisch-philologischen Klasse, 22 December 1847: Programm der Commission zur Herausgabe der Fontes rerum austriacarum.

58 Stourzh, Gerald, “Der Umfang der österreichischen Geschichte,” in Probleme der Geschichte Österreichs und ihrer Darstellung, ed. Wolfram, Herwig and Pohl, Walter, 3–27 (Vienna, 1991), at 8, n. 19Google Scholar.

59 Archive of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Sitzungsprotokolle der historisch-philologischen Klasse, 22 December 1847: Programm der Commission zur Herausgabe der Fontes rerum austriacarum.

60 Archive of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Historische Kommission, Karton 1, Nr. 62, AZ 507 ex 1853, 31 July 1853 and Nr. 70, 21 January 1854.

61 Stourzh, Der Umfang der österreichischen Geschichte, 8.

62 Helfert, Joseph Alexander, Über Nationalgeschichte und den gegenwärtigen Stand ihrer Pflege in Österreich (Vienna, 1853)Google Scholar, 2; see also Bruckmüller, Ernst, “Österreich ‘An Ehren und an Siegen reich,’” in Mythen der Nationen. Ein europäisches Panorama, ed. Flacke, Monika, 269–94 (Munich, 1998), at 272Google Scholar.

63 Archive of the Abbey St. Florian, Upper Austria, Letters of and to Joseph Chmel; Joseph Chmel to Johann Friedrich Böhmer, 21 July 1840.

64 This is also underlined by Lhotsky, Geschichte des Instituts, 2.

65 Thienen-Adlerflycht, Christoph, Graf Leo Thun im Vormärz, Grundlagen des böhmischen Konservativismus im Kaisertum Österreich (Graz/Vienna, 1967), at 159Google Scholar.

66 Archive of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Sitzungsprotokolle der philosophisch-historischen Klasse, 25 May 1849.

67 Ibid.; see also ibid., Allgemeine Akten AZ 108/1850, Letter of Chmel to Palacký concerning the Acta conciliorum, 29 January 1850.

68 Blaas, “Archivar,” 428.

69 Cited from Blaas, “Archivar,” 433. In general archives seemed to have evoked an interesting kind of imagery, and some historians described them also in sensual or bodily terms. See Smith, Bonnie G., “Gender and the Practices of Scientific History: The Seminar and Archival Research in the Nineteenth Century,” The American Historical Review 100, no. 4 (1995): 1150–76, at 1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Goldinger, Walter, Geschichte des österreichischen Archivwesens (Vienna, 1957), 27fGoogle Scholar.

71 Friedrich, Cathrin, “Regionale Varianten der Institutionalisierung von Landesgeschichte im Vergleich,” in Historische Institute im internationalen Vergleich, ed. Middell, Matthias, Lingelbach, Gabriele, and Hadler, Frank, 221–46 (Leipzig, 2001)Google Scholar.

72 Goldinger, Österreichisches Archivwesen, 28.

73 Chmel, “Über die Pflege der Geschichtswissenschaft,” 35f.

74 Der österreichische Geschichtsforscher, vol. 2, IIIGoogle Scholar.

75 Häusler, Geschichtsforschung, 394.

76 Chmel, Joseph, “Vortrag am 24. November 1847,” Sitzungsberichte 1 (1848): 3–8, at 7Google Scholar.

77 Monumenta Habsburgica, vol. 2, XIIIGoogle Scholar.

78 Chmel, “Über die Pflege der Geschichtswissenschaft,” Sitzungsberichte, 29.

79 Chmel, Joseph, “[Review] Über Nationalgeschichte und den gegenwärtigen Stand ihrer Pflege in Österreich. Von Joseph Alexander Helfert,” Notizenblatt. Beilage zum Archiv für Kunde Österreichischer Geschichtsquellen, no. 3 (1853): 281–85Google Scholar.

80 Häusler, Geschichtsforschung, 403.

81 Der österreichische Geschichtsforscher, vol. 1, VIGoogle Scholar. The German term Humanität as used in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries does not exactly correspond to the English term “humanity.” But for convenience sake in this essay, I will always use the English word.

82 Chmel, “Vortrag am 24. November 1847,” 4.

83 Adelung, Johann Christoph, Versuch einer Geschichte der Cultur des menschlichen Geschlechtes (Leipzig, 1782)Google Scholar, Vorrede, fol. 3r.

84 Ibid., Vorrede, fol. 5v.

85 Schleier, Hans, Geschichte der deutschen Kulturgeschichtsschreibung. Vom Ende des 18. bis Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts, 2 vols. (Waltrop, 2003), vol. 1, 82fGoogle Scholar.

86 Chmel, Joseph, “Die Aufgabe einer Geschichte des österreichischen Kaiserstaates (Vortrag in der feierlichen Akademiesitzung, 1857 Mai 30),” Almanach der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften 8 (1858): 221–50Google Scholar.

87 Archive of the Abbey St. Florian, Upper Austria, Letters of and to Joseph Chmel; Joseph Chmel to Johann Friedrich Böhmer, 26 July 1837.

88 Chmel, Geschichte des österreichischen Kaiserstaates, 244.

89 Ibid., 248ff.: “In the Austrian army a Bohemian feels like a Pole, a Hungarian like an Italian, … as sons of a common fatherland, they are all brothers.”

90 Maleczek, “Auf der Suche,” 120f.

91 Chmel, Geschichte des österreichischen Kaiserstaates, 225.

92 Ibid., 226 and 238.

93 Ibid., 247.

94 Suntinger, Karl Franz, Darstellung der Cultur und der Humanität des kaiserlichen oesterreichischen Hofes (Vienna, 1808)Google Scholar.

95 Ibid., V.

96 Ibid., XI.

97 Ibid., XII.

98 Schleier, Hans, “Kulturgeschichte im 19. Jahrhundert: Oppositionswissenschaft, Modernisierungsgeschichte, Geistesgeschichte, spezialisierte Sammlungsbewegung,” in Geschichtsdiskurs, ed. Küttler, Wolfgang, Rüsen, Jörn, and Schulin, Ernst, vol. 3: Die Epoche der Historisierung, 424–46 (Frankfurt, 1997)Google Scholar.

99 Schleier, Hans, “Neue Ansätze der Kulturgeschichte zwischen 1830 und 1900. Zivilisationsgeschichte und Naturgesetze. Darwinismus und Kulturbiologismus,” in Historisierung und gesellschaftlicher Wandel in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Muhlack, Ulrich with the cooperation of Christian Mehr and Dagmar Stegmüller, 137–57 (Berlin, 2003)Google Scholar.

100 Schleier, “Kulturgeschichte im 19. Jahrhundert,” 433.

101 Schleier, Geschichte der deutschen Kulturgeschichtsschreibung, vol. 1Google Scholar, 40ff.

102 Ibid., vol. 1, 370f.

103 Klemm, Gustav, “Grundideen zu einer allgemeinen Cultur-Wissenschaft,” in Sitzungsberichte 7 (1851): 167–90Google Scholar.

104 Archive of the Austrian Academy of Sciences, Sitzungsprotokolle der philosophisch-historischen Klasse, 9 July 1851.

105 Blaas, “Archivar,” 436.

106 Der Österreichische Geschichtsforscher, vol. 2, IIIGoogle Scholar.

107 Ottner, Christine, “‘Jenes urkundliche Material ist Quelle der Erkenntniß in allen Richtungen.’ Zur Geschichte der Projekte der Regesten Friedrichs III. und Maximilians I.,” Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 140, no. 2 (2005): 113–29Google Scholar.

108 Materialien zur österreichischen Geschichte. Aus Archiven und Bibliotheken, ed. Chmel, Jospeh, vol. 1, part 2 (Vienna, 1837), preface, IIIGoogle Scholar.

109 Bresslau, Geschichte der Monumenta, 241.

110 Chmel, “Bericht über den historischen Verein für Innerösterreich,” Sitzungsberichte 3 (1849): 407–414Google Scholar, at 407f.

111 Monumenta Habsburgica, vol. 2, XIVGoogle Scholar.

112 Herder, Johann Gottfried, Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit, Part 3 (Riga/Leipzig, 1790), book no. XV, chap. 1, 387ffGoogle Scholar.

113 Sundhaußen, Holm, Der Einfluß der Herderschen Ideen auf die Nationsbildung bei den Völkern der Habsburgermonarchie (Munich, 1973), 38fGoogle Scholar.

114 See Helmut Rumpler, “Die Deformierung der Nationalidee zur Nationalstaatsgeschichte: Geschichtsschreibung und Nationalismus im 19. Jahrhundert,” in Nationalgeschichte als Artefakts 21–42, at 27, 29, and 32f.

115 For a survey see Proß, Wolfgang, “Die Ordnung der Zeiten und Räume. Herder zwischen Aufklärung und Historismus,” in Vernunft. Freiheit. Humanität. Über Johann Gottfried Herder und einige seiner Zeitgenossen. Festgabe für Günter Arnold zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Taszus, Claudia, 9–73 (Eutin, 2008)Google Scholar.

116 Reill, Peter Hanns, “Science and the Construction of the Cultural Sciences in Late Enlightenment Germany: The Case of Wilhelm von Humboldt,” History and Theory 33, no. 3 (1994): 345–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

117 Reill, Historisierung, 55f.

118 Chmel, “Bericht über den historischen Verein für Innerösterreich,” Sitzungsberichte 3 (1849), 408Google Scholar.

119 Der Österreichische Geschichtsforscher, vol. 1, V–VIGoogle Scholar.

120 Chmel, “Über die Pflege der Geschichtswissenschaft,” 29.

121 Chmel, Joseph, “Schreiben an Herrn Palacký in Angelegenheit der historischen Commission,” Sitzungsberichte 4 (1850): 55–64Google Scholar, at 58.

122 Chmel, Joseph, “Ueber die Pflege der Geschichtswissenschaft in Oesterreich (Fortsetzung),” Sitzungsberichte 4 (1850): 122–43, at 128Google Scholar.

123 Escudier, Alexandre, “De Chladenius à Droysen: Théorie et méthodologie de l'histoire de langue allemande (1750–1860),” Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 58, no. 4 (2003): 743–77, esp. 756Google Scholar.

124 Chmel, “Schreiben an Herrn Palacký,” 58.

125 Mühlbacher, “Literarische Leistungen,” 294.

126 Der österreichische Geschichtsforscher, vol. 1Google Scholar, 587.

127 Ibid., vol. 1, 590.

128 Chmel, “Vortrag am 24. November 1847,” 5 and 6.

129 Hardtwig, Wolfgang, “Konzeption und Begriff der Forschung in der deutschen Historie des 19. Jahrhunderts,” in Konzeption und Begriff der Forschung in den Wissenschaften des 19. Jahrhunderts. Referate und Diskussionen des 10. Wissenschaftstheoretischen Kolloquiums 1975, ed. Diemer, Alwin, 11–26 (Meisenheim am Glan, 1978)Google Scholar; see also Hardtwig, Wolfgang, “Geschichtsreligion—Wissenschaft als Arbeit—Objektivität. Der Historismus in neuer Sicht,” Historische Zeitschrift 252, no. 1 (1991): 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 20; with Droysen and his methodological demands deals also: Torstendahl, Rolf, “The Quest for a Firm Basis for Historical Knowledge around 1900,” History and Theory 42, no. 3 (2003): 305–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 310f.; in general, see also Oexle, Otto Gerhard, “Die Geschichtswissenschaft im Zeichen des Historismus,” Historische Zeitschrift 238 (1984): 17–55, esp. 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

130 Monumenta Habsburgica, vol. 1, XGoogle Scholar.

131 Chmel, “Schreiben an Herrn Palacký,” 61.

132 The various meanings of “material culture” in various scientific disciplines are discussed by Anke te Heesen, Emma C. Spary, “Sammeln als Wissen, [Introduction],” in Sammeln als Wissen. Das Sammeln und seine wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Bedeutung, ed. Heesen, Anke te and Spary, Emma C., 7–21 (Göttingen, 2001)Google Scholar.

133 Monumenta Habsburgica, vol. 2, V–VIIIGoogle Scholar.

134 Chmel, Joseph, “Was thut der österreichischen Geschichte noth?,” Oesterreichische Blätter für Literatur und Kunst, Geografie, Geschichte, Statistik und Naturkunde 2, no. 1 (1845): 1–6Google Scholar.

135 Chmel, Aufgabe einer Geschichte, 224f.

136 Der österreichische Geschichtsforscher, vol. 1, VIGoogle Scholar.

137 von Ranke, Leopold, Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker, vol. 1 (Leipzig/Berlin, 1824)Google Scholar, esp. 84ff.

138 Archive of the Abbey St. Florian, Upper Austria, Letters of and to Joseph Chmel; Joseph Chmel to Johann Friedrich Böhmer, 6 April 1840.

139 Monumenta Habsburgica,, vol. 2, XIGoogle Scholar.

140 Eskildsen, Kasper Risbjerg, “Leopold Ranke's Archival Turn: Location and Evidence in modern Historiography,” Modern Intellectual History 5, no. 3 (2008): 425–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

141 Muhlack, Ulrich, “Leopold von Ranke und die Begründung der quellenkritischen Geschichtswissenschaft,” in Historische Debatten und Kontroversen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Jubiläumstagung der Ranke-Gesellschaft in Essen 2001, ed. Elvert, Jürgen and Krauß, Susanne, 23–33 (Wiesbaden, 2003), at 32Google Scholar.

142 He sometimes even complained about it to his friend and fellow Johann Friedrich Böhmer; Archive of the Abbey St. Florian, Upper Austria, Letters of and to Joseph Chmel; Joseph Chmel to Johann Friedrich Böhmer, March 1832 (sine die), and 23 November 1851.

143 Nippel, Wilfried, “New Paths of Antiquarianism in the Nineneenth and Early Twentieth Centuries: Theodor Mommsen and Max Weber,” in Momigliano and Antiquarianism. Foundations of the Modern Cultural Sciences, ed. Miller, Peter N., 207–28 (Toronto, 2007)Google Scholar.

144 Mommsen, Theodor, “Inaugural Lecture at the Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences, 8 July 1858,” Monatsberichte der Königlich-Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (1858): 393–95Google Scholar; Rebenich, Stefan, Theodor Mommsen. Eine Biografie (Munich, 2002), 135ffGoogle Scholar.

145 Häusler, Geschichtsforschung, 405.

146 The foundation of the Institute describes Lhotsky, Geschichte des Instituts, 11–18; see also previous discussion in the text.

147 Relating to Austria, see esp. Pischinger, Gudrun, “Vom ‘Dilettanten’ zum Fachwissenschaftler. Die Historische Kommission der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1847 bis 1877 und die Professionalisierung der Geschichtswissenschaft,” Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsgeschichte 20, no. 2000 (2001): 221–42Google Scholar; in general, see, for example, Iggers, Georg G., “The Professionalization of Historical Studies and the Guiding Assumptions of Modern Historical Thought,” in A Companion to Western Historical Thought, ed. Kramer, Lloyd S. and Maza, Sarah, 225–42 (Oxford, 2006)Google Scholar.