THOMAS DA COSTA KAUFMANN
Princeton University

"Ethnic and National vs Dynastic Identity in the Art of Early Modern Central Europe"

How can we find our way into the cultural geography of Early Modern Europe? This series poses an answer in the concept of identity. This paper, however, interrogates both the idea of cultural geography, and, more trenchantly, that of identity. Particularly the combination of these terms seems problematic, at best.

Cultural geography at least in the form of artistic geography has a history perhaps as old as that of art history. Scholarly studies of the geography of art became popular particularly in the earlier twentieth century, and after they were deflected by the Nationalist and Nazi approaches of the period before 1945, they were revived in many forms after the Second World War. Cultural geography might thus seem to have much to offer still to scholars of early modern Europe.

Identity is another matter. In its present usage this notion was elaborated only after the Second World War, but was still tinged by pre-war concepts. Cultural identity seems to be more applicable to cultural politics than useful to studies of cultural geography. In any instance the notion of identity has been dismantled by recent psychology and sociology, and the idea of unitary identity should have been suspect to cultural historians since Warburg.

Dynastic identity on the other hand does seem to be discernible in the early modern period in Central Europe. Most notably the Habsburgs, but many rulers throughout Central Europe (in Germany) expressed their definition of themselves in art and ceremony. These were given various forms in tombs, busts, paintings, and festivals.

In contrast national identity---not ethnic, for this idea seems to originate only from the late eighteenth century at the earliest---while conceptualized earlier, seems hard to discover. It is discussed, but given form most clearly perhaps in Poland. But even in the Polish Commonwealth expression of national identity is never ethnically bound, but rather an expression of estate (class). It is also not exclusive, and not the only form of identity expressed even by those who adopt its forms (Sarmatianism).

Homepage