The writer and literary critic Claudio Magris coined the fortunate expression "Habsburg myth" to describe the image presented in literature by some writers of Mitteleuropa of an orderly and cosmopolitan Habsburg Empire capable of ensuring coexistence between its various peoples.
But this precisely is a "myth" of literary origin: the historical reality was quite different.
Magris himself stated that his book was specifically written to criticize and demolish the myth itself, but some people misunderstood this and thought it was an exaltation.
After World War I the Austrian Empire underwent a literary reconstruction that struck the public imagination, but which had very little correspondence to historical reality.
The discrepancy between the actual history of the Habsburg State and its imaginary romantic vision corresponds, roughly, to that existing between historiography and literature.
Moreover, as noted by Magris himself, the same literature that created the "Habsburg myth" showcases itself as characteristically ambivalent in its judgment on the late imperial state, so that its most representative author, Robert Musil [1], in The Man Without Qualities, highlights the substantial void upon which the Empire vainly sought to find something of unifying value for the celebration of the anniversary of Franz Joseph.
Musil's text provides a vastly different (and demonstrably false) image of the Habsburg Empire during the time before its collapse: it presents a plot parallel to that of Hamlet, and reads like a dramatic romance novel.
The famous nickname of "Kakanien" (a neologism created by Musil, from the German 'kaka') is still used today to describe the Austro-Hungarian Empire:
"This notion of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was so curiously contrived that it seems almost futile to attempt to explain it to those who do not have any personal experience. There was no Austrian part and Hungarian part which formed a single whole, as some might think. Instead, there was a Hungarian statal concept and an Austro-Hungarian statal concept, so that an Austrian statal concept was basically absent of any fatherland. ... Many called themselves Poles, Czechs, Slovenes or Germans, and this produced further divisions." [2]The "noble father" of American historiography on Austria, Arthur J. May, in his important and influential work The Passing of the Habsburg Monarchy concludes the Austro-Hungarian Empire suffered from a serious internal crisis. He also rejects the Habsburg myth.
May believes that this nostalgic and imaginative rehabilitation of the late Habsburg state arose only when Stalin took possession of much of the old imperial territories at the end of World War II. [3]
The role of Habsburg Austria in keeping Italy internally divided and submissive to foreigners is pretty well known in Italy.
Less prevalent, however, is awareness of how the Empire directly attacked Italian national identity, with the goal of ethnic cleansing and denationalization.
Under Habsburg rule, Lombardy-Venetia was tightly-controlled by the Viennese central government, [4] who imposed a forced Germanization from the top-down, [5] which was denounced by Italian political representatives and civilians.
This was not an accident or a secondary measure, but was very typical of the internal structure of the Habsburg Empire, and corresponded to the natural dynamics of this kind of state.
In essence, the imperial authority was trying to insert Lombardy-Venetia into so-called “Mitteleuropa” (a historical, geographical, cultural and ethnic area alien to it), subordinating the economy and society to the interests of Austria and imposing laws and measures contrary to its traditions and interests. [6]
Significantly, it was subjected to an intense economic exploitation by the central Viennese power, which used local resources – drained through taxation – to fund the regions beyond the Alps. [7]
The Austro-Bohemian Field Marshal Joseph Radetzky arrived in Lombardy-Venetia, menacing the Italian inhabitants and hoping to repeat what had happened in the “Galician Slaughter” in 1846.
In the Habsburg region of Galicia a serious agrarian crisis in 1846 led to an extensive Ruthenian peasant insurrection, which led to the massacre of hundreds of Polish landowners.
The revolt met with no effective resistance from the Habsburg military and police authorities and it was suspected that the imperial administrators had fomented and fostered the insurgency in order to better control the Galician region by inciting the different ethnic groups against each other.
Even in Lombardy-Venetia in 1846-1847 there were several riots provoked by the agrarian crisis, which widespread public opinion attributed to the instigating actions of the government. [8] A knowledgeable scholar, the historian Marco Meriggi, wrote on the matter:
“The definition of Germanization, which contemporaries coined and which almost all historians have taken up, used to describe the salient characteristic of the political dynamics of the Empire in the period in question, is certainly well-founded.” [9]The “kingdom” of Lombardy-Venetia ended in 1866. However, other regions inhabited by Italians remained under Habsburg rule: Trentino-Alto Adige, Julian Venetia, Dalmatia.
Emperor Franz Joseph therefore decided to proceed to their de-Italianization, through the systematic “Germanization and Slavicization” of these lands.
His decision was formalized in the Privy Council on November 12, 1866. The report reads:
“His Majesty has expressed the precise order that we decisively oppose the influence of the Italian element still present in some Crown lands, and to aim unsparingly and without the slightest compunction at the Germanization or Slavicization – depending on the circumstances – of the areas in question, through a suitable entrustment of posts to political magistrates and teachers, as well as through the influence of the press in South Tyrol, Dalmatia, and the Adriatic Coast.” [10]The imperial order is further proof of the contrast between historical reality and the false “Habsburg myth”.
The quotation cited above from the Habsburg Council of Ministers on November 12, 1866, with the categorical order to proceed with the Germanization and Slavicization of the Italian population of the Empire subject to them, can be found in countless studies, carried out by historians of different nationalities, in different years, in the course of several independent studies. [11]
We can cite the report by Professor Luciano Monzali in his seminal study on the Italians of Dalmatia:
“The reports of the Habsburg Council of Ministers from the end of 1866 demonstrate the intense anti-Italian hostility of the emperor and the nature of his political policies on this issue.
Franz Joseph was fully convinced of the idea that the Italian and Italian-speaking element was generally disloyal to the Habsburg dynasty: during the Council of Ministers, on November 12, 1866, he gave strict orders to “oppose the influence of the Italian element still present in some Crown lands, and to aim unsparingly and without the slightest compunction at the Germanization or Slavicization – depending on the circumstances – of the areas in question”.” [12]In any case, Franz Joseph's decision does not mark any radical break with Austrian policies of the recent past: as we have seen, already in Lombardy-Venetia they were carrying out policies of Germanization. Furthermore, the famous report of 1866 gave impetus to projects that were already previously promoted by leading personalities of the Empire.
For example, Field Marshal Radetzky already planned an ethnic cleansing in Dalmatia, saying:
“We must slavicize Dalmatia in order to remove it from the dangerous intellectual influence of Venice, which the Italian population looks to with excessive admiration.” [13]Similar threats against the Italians well before 1866 were also made by the governor of Trieste, General Ferenc Gyulay (later a Field Marshal, viceroy of Lombardy-Venetia, and commander of the Austrian army in the war of 1859).
In 1848 the government's official newspaper Osservatore Triestino published an article inspired by him, in which he promoted the idea of inciting the Slavic masses of Istria against the Italians, causing a civil war. [14]
The idea expressed by Gyulay was so similar, once again, to the scheme of the “Galician Slaughter”, with the intention of inciting an ethnic group more loyal to the Empire against another ethnic group that desired independence.
Therefore, as far as the denationalization policy implemented by the Imperial Council of Ministers in 1866 is concerned, we can speak of a continuity with previous policy, not a break.
This political direction manifested itself in Julian Venetia and Trentino in measures and initiatives that especially affected the education sector (favoring institutions in the German or Slovenian language, while not opening and even closing Italian schools), the public employment sector and the bureaucracy (favoring the hiring and promotion of Slavs and strongly favoring Slavic immigration, while at the same time proceeding to expel Italians), while the press adopted restrictions against Italian journals (for example, Il Piccolo was subject to seizure, while L'Indipendente suffered from suspension).
The Italian community, sometimes speaking through the city of Trieste or through the episcopate of Trento, often criticized the decisions of state authorities, even challenging the religious policy (the appointment of Slavic bishops to Trieste, the increase of Slovenian and Croatian clergy who were often supporters of their own national movements, and the Germanization policies in Trentino which had anti-Catholic and vaguely Protestant connotations) and police activities (accused of imposing their will at the expense of the Italians).
There were also allegations of Germanization and Slavicization of geographical names and surnames, with public protests and written complaints.
The political conflict between Italian autonomism and Austrian centralism of the state, in which the hegemonic Austrian establishment intersected, thereby causing a national rivalry between the Italians on the one side, and the Austrians and South Slavs on the other. [15]
Ernesto Sestan, one of the most important Italian historians, in his classic study on Julian Venetia emphasized the dual action of defense conducted by the Italians in that region against both the Germanization coming from the centralized state and against the Slavicization carried out by the Slovene and Croatian nationalists.
Germanization and Slavicization, i.e. the central government and Slavic nationalism, were allied to each other, partly because Vienna believed Slovenes and Croats were more loyal, and partly because the national idea of the Slavs was often expressed in the form of Austro-Slavism, a political ideology which was designed to achieve the nationalistic aims of the Southern Slavs within the Habsburg state structure and with the support of the Empire. [16]
A recent study by Gerd Pircher helps to document what fate the Austrians were planning for Trentino during the First World War: once victory was achieved, they planned to maintain a military junta, declare German as the sole official language, impose German in schools, carry out a purge of the Italian administration, Germanize the place names and signs (which they had already begun to do), favor Austrian immigration with the intention of colonizing the region, etc.
These plans were supported by a group of soldiers, led by Archduke Eugene and General Alfred Krauss and Viktor Dankl, who planned the denationalization of Trentino and its Germanization, believing practically every Italian to be a potentially hostile individual to the Empire and interning or deporting anyone who was considered politically unreliable. [17]
Although the Trentino and Julian Venetia were severely attacked, the denationalization of Italians ordered by the emperor reached its maximum severity in Dalmatia.
The main tool used to Slavicize the region was the systematic erasing of Italian culture from schools.
Professor Monzali observes:
“...the transition to a policy of denationalization and forced assimilation of the Italian Dalmatians was very rapid. The education question soon became a prime issue, with the abolition of the Italian language in schools and the refusal of the provincial and municipal authorities (who were Croatian nationalists) to fund any surviving Italian schools.” [18]Starting from 1866, not only were no new Italian schools opened by the authorities, but almost all those that already existed ended up being closed, and this happened in a region where the written and learned culture had virtually always been primarily or exclusively in Latin and Italian.
Out of the 84 municipalities in which Dalmatia was divided at the time, primary schools in the Italian language remained only in one, the city of Zara, while all the others disappeared: there ended up being only 9 elementary schools in Italian out of a total of 459.
Only two secondary schools in the Italian language remained, and only because they were linked to the seafaring world, where the use of the Italian language had a very strong tradition, and where Croatian was not used: these were the nautical schools of Ragusa and Cattaro.
Naturally, there were no Italian universities, neither in Dalmatia nor in the rest of the empire, as it was forbidden. In summary, the Italians of Dalmatia had primary schools in their own language only in Zara (1 municipality out of 84, even though Italians lived in every city), secondary schools only in Cattaro and Ragusa (2 municipalities out of 84, and it was limited to just two maritime academies), while there was not a single Italian university in the entire empire. [19]
The education question, although very important, was not the only plague to hit the Italian Dalmatian community. Another form of Slavicization of the region was the "complete Croatization of state administration", [20] which made Croatian the official language and essentially expelled the Italians, despite attempts by Italian political representatives to obtain a form of bilingualism, but by now the administration was taken over almost entirely by Croats who refused to compromise. [21]
The political staff was progressively Croatized; the old Italian government was substituted by a new Croatian government.
In 1861, all 84 municipalities of Dalmatia had Italian mayors. In 1900 only one remained, Zara, which was also the only one to retain Italian primary schools, which were forcibly closed in all the other municipalities.
Likewise the provincial Diet, which had always had an Italian majority, now became majority Croatian.
The electoral defeat of the Italians was due primarily to heavy electoral fraud, done with the connivance of the Austrian government authorities; there were forms of corruption, widespread violence and intimidation.
The Viennese central power was in fact able to decisively influence the elections of Dalmatia; the Austrians chose to support the Croatian nationalists and their Italophobic policy. [22]
The traditional and very ancient juridical prerogatives of Dalmatia, which had been preserved by Dalmatia's Latin cities since the 2nd century BC, also came under attack. Some norms and laws dating back to the Middle Ages, which recognized certain forms of autonomy and self-government, were maintained all the way up to the 19th century. Such prerogatives had been respected during the long Venetian period, but were completely destroyed during the short time under Habsburg domination.
Only in this way was it possible for the Croats – within a few years – to dominate and forcefully Slavicize the whole of Dalmatia, a region in which Italians had always formed the predominant and political class, thanks to their undisputed cultural and economic superiority.
The Slavicization of toponyms and onomastics was also part of an attempt to entirely eliminate the Italian ethnic group.
Dalmatian place names were usually Italian on the coast and islands, and Slavic only in the hinterland, however, Italian had always been the language of culture, and even the place names of Croatian origin were usually transcribed in Italian form.
It must be remembered also that the entire territory of Dalmatia had a centuries-old Latin settlement long before the arrival and slow infiltration of the Slavs, who formed a group of invaders and immigrants.
In brief, since the 2nd century BC these areas were entirely Latin, whereas the first Slavic presence only dates back to the 7th century AD and was relatively weak until the 14th century.
The Latin and Italian place names were therefore original, and by far outnumber the Slavic toponyms by a large margin.
The denationalization project implemented after 1866 led to the deletion of Italian names, or sometimes the imposition of bilingualism, even in cases where the names had always been exclusively Italian.
The Lieutenancy of Dalmatia reached the point of issuing a decree in 1912, which perpetually abolished the Italian names of 39 towns that were entirely Croatized.
The distortion of place names took place in land registration acts and in maps, which were pervasively Slavicized. [23]
At the same time they even proceeded to Slavicize surnames. The historian Attilio Tamaro, author of the monumental History of Trieste, among other things, wrote:
“The priests are cooperating in this distorted system of ethnic and historical destruction of Julian Venetia and Dalmatia. The bishops of the provinces, except Parenzo, have blind devotion to the Austrian government, and all are Slavs, by the express will of Vienna. As such, through the episcopal seminaries and through their relations with the provincial interiors, they increased with great intensity the production of Slavic priests and, taking advantage of the small number of Italian priests that the provinces could produce, filled all the parishes with Slavs, even the Italian parishes. The Slavs, ignoring the protests of the inhabitants, were under the strong protection of the Government, with whom they were organically linked in this work: they Slavicized the surnames in birth records, marriage records and deaths records. The goal was to create statistical data and official documents that would seemingly substantiate the non-existence or gradual extinction of Italianity in the region, in order to effect Government policy.” [24]Yet another form of Slavicization took place within the Catholic Church itself, through the liturgy, sacred texts and the clergy.
The bond between throne and altar was close in the Habsburg Empire, especially after the concordat of 1855, which granted the emperor the right of extensive interference in church affairs, and the clergy could be considered to some extent as imperial officials.
Furthermore, throughout the 19th century the leaders of the Croatian nationalist movement were all priests and bishops.
The most visible aspect of this operation of Slavicization, which was felt by a large part of the Italian population, was the forced introduction of a liturgical rite in the Slavic language, the so-called "Glagolitic rite". It was a novelty in Catholic circles and imitated the Orthodox liturgy, but it had been tacitly tolerated by the ecclesiastical authorities of the Church, since it was limited to a few very small areas.
By the 19th century it had practically disappeared, and it was entirely unknown by the Italian populations in Julian Venetia and Dalmatia. The Papal Curia of Leo XIII and Pius X called upon the supporters of Glagolitic to return to the Latin rite; the popes mistrusted them and opposed their desire to "reintroduce" such rites into a land where it had never been practiced.
Despite the opposition of the Italian population of Dalmatia and the distrust of the Vatican itself, the Roman liturgy in the Slavic language (instead of Latin) ended up being introduced under the pressure of the Croatian nationalist clergy.
The diffusion of the Slavic liturgy, which was accompanied also by sermons, songs, etc. in the Croatian language, was used by these nationalists to forcibly Slavicize the Italian population.
The Glagolitic cult was not only reintroduced, but was also imposed in areas where it had never been used and where the inhabitants were overwhelmingly majority Italian. The discontent was naturally very strong among the people, who often preferred to abandon church rather than attend religious services in the Glagolitic rite.
The island of Neresine was the scene of repeated attempts at religious Slavicization, in contrast to Catholic orthodoxy, in contrast to the existing customs, and contrary to the expressed will of the inhabitants.
A Croatian friar named Smolje demanded to celebrate mass in Glagolitic in the parish church of Neresine on September 22, 1895, resulting in all the parishioners abandoning the ceremony and forming a serious insurrection. This same priest demanded to impart baptism in Croatian, so he could Slavicize the names, and refused to do so in Latin even when directly requested by the child's father.
The Superior of the Franciscan convent of Neresine, Luciano Lettich, demanded to impose the Croatian language at the burial ceremony of the spouses Antonio and Nicolina Sigovich, causing several of the relatives and other faithful to voluntarily abandon the ceremony. Another episode of the many we could cite, happened on the second Sunday of April in 1906, a Croatian friar insisted on celebrating the Glagolitic rite in the church of San Francesco in Cherso, an island of purely Italian history and culture. The faithful, in the face of this celebration, which seemed to them like nationalistic propaganda, left the religious building en masse, leaving only the Croatian friar.
After these and other similar events, the inhabitants of Neresine – and other areas threatened with forced Slavicization (Ossero, Cherso, Lussinpiccolo) – appealed unsuccessfully to the bishop of Veglia, Anton Mahnich. After their appeals were rejected by the Slavic prelate, they decided to appeal directly to Rome.
The severity of these reported events caused Pius X to intervene, removing Mahnic from his office as bishop.
Even after this, the Vatican had to again directly intervene to denounce and condemn both the liturgical abuse of the use of the Glagolitic rite, as well as the support the Slavic priests were giving to Slovenian and Croatian nationalism, as happened for example on June 17, 1905, when the Cardinal Secretary of State, by order of Pope Pius X, sent a stern letter to the Minister General of the Franciscan Friars Minor with strict orders to energetically intervene and put an end to the behavior of Croatian Franciscans in Dalmatia who were seeking to introduce Croatian into the liturgy.
The Catholic Church itself did not at all welcome the pretenses of the Croatian nationalists and their attempts to restore the Glagolitic rite, both for strict liturgical reasons, and because often times such a request came from pan-slavists with an overt sympathy for Eastern Orthodoxy. In conclusion and in summary, glagolism resurfaced after 1848 and was therefore a liturgical innovation imposed by Slavic nationalists who held ecclesiastical offices, which deeply hurt both the national and religious feelings of Italian Catholics, who were forced to embrace foreign rites of dubious conformity with Catholicism. [25]
The persecutions directed toward the Italians, in an attempt to force them to become Croats, also included the exercise of violence, which became practically endemic, with daily acts of aggression against Italians and Italian property:
“In 1910, at Cittavecchia, during the night, unknown assailants broke open the doors of the local Italian Dalmatian Union, robbed a mirror, two Venetian paintings, a bust of Dante, a lamp, a wall clock, and threw them into the sea. It was a painful act of vandalism. In Sebenico an Italian worker, when questioned in Croatian, responded in Italian; he was then attacked and beaten. The Croatian Mayor of Sebenico one time proclaimed to the Croats of Zara: "My brothers! Do as we do in Sebenico: take to the streets, with guns in hand, and shoot. The Italians will submit. If you need me, call me: I will join you." Episodes like these took place every day.” [26]The testimonies regarding the widespread use of violence against Italians by Croatian nationalists in Habsburg Dalmatia are numerous and detailed. The police also participated in the anti-Italian assaults, which sometimes were deadly:
“The public administrators were terrorists; the police of the various municipalities became a tool of government suppression. In Spalato a policeman shot and killed an Italian fisherman; the murderer was saved by a psychiatrist. In Sebenico a policeman cut a citizen's head off. In Traù a policeman named Macovan gunned down a poor worker who belonged to an Italian opposition party... The Croatian Party defended the persecution by saying that the Italians refused to recognize the Croatian national character of Dalmatia.” [27]The historical archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs contains extensive documentation on the many incidents that occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century, not only in Dalmatia, but also in Trentino and Julian Venetia. [28]
The objective was to extinguish all autonomous political and cultural life, and to forcefully Croatize the Dalmatian Italians.
The impact of these combined series of measures against the Italians was devastating, causing a rapid decline of the Italian ethnic group in Dalmatia.
Professor Monzali wrote:
“In the first unofficial Austrian statistical studies made in the 1860's and 1870's, the number of Italian Dalmatians ranged between 40,000 and 50,000; in the official census of 1880, their number declined to 27,305, and fell even more sharply in the following decades: 16,000 in 1890, 15,279 in 1900, 18,028 in 1910 (out of a total population of 593,784 inhabitants of Dalmatia in 1900, and 645,646 in 1910).” [29]Partial data associated with individual towns brilliantly exemplifies the overall demographic trends presented above and the collapse of the Italian population. Let's briefly cite the example of Lissa.
This small island, Latin since the Roman period, for many centuries was populated almost exclusively by indigenous Dalmatians who spoke a Romance language, before becoming part of the territories of Venice, to which it belonged uninterruptedly for many centuries. Until 1797, which marked the collapse of Venice, the people of Lissa virtually all spoke the so-called "Veneto da mar" (Venetian dialect).
The census which took place in the era of Napoleon calculated that Italians formed 80% of the population of Lissa.
Compare that figure to the first official Habsburg census, that of 1880: the Italians were valued at 64% of the total population. The census shows a sharp decline of ethnic Italians, but they still remained a clear majority.
But a mere twenty years later, the Italians of Lissa almost disappeared. According to the Habsburg census of 1900, the inhabitants of Lissa were 97% Slavs and only 2.4% Italians.
The Habsburg census of 1910 reconfirmed that the Italians were reduced to a flicker on the island, since they now represented only 2.5% of the inhabitants. In summary, the Italians of Lissa had gone from approximately 80% at the beginning of the 19th century, to 64% in 1880, and finally to 2.4% in 1900.
The size difference of the Italian ethnic group in Lissa particularly stands out: they were 3,292 (64%) in 1880, and just two decades later they were reduced to 199 (2.4%), a decrease of 94%.
Similar observations on the decline of the Italian population can be seen in many other parts of Dalmatia: from 1880 to 1900, according to the Habsburg censuses, the Italians on the island of Arbe declided from 567 to 223; the Italians of Cittavecchia di Lissa from 2,163 to 169; Comisa from 1197 to 37; San Pietro della Brazza from 421 to 43; Spalato from 5,280 to 1,046; Traù from 1,960 to 170. Many other examples could be cited.
In the same period the Habsburg administrative documents report the disappearance of Italians in a number of towns where they had always lived: Bua, Isto, Meleda, Sestrugno, Zirona Grande, etc.
A full enumeration of the statistical data describing the collapse of the Italian population in Dalmatia would take too long, and in any case it would break down the proverbial open door, since these are well-known facts among scholars. [30]
In brief, the number of Dalmatian Italians had suffered a meltdown in a few short years, both in absolute numbers and in percentage ratio of the overall population, as can be seen by Habsburg statistical sources.
The impressive results of this denationalization process can be summarized as follows: in 1845 the authorities calculated the Italian population to be 19.7% of the population of Dalmatia; the Habsburg census of 1865 recorded a total of 55,020 Italians, or 12.5% of the population; the 1910 census counted only 18,028 Italians, or 2.7% of the Dalmatian population.
From 1845 to 1910 the Italians of Dalmatia went from 19.7% to 2.7% of the population. [31] Compared to the total Dalmatian population, the percentage of Italians in 1910 was roughly 1/7 of that of 1845.
The decline of the Italian ethnic group in comparison to the total population of Dalmatia was therefore 6/7: from 19.7% in 1845 to 2.7% in 1910.
Professor Luciano Monzali spoke explicitly about the period of 1866-1914, which witnessed the denationalization of Italian Dalmatians by the Austrian imperial government and by local Croatian nationalists. [32]
This same process took place against Italians in Julian Venetia and in Trentino during the same time period, since the measures used against the Dalmatian Italians were roughly the same as those that were used against people of Italian nationality in Julian Venetia and Trentino.
Bibliographic Notes
[1] C. Magris, Il mito asburgico nella letteratura austriaca moderna, Torino 1963.
[2] R. Musil, L’uomo senza qualità, Torino 1972, p. 162.
[3] A. J. May, The Passing of the Hapsburg Monarchy. 1914-1918, Philadelphia (Penn.) 1966.
[4] M. Meriggi, ll regno Lombardo-Veneto, Torino 1987, p. 268.
[5] Ibidem, pp. 269-270.
[6] Ibidem, p. 100.
[7] Ibidem, pp. 271 sgg.
[8] C. A. Macartney, L’Impero degli Asburgo, 1790-1918, Milano 1976., pp. 356-359; Meriggi, Il regno, cit., p. 327. Cattaneo, Dell'insurrezione di Milano nel 1848 e della successiva guerra, cap. III, “Marshal Radetzky, surrounded by a staff of Teutomaniacs, was desperate at the time to shed blood, boasting of wanting to repeat the massacres of Galicia in Italy. How could we doubt it when we witnessed the executioner Ludwig von Benedek appear in Brescia with military authority, and the brother of the executioner Breindl invested with civil authority?”
[9] Meriggi, Il regno, cit., p. 100. One of the many direct observers of this work of Germanization, Cattaneo, had no hesitation in defining the empire as a “German power” which pursued Germanic nationalist intentions. Cattaneo, Dell'insurrezione di Milano nel 1848 e della successiva guerra, cap. I
[10] The original German version is as follows: «Se. Majestät sprach den bestimmten Befehl aus, dass auf die entschiedenste Art dem Einflüsse des in einigen Kronländern noch vorhandenen italienischen Elementen entgegentreten durch geeinignete Besetzung der Stellen von politischen, Gerichtsbeamten, Lehrern sowie durch den Einfluss der Presse in Südtirol, Dalmatien und dem Küstenlande auf die Germanisierung oder Slawisierung der betreffenden Landesteile je nach Umständen mit aller Energie und ohne alle Rücksicht hingearbeitet werde. Se. Majestät legt es allen Zentralstellen als strenge Plifcht auf, in diesem Sinne planmäßig vorzugehen.» Essa si ritrova in Die Protokolle des Österreichischen Ministerrates 1848/1867. V Abteilung: Die Ministerien Rainer und Mensdorff. VI Abteilung: Das Ministerium Belcredi, Wien, Österreichischer Bundesverlag für Unterricht, Wissenschaft und Kunst 1971; la citazione compare alla Sezione VI, vol. 2, seduta del 12 novembre 1866, p. 297.
[11] Without pretending to exhaustively indicate all the studies on the subject, citing these essential references should suffice: G. Novak, Političke prilike u Dalmaciji g. 1866.-76, Zagreb 1960, pp. 40-41; A. Filippuzzi, (a cura di), La campagna del 1866 nei documenti militari austriaci: operazioni terrestri, Padova 1966, pp. 396 sgg.; C. Conrad, Multikulturelle Tiroler Identität oder 'deutsches Tirolertum'? Zu den Rahmenbedingungen des Deutschunterrichts im südlichen Tirol während der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie, in J. Baurmann/ H. Günther/U. Knoop, (a cura di), Homo scribens. Perspektiven der Schriftlichkeitsforschung, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1993, pp. 273-298; U. Corsini, Problemi di un territorio di confine. Trentino e Alto Adige dalla sovranità austriaca all’accordo Degasperi-Gruber, Trento, Comune di Trento 1994, p. 27; H. Rumpler, Economia e potere politico. Il ruolo di Trieste nella politica di sviluppo economico di Vienna, in R. Finzi-L. Panariti-G. Panjek (a cura di), Storia economica e sociale di Trieste, vol. II, La città dei traffici: 1719-1918, Trieste 2003, pp. 87-88; A. Cetnarowicz, Die Nationalbewegung in Dalmatien im 19. Jahrhundert. Vom «Slawentum» zur modernen kroatischen und serbischen Nationalidee, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2008, p. 110.
[12] L. Monzali, Italiani di Dalmazia. Dal Risorgimento alla Grande Guerra, Firenze 2011, p. 69.
[13] M. Scaglioni, La presenza italiana in Dalmazia. 1866-1943, tesi di laurea, università degli studi di Milano.
[14] B. Benussi, L'Istria nei suoi due millenni di storia, Venezia-Rovigno 1997, pp. 480 sgg.
[15] The bibliography on these topics is immense, so we limit ourselves here to a few sources: B. Benussi, L’Istria nei suoi due millenni di storia, Venezia-Rovigno, 1997; B. Coceani, Un giornale contro un Impero. L’azione irredentistica de “L’Indipendente” dalle carte segrete della polizia austriaca, Trieste 1932; U. Corsini, La questione nazionale nel dibattito trentino, in A. Canavero- A. Moioli (a cura di), De Gasperi e il Trentino tra la fine dell’800 e il primo dopoguerra, Trento 1985, pp.593-667; A. Fragiacomo, La scuola e le lotte nazionali a Trieste e nell’Istria prima della redenzione, in “Porta orientale”, 29, 1959; M. Garbari, L’irredentismo nel Trentino, in R. Lill-F. Valsecchi (a cura di), Il nazionalismo in Italia e in Germania fino alla prima guerra mondiale, Bologna 1983; V. Gayda, L'Italia d'oltre confine. Le provincie italiane d'Austria, Torino 1914; A. Sandonà, L’irredentismo nelle lotte politiche e nelle contese diplomatiche italo-austriache, vol. 3, Bologna 1932-1938; A. Tamaro, Le condizioni degli italiani soggetti all'Austria nella Venezia Giulia e nella Dalmazia, Roma 1915; A. Tamaro, Storia di Trieste, Roma 1924; G. Valdevit, Chiesa e lotte nazionali: il caso di Trieste (1850-1919), Udine 1979; P. Zovatto, Ricerche storico-religiose su Trieste, Trieste 1984.
[16] E. Sestan, Venezia Giulia. Lineamenti di una storia etnica e culturale, Udine 1997, pp. 91, 95-103; A. Moritsch, Der Austroslawismus. Ein verfrühtes Konzept zur politischen Neugestaltung Mitteleuropas, Wien 1996.
[17] G. Pircher, Militari, amministrazione, e politica in Tirolo durante la prima guerra mondiale, Societa di Studi Trentini di Scienze Storiche, Trento 2005. This is the Italian translation of the original work entitled Militar, Verwaltung, und Politik in Tirol in Estern Welkkrieg, Universitatsvelag Wagner, Innsbruck 1995.
[18] Monzali, Italiani di Dalmazia, cit., p. 142.
[19] G. Deuthmann, Per la storia di alcune scuole in Dalmazia, Zara 1920; A. Ara, La questione dell’Università italiana in Austria, in «Rassegna storica del Risorgimento» LX, 1973, pp. 52-88, 252-280.
[20] Monzali, Italiani di Dalmazia, cit., p. 300.
[21] Ibidem, pp. 297-301.
[22] G. Praga, Storia di Dalmazia, Varese 1981; Monzali, Italiani di Dalmazia, cit., pp. 138 sgg., 168-178.
[23] G. Dainelli, Carta di Dalmazia, Roma 1918; A. Tamaro, Le condizioni degli italiani soggetti all'Austria nella Venezia Giulia e nella Dalmazia, Roma 1915.
[24] Tamaro, Le condizioni, cit.
[25] A. Cronia, L'enigma del glagolismo in Dalmazia dalle origini all'epoca presente, in “Rivista Dalmatica”, Zara 1922; M. Lacko, I Concili di Spalato e la liturgia slava, in A. Matanić (a cura di), Vita religiosa, morale e sociale ed i concili di Split (Spalato) dei sec. X-XI. Atti del Symposium internazionale di storia ecclesiastica (Split, 26-30 settembre 1978), Padova 1982, pp. 443-482; S. Malfer, Der Kampf um die slawische Liturgie in der österreichisch- ungarischen Monarchie – Ein nationales oder ein religiöses anliegen? in “Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatarchivs”, 1996, n. 44, pp. 165-193; J. Martinic, Glagolitische Gesange Mitteldalmatiens, Regensburg 1981; G. Valdevit, Chiesa e lotte nazionali: il caso di Trieste (1850-1919), Udine 1979; P. Zovatto, Ricerche storico-religiose su Trieste, Trieste 1984.
[26] V. Gayda, L'Italia d'oltre confine. Le provincie italiane d'Austria, Torino 1914, p. 297.
[27] R. Deranez, Alcuni particolari sul martirio della Dalmazia, Ancona 1919.
[28] Monzali, Italiani di Dalmazia, cit., p. 239.
[29] Monzali, Italiani di Dalmazia, cit., pp. 170-171.
[30] D. De Castro, Cenno storico sul rapporto etnico tra italiani e slavi nella Dalmazia, in Studi in memoria della prof. Paola Maria Arcari, Milano 1978; G. Perselli, I censimenti della popolazione dell'Istria, con Fiume e Trieste, e di alcune città della Dalmazia tra il 1850 e il 1936, Trieste-Rovigno 1993; O. Mileta Mattiuz, Popolazioni dell’Istria, Fiume, Zara e Dalmazia (1850-2002), Centro di Ricerche Storiche di Rovigno-Ades, 2005; Scaglioni, La presenza italiana, cit.
[31] Š. Peričić, O broju Talijana/talijanaša u Dalmaciji XIX. stoljeća, in Radovi Zavoda za povijesne znanosti HAZU u Zadru, n. 45/2003, p. 342.
[32] Monzali, Italiani di Dalmazia, cit., p. 142.
No comments:
Post a Comment