DOI article:
Hoffmann, Annette; Murovec, Barbara [Contr.]: Josef Strzygowski and Avguštin Stegenšek Some Remarks on their Jerusalem Studies
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.73804#0075
74
And he expressed the hope 'that the Austrian state will
want to compete with other nations in the discovery of
early Christian monuments as eagerly as it competes in
the investigation of classical antiquities.'46
However, Hussarek did not reply to the letter, but left
Stegensek's request to the assessment of Strzygowski, then
professor in Vienna. Strzygowski immediately wrote to
Stegensek, criticising him for not approaching him di-
rectly and asking him about the scientific evidence.47 As
Stegensek delayed his visit to Vienna to report his re-
search in detail, Strzygowski travelled to Maribor (then
Marburg an der Drau), to which he returned also around
Easter of the same year, 1913. The correspondence that fol-
lowed and continued over several years cannot, however,
be described as a collaboration between the two research-
ers. Strzygowski supported Stegensek, invited him to give
a lecture at the Institute of Art History at the University of
Vienna, and offered him a scholarship from his Institute
and the possibility of publishing in the Osterreichische
Monatsschrift fur den Orient. Stegensek thanked his pro-
fessor for his interest and support, especially for enabling
him to stay for two months in the Austrian hospice in
Jerusalem; he wrote to Strzygowski about the timetable
of his plans and the concept, but basically, he distrusted
him and shared very few of his insights and findings with
him.48
After exploring the Holy Land in autumn 1913,
Stegensek was even more convinced of the validity of
his methods and discoveries, while largely abandoning
his preparations for archaeological research. The change
in Stegensek's approach throughout the years is also ev-
idenced by the fact that he never referred to his article
in Oriens Christianus, while repeatedly citing the topo-
graphical study of the Via Crucis as a reference.49 In the
last years of his life his topography was becoming increas-
ingly speculative and would ultimately be based sole-
ly on the interpretation of biblical texts. He approached
an interdisciplinary community of university professors,
Church authorities and colleagues from Rome for (finan-
cial) support,50 finally writing in October 1919 to the theo-
logian and archaeologist Johann Peter Kirsch (1861-1941),
then a professor in Fribourg, Switzerland, who replied in
January 1920 (just two months before Stegensek passed
away) that his Jerusalem topography would be of interest
to the Gorres Society.51
46 Ibidem.
47 Ibidem.
48 Ibidem.
49 Cf. ibidem, p. 197.
50 For example, correspondence with Joseph Sauer (1872-1949) in
1918, also a former student at Campo Santo Teutonico, then pro-
fessor of church history, Christian archaeology and art history
at the University of Freiburg im Breisgau, and constant contact
with Alois Musil (1868-1944), from 1909 full professor of Oriental
studies in Vienna; cf. ibidem, pp. 202, 212.
51 Ibidem, pp. 217-218.
For his Jerusalem studies, Strzygowski was criticised by
both the interdisciplinary research community (archae-
ologists, Byzantinists, etc.) and the Vienna School of Art
History. Stegensek's interest from 1912 onwards, at least in
Strzygowski's view, most probably represented the gain of
an ally in support of his arguments, and the institutionali-
sation of art-historical research on the Holy Land and the
'Orient' at the University of Vienna. However, Stegensek
did not meet the expectations of his Graz teacher. His art-
historical work remained closely connected to Church au-
thorities and institutions in Maribor and limited to the
institutionalisation of art history on a local level, as a Slo-
venian national science, including the launching of the art
journal Ljubitelj krscanske umetnosti [The Christian Art
Amateur].
After the end of the First World War and with the col-
lapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the process of es-
tablishing art history studies at the newly founded Uni-
versity of Ljubljana began.52 Stegensek declined to become
the first professor and later, unsuccessfully, offered to lec-
ture on the history of Byzantine art.53 Strzygowski was no
longer an authority to whom he had to report. However,
his aspiration - that the new State of Serbs, Croats and
Slovenes would be more supportive of his Jerusalem stud-
ies and would be willing to finance them, even though the
results might be contrary to Church dogma - remained
unfulfilled.
Stegensek's work is marked, on the one hand, by an in-
ternational interdisciplinary research perspective, and, on
the other, by the construction of a national art history in
Slovenian. It is difficult to assess whether or not Stegensek's
research contribution has been overlooked (also) because
of the nationalist-socialist stigma of his Graz professor
Strzygowski. Post-Second-World-War borders and ideol-
ogies have strongly shaped the narration on individual art
historians and the historiography of the region until the
present day. By 1945, Stegensek had been dead for 25 years.
His involvement in Church institutions and his Christian
perspective were politically highly problematic, and in
opposition to the new doctrine of education and research.
However, art history at the University in Ljubljana, es-
tablished in the Interwar Period by former Viennese stu-
dents, especially Izidor Cankar (1886-1958), France Stele
(1886-1972) and Vojeslav Mole (1886-1973), built its meth-
odology on the foundations of the Vienna School of Art
History.54 It was Mole who, as professor in Ljubljana and
Cracow, contributed greatly to the continuation in how to
52 Cf. F. Stele, 'Slowenische Kunstgeschichte seit 1920', Jahrbuch des
Kunsthistorischen Institutes der Universitdt Graz, 3/4, 1968/1969,
pp. 1-18.
53 F. K. Lukman, 'Zadnjih deset let', p. 216 (as in note 28).
54 B. Murovec, 'Zwischen Methodologie und Ideologie. Slowenische
Kunsthistoriker der Wiener Schule nach 1945', RIHA Journal,
2015, article no. 117 (https://d0i.0rg/10.11588/riha.2015.0.70067,
access: 1.10.2024).
And he expressed the hope 'that the Austrian state will
want to compete with other nations in the discovery of
early Christian monuments as eagerly as it competes in
the investigation of classical antiquities.'46
However, Hussarek did not reply to the letter, but left
Stegensek's request to the assessment of Strzygowski, then
professor in Vienna. Strzygowski immediately wrote to
Stegensek, criticising him for not approaching him di-
rectly and asking him about the scientific evidence.47 As
Stegensek delayed his visit to Vienna to report his re-
search in detail, Strzygowski travelled to Maribor (then
Marburg an der Drau), to which he returned also around
Easter of the same year, 1913. The correspondence that fol-
lowed and continued over several years cannot, however,
be described as a collaboration between the two research-
ers. Strzygowski supported Stegensek, invited him to give
a lecture at the Institute of Art History at the University of
Vienna, and offered him a scholarship from his Institute
and the possibility of publishing in the Osterreichische
Monatsschrift fur den Orient. Stegensek thanked his pro-
fessor for his interest and support, especially for enabling
him to stay for two months in the Austrian hospice in
Jerusalem; he wrote to Strzygowski about the timetable
of his plans and the concept, but basically, he distrusted
him and shared very few of his insights and findings with
him.48
After exploring the Holy Land in autumn 1913,
Stegensek was even more convinced of the validity of
his methods and discoveries, while largely abandoning
his preparations for archaeological research. The change
in Stegensek's approach throughout the years is also ev-
idenced by the fact that he never referred to his article
in Oriens Christianus, while repeatedly citing the topo-
graphical study of the Via Crucis as a reference.49 In the
last years of his life his topography was becoming increas-
ingly speculative and would ultimately be based sole-
ly on the interpretation of biblical texts. He approached
an interdisciplinary community of university professors,
Church authorities and colleagues from Rome for (finan-
cial) support,50 finally writing in October 1919 to the theo-
logian and archaeologist Johann Peter Kirsch (1861-1941),
then a professor in Fribourg, Switzerland, who replied in
January 1920 (just two months before Stegensek passed
away) that his Jerusalem topography would be of interest
to the Gorres Society.51
46 Ibidem.
47 Ibidem.
48 Ibidem.
49 Cf. ibidem, p. 197.
50 For example, correspondence with Joseph Sauer (1872-1949) in
1918, also a former student at Campo Santo Teutonico, then pro-
fessor of church history, Christian archaeology and art history
at the University of Freiburg im Breisgau, and constant contact
with Alois Musil (1868-1944), from 1909 full professor of Oriental
studies in Vienna; cf. ibidem, pp. 202, 212.
51 Ibidem, pp. 217-218.
For his Jerusalem studies, Strzygowski was criticised by
both the interdisciplinary research community (archae-
ologists, Byzantinists, etc.) and the Vienna School of Art
History. Stegensek's interest from 1912 onwards, at least in
Strzygowski's view, most probably represented the gain of
an ally in support of his arguments, and the institutionali-
sation of art-historical research on the Holy Land and the
'Orient' at the University of Vienna. However, Stegensek
did not meet the expectations of his Graz teacher. His art-
historical work remained closely connected to Church au-
thorities and institutions in Maribor and limited to the
institutionalisation of art history on a local level, as a Slo-
venian national science, including the launching of the art
journal Ljubitelj krscanske umetnosti [The Christian Art
Amateur].
After the end of the First World War and with the col-
lapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the process of es-
tablishing art history studies at the newly founded Uni-
versity of Ljubljana began.52 Stegensek declined to become
the first professor and later, unsuccessfully, offered to lec-
ture on the history of Byzantine art.53 Strzygowski was no
longer an authority to whom he had to report. However,
his aspiration - that the new State of Serbs, Croats and
Slovenes would be more supportive of his Jerusalem stud-
ies and would be willing to finance them, even though the
results might be contrary to Church dogma - remained
unfulfilled.
Stegensek's work is marked, on the one hand, by an in-
ternational interdisciplinary research perspective, and, on
the other, by the construction of a national art history in
Slovenian. It is difficult to assess whether or not Stegensek's
research contribution has been overlooked (also) because
of the nationalist-socialist stigma of his Graz professor
Strzygowski. Post-Second-World-War borders and ideol-
ogies have strongly shaped the narration on individual art
historians and the historiography of the region until the
present day. By 1945, Stegensek had been dead for 25 years.
His involvement in Church institutions and his Christian
perspective were politically highly problematic, and in
opposition to the new doctrine of education and research.
However, art history at the University in Ljubljana, es-
tablished in the Interwar Period by former Viennese stu-
dents, especially Izidor Cankar (1886-1958), France Stele
(1886-1972) and Vojeslav Mole (1886-1973), built its meth-
odology on the foundations of the Vienna School of Art
History.54 It was Mole who, as professor in Ljubljana and
Cracow, contributed greatly to the continuation in how to
52 Cf. F. Stele, 'Slowenische Kunstgeschichte seit 1920', Jahrbuch des
Kunsthistorischen Institutes der Universitdt Graz, 3/4, 1968/1969,
pp. 1-18.
53 F. K. Lukman, 'Zadnjih deset let', p. 216 (as in note 28).
54 B. Murovec, 'Zwischen Methodologie und Ideologie. Slowenische
Kunsthistoriker der Wiener Schule nach 1945', RIHA Journal,
2015, article no. 117 (https://d0i.0rg/10.11588/riha.2015.0.70067,
access: 1.10.2024).