Division of Anatomy, Center for Anatomy and Cell Biology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Straße 13, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Division of Anatomy, Center for Anatomy and Cell Biology, Medical University of Vienna, Währinger Straße 13, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Ann Anat. 2023 Oct;250:152129. doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2023.152129. Epub 2023 Jul 18.
Anatomy textbooks´ connection to the rigid censoring laws enacted by Habsburg rulers, was never sufficiently investigated. Using anatomy textbooks written at the University of Vienna, our article aims at investigating the influence of censorship laws on the anatomy textbooks in Vienna between 1786 and 1865.
In our case study we compared legal text and archival sources (source material A) with seven prefaces of textbooks written by Viennese anatomists (source material B). The prefaces were comparatively investigated by applying the following questions based on source material A: (1) What motives for writing the textbooks were indicated by the anatomists in the prefaces? (2) What legal or other influences were mentioned as motives that point to a connection to the censorship regulations installed? (3) Referring to changing censorship guidelines is there a change in the mentioned audience?
Our results are that we found evidence for censorship regulations (source material A) in the prefaces (source material B). Also, the motives for writing those textbooks changed over time because of changing censorship regulations.
Our findings show that Viennese anatomy textbooks were part of the Austrian censorship laws in the investigated period with a timely correlation between the appointment as professor and the publication of the textbooks and prefaces (indirectly) referring to censorship laws. The academic tradition of writing textbooks arose from this system, when freedom of speech stood in opposition to the absolute Habsburg reign. Thus, when working with historical anatomy textbooks it is important to reflect on their censorship heritage.
解剖学教科书与哈布斯堡统治者制定的严格审查法之间的联系从未得到充分调查。本文使用维也纳大学编写的解剖学教科书,旨在研究审查法对 1786 年至 1865 年间维也纳解剖学教科书的影响。
在我们的案例研究中,我们将法律文本和档案来源(A 类资料)与七位维也纳解剖学家编写的教科书前言(B 类资料)进行了比较。我们根据 A 类资料提出了以下问题,对前言进行了比较性研究:(1)解剖学家在前言中指出了编写教科书的哪些动机?(2)提到了哪些法律或其他影响因素作为与审查法规有关的动机?(3)参考不断变化的审查准则,提到的受众是否发生了变化?
我们的研究结果表明,我们在前言中发现了审查法规(A 类资料)的证据(B 类资料)。此外,由于审查法规的变化,编写这些教科书的动机也随之发生了变化。
我们的发现表明,在研究期间,维也纳解剖学教科书是奥地利审查法的一部分,教授的任命与教科书和前言的出版之间存在着及时的相关性(间接地)提到了审查法。学术传统的编写教科书正是源于这种制度,当时言论自由与绝对的哈布斯堡统治相对立。因此,在使用历史解剖学教科书时,重要的是要反思它们的审查遗产。