The influence of censorship laws on Viennese anatomy textbooks from the outgoing 18th century until after the student revolution of 1848 in Austrian absolutism.

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.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier GmbH.. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.