Chapter 3 Censorship as an Instrument of Repression: The Era of Napoleon and the Vormärz Period (1792–1848)

In: Censorship of Literature in Austria, 1751-1848
Author:
Norbert Bachleitner
Search for other papers by Norbert Bachleitner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Translator:
Stephan Stockinger
Search for other papers by Stephan Stockinger in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open Access

The first five years of the period discussed in this section form the transition phase between the instructionally oriented and Enlightenment-focused censorship regime to the strictly prohibitive system instituted by Emperor Francis II in the post-revolutionary era. By 1795, this system was largely established and chartered by way of a new censorship directive, and the number of book prohibitions was climbing to new record heights. The Enlightenment from above had bred an authoritarian state, and the unity between the sovereign’s decisions and the will and interests of his subjects, which had formed the basis for the Habsburg Monarchy under Joseph II, turned out to be an illusion.1 While the focus of censorship during the previous decades had been placed on enlightening the citizens and promoting their happiness, it now explicitly served to maintain the “peace of the state” and suppress any ideas that “confound its interests and its good order,” as Metternich explained.2

Johann Ludwig von Deinhardstein, a head ideologist of the Metternich era who was also active as a censor during the 1840s, added that the task of censorship was to prevent the publication of material that was “detrimental to the state” and thus disturbed “the peace of the majority” for the benefit of an individual.3 The phase from 1805 to 1815, meaning the period of the Napoleonic Wars with temporary French occupation and government of parts of the Habsburg Monarchy until the Congress of Vienna, is highly inhomogeneous and complex in terms of its censorship history. There followed a comparatively uniform phase with consolidated and strict censorship from 1821 to 1848, with an increasing loss of control occurring during the 1840s as a result of the rapid growth of the book market—as will be demonstrated at the end of this chapter.

1 Between the French Revolution and Student Unrest: Censorship from 1792 to 1820

1.1 The Establishment of the System of Police Censorship

Following a court decree issued on February 10, 1792, the Bohemian-Austrian Court Chancellery inherited the censorship agendas from the discontinued Studien- und Zensurhofkommission. This meant the end of collegiate treatment of censorship questions; censors now submitted their individually compiled reports, based on which an official at the Court Chancellery made the final decision regarding permission or prohibition. Books written by revolutionary French and Italian emigrants became the subject of more intensive inspection. A further court decree issued in February 1793 reminded the censors that books painting the French Revolution in a positive light were to be allowed neither for printing nor for import. French newspapers like Moniteur and Journal de Paris could only be read with special permission from the court censorial authorities.4 Gazettes like the Straßburger Courier and the Jenaische Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung were likewise prohibited for transporting undesirable political contents.5

The police force was upgraded under the leadership of Count Pergen, who viewed science in general as a threat to peace and order in the state.6 A conservative publishing movement headed by Leopold Alois Hoffmann developed simultaneously. In 1792—by order of Leopold II—Hoffmann had founded the Wiener Zeitschrift, which existed until 1793 and pursued the goal of uncovering conspiracies and all forms of subversion.7

A General Censorship Ordinance subsuming the previous partial enactments was issued on 22 February 1795.8 Manuscripts could not be printed, nor books produced abroad be sold, without prior approval. Two copies of every manuscript had to be submitted so that one of them, which remained with the Book Review Office after having been read by the censor, could be compared to the printed version after its production. In the case of manuscripts, a censor could require deletions (the final decision would then be “admittitur omissis deletis”) or the specification of a printing location abroad (“admittitur absque loco impressionis”). The Book Review Office decided which censor a manuscript was assigned to, and contact between censor and author respectively publisher was to be avoided. Reprints and translations had to be submitted for censorship like manuscripts, and the same applied to catalogs of books offered for sale or auction. Particularly objectionable or scurrilous writings found in such stocks were now no longer sent back to the publishers or book merchants outside the monarchy they had originated from, as had previously been customary, but were instead simply destroyed without further ado. Sending manuscripts prohibited in Austria to other countries for printing was forbidden. Most of the paragraphs in the General Censorship Ordinance were obviously designed to put an end to misuse in the book production and distribution process. The censorial screws were also tightened noticeably during the years following its issuance, and as a result the prohibition numbers reached a level that would remain unmatched even at the end of the pre-March period despite the massive increase in literary production.9 As early as 1798, satirical observers commented sarcastically on the frenetic prohibition activity in Austria: “With horror one sees that the number of books over which the Messieurs in Vienna declare the interdiction becomes so much more sizable each time that one must almost fear they will, in a few years’ time, prohibit the fair catalog lock, stock, and barrel.”10 Due to its strictness, the Austrian censorship apparently continued to be considered exemplary among likeminded rulers. Tsar Paul I of Russia, for instance, decreed in 1799 that works forbidden “by the Viennese or other ruling lords’ censorship” should be proscribed in Russia as well.11 Conversely, a prohibition in St. Petersburg also constituted an argument for banning a play in Austria.12

While lists of forbidden books had been published only irregularly during the Josephinian decade, they were consistently compiled and dispatched to the responsible bureaus in the entire monarchy every month starting in 1792. Since misuse regarding these lists was apparently also not uncommon, they were only sent to the Book Review Offices, the regional authorities, and the customs offices beginning in March 1797, with all other interested parties having to apply for a Scheda to obtain them.13 Because they were also much sought-after as reading lists, the Prague censor Amand Berghofer published a volume entitled Verbothene Schriften (Forbidden Writings) in Bavaria in 1805 that was reprinted in a second edition in 1808. When Berghofer, who had already attracted attention as an oppositional author with other activities in the past, was identified as the author by the authorities, he was dismissed from public service.14 The confidentiality of the prohibition lists excluded booksellers in particular, which made it difficult for them to even determine which works were forbidden.

In 1801, responsibility for censorship was transferred to the Polizeihofstelle (Court Police Section) established in 1792. It was presided over until 1804 by Count Johann Anton Pergen, who had been urging for censorship to be included in the Section’s duties for a long time, since he was of the opinion that written words caused “ideas to be propagated and attitudes of the citizens to receive their orientation”15—in other words, that the surveillance of literature represented a facet of national security. His successor until 1808, Baron Thaddeus von Sumerau, argued that censorship was “a simple police institution.”16 This statement was presumably intended to underline that rather than specialized knowledge, nothing but knowledge of the police guidelines and the mood among the audience was required to assess the danger inherent in a book. The Court Police Section was subsequently headed by Baron Franz von Hager zu Allentsteig until 1816 and finally, until 1848, by Count Joseph Sedlnitzky, who was infamous for being a narrow-minded fanatic.17

1.2 The Censors

The censors reported to the Court Police Section and were listed as being on its staff in the court schematics. They were to combine the abilities of a good official accustomed to following regulations with the qualities of a scholar; ideally, this meant they should be educated clerks who actively published their own writings and kept abreast of one or more fields of knowledge by way of systematic reading. In addition, they were expected to be proficient in as many languages as possible and possess political intuition—or as Section head Sumerau put it in 1806, “administrative knowledge” (“Geschäftskenntnisse”) and “a certain tact.”18 This “administrative knowledge” and intuition were susceptible to failure when an author’s intention was unclear, however. The book Peter Sultan, der Unaussprechliche und seine Veziere, oder politisches A.B.C. Büchlein zum Gebrauch der Königskinder von Habessinien (Peter Sultan the Unspeakable and his Viziers, or Political ABC Booklet for Use by the Royal Children of Abyssinia, 1794) by Ernst August Anton von Göchhausen was recommended for prohibition by its censor in 1795 because it contained a “portrayal of the reprehensible activity of the so-called Illuminati” that served only to “make known the disprovable abuse aimed at the divine service, regents, etc.” The State Chancellery, on the other hand, found the intention of the author unquestionable and the book to be useful as a “counterpart against the socially revolutionary writings.” The consulted privy councilor Eger brushed this view aside by classifying Göchhausen’s work as one of the many writs masked as defenses of the Ancien Régime: “precisely under this mask, whereby Voltär [sic] and consorts ridiculed the sultans and church dignitaries, they have also striven to make abhorred the heads of our Monarchy.”19

“Genuine” censors were distinguished from temporary ones, with differences existing not only in regard to wages but also in terms of status: The former were permanently employed while the latter could be dismissed at any time.20 The number of censors fluctuated between eight and ten in the period from 1792 to 1803 before being increased to 13 in 1804, most likely due to the extensive recensoring campaign described below. Only five to eight genuine censors were employed in the twelve designated positions from 1826 to 1840, with the remaining posts filled by temporary staff. The period from 1841 to 1848 likewise saw between ten and thirteen censors active at any given time, with the majority of the work once again being performed by temporary employees.

Scholars represented one of the major groups among the censorial staff. In Vienna, this category included the jurists Johann Bernhard Fölsch (1798–1820),21 professor of constitutional law, Anton Gustermann (1807–1823), professor of ecclesiastical law, Anton von Plappart (1838–1847), court councilor of the Supreme Judiciary Section and praeses of the Faculty of Law of the University of Vienna, orientalist Josef von Hammer-Purgstall (1811–1825), philosopher and natural scientist Cassian Hallaschka (1833–1847), the professor of aesthetics Johann Ludwig Deinhardstein (1842–1848), the professor of Slavic studies Bartholomäus Kopitar (1812–1844), the physicians Andreas Joseph von Stifft (1804–1836) and Johann Nepomuk von Raimann (1840–1847), both of whom were personal physicians to the emperor, the independent scholar Wenzel Wabruschek-Blumenbach (1841–1847), and the classical philologist as well as tutor and librarian at the princely Schwarzenberg house, Emerich Hohler (1841–1846). Among the theological censors were Mathias Dannenmayer (1797–1804), Anton Karl Reyberger (1808–1811), Augustin Braig (1812–1817), Thomas Joseph Powondra (1823–1828), and Joseph Scheiner (1841–1848), all of them professors of theology, as well as Jacob Ruttenstock (1818–1830), provost in Klosterneuburg and delegate of the Lower Austrian Estates, Andreas Wenzel (1816–1831), abbot of Schottenstift Abbey in Vienna, and Franz Zenner (1841–1848), adjunct of theological studies at the University of Vienna and canon of St. Stephen’s.

A second group of censors was formed by government officials, most of whom were themselves authors in a scientific field or of works of fiction. As has often been noted, public officials as authors dominated the literary scene in Austria, and some of these men also worked as censors at least temporarily. Examples of such personal unions in Vienna were Johann Christian Engel (1797–1813), secretary of the Transylvanian Court Chancellery and an expert on the history of Southeastern Europe, Johann Gabriel Seidl (1841–1848), custodian of the Imperial Royal Coin and Antiques Collection, and Leopold Chimani (1841–1844), who worked first as a teacher and then in the distribution of official schoolbooks besides writing numerous pedagogic texts and other literature for children and adolescents. Further officials and censors who were occasionally active as authors were the Lower Austrian state councilors Baron Aloysius von Locella (1793–1800) and Franz Karl von Hägelin (1793–1808), while censor Peter Joris (1816–1825) seems to have otherwise been employed only in the Supreme Judiciary Section and the directorate of the imperial porcelain manufactory. Joseph Schreyvogel (1817–1825) was not a public official at all, but nevertheless effectively in the service of the court as dramaturg at the Imperial Court Theater (Burgtheater). Their dual capacity as authors and censorship officials brought this group of state-loyal writers into disaccord with their literary colleagues who defended the freedom of speech, regularly causing the censors to feel psychologically conflicted.22

Another writing public clerk involved with censorship was Johann Michael Armbruster from Württemberg; he had previously served as police commissioner in Freiburg im Breisgau, issued antirevolutionary and anti-French writings, and made a name for himself in Vienna as publisher of a newspaper and operator of a lending library. Armbruster committed suicide in 1814. Among the staff of the Book Review Office were Franz Sartori, likewise journalistically active and the Office’s director from 1814, and the poet Johann Mayrhofer, best known today as a friend of Franz Schubert, who set several of his texts to music. Mayrhofer’s suicide is notorious: He jumped out of a window of the Book Review Office in 1836—presumably less as a result of the mental stress of his work as a censor than owing to a severe attack of hypochondria related to the cholera epidemic sweeping Vienna at the time.23

Disregarding the representatives of scientific disciplines—usually professors—who could hardly refuse such a post, the majority of censors working in subordinate positions fulfilled their duties with the ulterior motive of earning merit in order to advance in the administrative hierarchy. One such longtime censor was Abbé Ignaz Pöhm (1793–1827), a secular priest and doctor of theology who worked his way up from assistant librarian at the Viennese court library to custodian of the institution and imperial royal councilor.

Another long-serving censor who likely viewed his job primarily as a way of forging useful contacts was the imperial court secretary and versatile author, publisher, and translator Baron Joseph Friedrich von Retzer (1782–1824), who was assigned specifically to foreign-language literature. Some of the books censored by him contained slips of paper proving that he had not actually read the books himself, instead passing them on to his friend Joseph Richter, author of the popular Eipeldauerbriefe (Eipeldau Letters) among many other works. Accosted with regard to this matter, Retzer claimed to have wanted to help the financially troubled author, adding that the handing off of books to be censored to collaborators had a long tradition: He mentioned Abbé Rosalino, who allegedly read for Hägelin as a young man, and asserted that Blumauer had employed an assistant as well; he, Retzer, had previously perused hundreds of books for Locella and court councilor von Birkenstock; and even the great Gerard van Swieten had availed himself of the aid of others.

It was not the first time Retzer had worked with a contributor; he had previously cooperated with Feldkriegskanzlei (Army Field Office) secretary Mayer, who had been recommended to him by the emperor’s brother-in-law, the Prince of Württemberg. This had not been an entirely selfless recommendation, since it gave the prince access to newly published works that had been subjected to censorship and were oftentimes considered risqué. Their proximity to the forbidden section of the book market seems to have lent socially high-ranking censors like Retzer a certain attractiveness in the eyes of ladies as well. In 1811, for example, Countess Wolkenstein requested Retzer to lend her the censorship copy of the new novel by Pigault-Lebrun, which was allegedly salacious.24

1.3 The Recensoring Campaign 1803–1805

Between 1803 and 1805, the Josephinian prohibition catalog was revised and many previously approved titles were forbidden—2,552, to be precise.25 Only the writings of the now tolerated Protestants were treated with more indulgence compared to the catalog published during the reign of Maria Theresa, with far more strict standards applied to all other disciplines and genres. Auction and estate catalogs were retroactively censored according to the new evaluation criteria. Joseph II’s educational policy, which had promoted book production and distribution, was oppugned in all its aspects. The previously mentioned Police Director Pergen described the measures as follows in 1803 in connection with the need for recensorship:

It was part of the plans for immodest promotion of an unconditional and inappropriate enlightenment of the populace under the government of the most blessed Emperor Joseph to increase the number of book printers and satisfy the addiction to reading, once excited, everywhere in the easiest and most inexpensive fashion. The fruits show what befuddlement of ideas has developed therefrom, how true rigorous scholarship and intellectual culture have declined, and how unbounded know-all-ness and passionate taste for boring novels and vacuous brochures have increased.26

The recensoring campaign was not only extremely laborious, it also engendered a host of problems. The libraries of private book collectors suddenly contained forbidden books, and booksellers and antiquarians had likewise relied on the continued admissibleness of various titles while establishing their inventories. The Viennese booksellers’ board submitted a petition in January 1804 asking for permission to continue selling books that had been rightfully purchased in the past. In the event that their motion should be denied, they sought compensation for their damages from the Lower Austrian government.27 Both requests were refused, since the authorities did not wish to make any exceptions to the ban on sales, and financial redress for the considerable stores of unsellable books would have been too costly.

The publishing houses that had recently produced books that were suddenly prohibited were particularly heavily affected. This was especially noticeable in the case of complete editions of the works of an author, where certain titles or volumes had to be dropped. One such author was C.M. Wieland, whose works had been printed by Schrämbl, respectively his successor Christian Krotz, in Vienna. The first challenge was actually obtaining the relevant information: Since the publishers and booksellers did not have access to the prohibition lists—which naturally also applied to the results of the recensoring campaign—the titles forbidden by the campaign were gradually posted in the Book Review Office for information. As this procedure likewise involved the risk of booksellers copying the lists, the titles of banned works were oftentimes only read out loud, and the retailers or their assistants had to trust their ability to memorize them. Nevertheless, the booksellers were required to submit lists of the now prohibited books included in their stocks.

The indemnity claims by publishers constituted a massive problem. The 29,000 volumes of the abovementioned Wieland edition alone represented an estimated value of 21,750 guilders, a loss no publishing house would likely survive. The debates concerning possible compensation payments thus ended in 1807 with the very reasonable decision to allow stocks of now forbidden books to be sold, albeit without announcements in catalogs or periodicals28 or other commotion—and only to persons from whom “no misuse is likely to be expected due to their upbringing, status, or character,”29 meaning in a process similar to the granting of Scheden.

In the course of the recensoring campaign, a guideline stipulating the procedure for censorship and the rules for evaluating individual genres of books was compiled in 1803.30 It included the following provisions: All manuscripts including new publications, books designated for reprinting, and translations were to be forwarded to the censors responsible for the respective area of expertise, who could decide to allow a work, reject it, or prescribe changes respectively recommend a degree of prohibition to be confirmed by the Court Police Section; in the case of works touching on important matters of domestic or foreign policy, the Court Police Section had to be involved prior to their admission even if the censor’s verdict was positive. The defined degrees of approval for manuscripts as well as for works imported from abroad were “admittitur” (meaning unconditional allowance) and “transeat” (meaning that the respective title could be sold but not announced or advertised). The degrees of prohibition were “erga schedam conceditur” and “damnatur.” In the former case, the local Book Review Office could grant educated and trustworthy persons special permission to obtain a book, whereas in the latter case it was only the Court Police Section that could grant Scheden—which it generally only did in response to applications from scholars and diplomats. Manuscripts considered worthless and superfluous, which “are sloppily hustled in a supremely wretched tone or without correctness and order of the thoughts, or in any other manner entirely without content,”31 were to be disposed of with the verdict of “typum non meretur,” a process specifically intended for the areas of belles lettres and light fiction, pamphlets, and brochures.

The listed reasons for prohibition were: attacks on religion (especially from the realms of deism, Socinianism, and materialism32), the clergy, the monarchistic form of government, the regent, or the administration that “could provoke a spirit of inebriation, disregard for the state administration, disorder, disquiet, mistrust, dissatisfaction, or even revolt,”33 as well as violations of morality and personal insults. Periodicals containing listings of the books prohibited in Vienna were now also forbidden.34 Protestant writings, on the other hand, were fundamentally allowed as long as they did not maliciously attack the Catholic faith or the Church. Also designated for prohibition were treatises lauding the Freemasons,35 Rosicrucians, Illuminati, and similar groups, works about quackery intended for reading by “the people,” instructions on how to win the lottery or forbidden games, and the formula fiction burgeoning in the late eighteenth century—especially stories revolving around knights, bandits, ghosts, and secret societies, which “excite and occupy the imagination, fill it with adventurous ideals, or even lend crime the luster of greatness.”36

As early as January 16, 1800, all such tales featuring secret societies, knights, ghosts, and swindlers had been forbidden along with chivalry plays so that “the heads are not filled with ideas from the realm of novels, the imagination not overexcited, and the mind not given a wrong direction.”37 The head of the recensoring campaign, university professor and censor Johann Bernhard Fölsch, had encouraged the emperor not to give in to the “indolent tastes” (“indolenter Geschmack”) of the audience and the economic interests of the book industry.38 Part of the strategy to fight trivial literature was the closure of all lending libraries, which had quickly become the key institutions for the distribution of light fiction, in 1798. They were only allowed to reopen in 1811. The censorship guideline pointed to the existing “reading mania” (“Lesewut”), and accordingly recommended a special focus on literature designed to appeal to a large audience while stating that learned discourse could be treated with more leniency. The fear of a vulgarization of the reading public’s tastes was undoubtedly exaggerated: An inordinate production of chivalry and horror novels is bibliographically not verifiable, and the number of banditry tales being published was likewise relatively insignificant.39

Noteworthy in terms of the history of mentality is the final paragraph of the guideline, which bespeaks a pseudoreligious worldview strongly oriented around the Manichaean principle, in which censorship defends the side of good:

The main considerations are always according to the highest will of His Majesty: Promotion of religion, morality, the serious sciences, and of all that is truly good, true, beautiful, and for the public benefit; suppression as best possible of all that can lead to irreligion, to immorality, to dissatisfaction, to philosophism, to enlightenment.40

Regarding the contents to be prohibited, the guideline prefigured the wording of the Censorship Regulation of 1810.

1.4 The Years of Napoleonic Occupation and the Censorship Regulation of 1810

In the course of his military campaigns, Napoleon conquered large areas of the Habsburg Monarchy and even occupied its capital twice for several months, once in late 1805 and then again from May to November 1809. These occupations—especially the one in 1809—left noticeable traces in literary life. The French administration abrogated censorship altogether, at most prosecuting anti-French propaganda, and the Book Review Office immediately ordered its stores of confiscated books to be returned to their owners.41 Several publishers promptly began marketing books that had previously been prohibited: Pichler published Blumauer’s poems along with his book Virgils Aeneis travestirt (Virgil’s Aeneid Travestied; 1784), a bitter satire on the Catholic religion and papal power, as well as an uncensored edition of the works of Schiller. Wallishausser, another renowned Viennese publishing house, announced an edition of Voltaire’s strictly forbidden Pucelle d’ Orléans. This caused none other than Friedrich Schlegel to call for stern censorship that had previously prevented the publication of texts suitable for “making the male German national character flaccid and capable of some debasements occurring in the most recent history.” The French had granted freedom of the press, he said, but only for writings acceptable to them, and the propagation of the Pucelle d’ Orléans, the “dirtiest product that French literature has to offer in this genre,” served their interests because it paralyzed “the driving forces of true honor and a manly sense of freedom.”42

A considerable number of books traditionally frowned upon in Austria were immediately banned again following the withdrawal of the French forces. The sale of already printed editions was sometimes permitted, but in such cases the booksellers were obligated to compile lists of purchasers and submit them to the police.43 Not only had various publishers and booksellers compromised themselves during the period of occupation, but the head of the Book Review Office, Karl Escherich, had also maintained friendly relations with the French. He was sent into retirement immediately after the Habsburgs regained control.44 On the other hand, many anti-French propaganda texts—including Archduke Johann’s appeal to the Tyroleans to resist—were likewise destroyed following the termination of hostilities.45

In January 1810, a relatively liberal patent entitled Vorschrift für die Leitung des Censurwesens und für das Benehmen der Censoren (Regulation for the Administration of Censorship and for the Behavior of Censors) was issued.46 Soon after assuming power, Napoleon had introduced relatively strict control of the press—first in France, then in the occupied territories. Censorship was continually intensified during his reign, reaching a culmination with the rigorous decrees of 1810 and 1811.47 Austria hoped to increase its international prestige by issuing comparatively mild censorship rules. As Friedrich von Gentz wrote in a letter, such a measure surely had to “increase the popularity and the moral credit of the Austrian government immensely.” He also added: “We must seek to fight our new friend with such weapons from now on.”48 The surveillance system established by Metternich over the coming years, on the other hand, was part of a toughened response to political opponents and agitators: Napoleon’s suppression of revolt with military force was effectively considered good practice by the Austrian restoration as well.49 The ostensible mildness announced by the censorship regulations served in part to strengthen Austrian journalism, which—as Metternich explained in a speech in November 1809—could prove very useful for fending off enemies.50

That the primary goal of the Vorschrift of 1810 was not to grant freedom but rather to establish a perhaps well-intended but nevertheless paternalistic regimen is already apparent in its preamble announcing a “purposively guided freedom of reading and writing.” The “supreme regental and fatherly obligations” required protecting “with a cautious hand […] the hearts and minds of the immature from the corruptive monstrosities of a hideous fantasy, from the poisonous exhalation of selfish debauchers, and from the dangerous pipe dreams of eccentric minds.”51 Like in the guidelines of 1803, tolerance was promised to serious and innovative scientific contributions, while worthless light fiction would be met with the full severity of censorship. Not just objectionable texts but useless ones as well—like the “endless mass of novels that revolve exclusively around flirtations as their eternal axis” and sought only to “cradle the sensuality”—were to be kept from the population: “It should therefore in all seriousness be endeavored to put an end to the so detrimental literature of novels.”52 The motives for censorship (protection of the monarch and his dynasty, of foreign governments, of religion and morality as well as the honor of individuals against defamation) and its degrees as defined in 1803 were reconfirmed.

Theological writings were still reviewed by the secular governmental censors, although the bishops were entitled to lodge appeals if they were dissatisfied with individual verdicts. The emperor himself as the highest authority had the final say in such cases. A decree issued by the Court Chancellery on July 21, 1814 stipulated an additional assessment by a bishop for theological literature; this act partly repealed the transferal of censorship into the hands of the state implemented by Joseph II.

The book reviewers commissioned two expert opinions—respectively more often only one starting in 1810—from the staff of censors.53 Even though there were specialists for various areas of expertise among the official censors, scientific literature in the strict sense as well as textbooks and other teaching materials were handled by high-ranking faculty members (Oberstudiendirektoren) in the respective discipline, who censored the works themselves or passed them on to appropriate specialists in a process known as faculty censorship. In any case, such faculty censors merely did the groundwork for the genuine censors, who ultimately decided on the individual cases.

The reports compiled by the censors (known as vota) were to provide a comprehensible argumentation for their superiors up to the emperor with the goal of facilitating assignment to one of the verdicts “admittitur,” “transeat,” “erga schedam,” and “damnatur.” Especially desirable were references to noteworthy passages, with the censors expected to highlight the page numbers and/or text passages relevant for the verdict in the censorial copy or manuscript for hurried readers—or even more comfortably for their busy superiors, to simply quote them in the report.54

The Vorschrift remained in force until 1848 and represented the only guideline for the censors during this period. It was reaffirmed and distributed to the censors throughout the monarchy in lithographed form as late as 1840.

1.5 The Censorship Reports: Examples from the Years 1810/11

Preserved censorship reports are rare, as the majority of them were apparently destroyed by the fire in the Vienna Palace of Justice in 1927. In addition, the reports were summarized in log journals, which are only preserved for certain periods.55 A total of 90 works were banned between November 1810 and October 1811, of which 62 were in German, 26 in French, and two in Polish. Compared to the total production of the German book trade (1810: 3,864 titles) and the prohibition activity during the 1790s and 1820s, this number is diminutive.

Thirty of the printed works forbidden in 1810/11 (26 of them in German and two each in French and Polish) can be considered nonfiction. They were mostly from the fields of theology, philosophy, political science, and history (especially military history) along with a few legal, economic, geographical, and statistical texts. The remaining 60 works included novels (22, of which 11 in French), various anthologies of short stories, poems, anecdotes, or humorous texts (24, of which 7 in French), periodicals (7, of which 1 in French), books for youths (5), and two volumes of drama. This second group was thus largely composed of works that the Vorschrift of 1810 defined as suitable for dissemination.

Sixty of the 90 banned texts received the stricter verdict of “damnatur,” while 30 were marked as “erga schedam.” This assignment in the prohibition lists conforms roughly, though not entirely, to the Vorschrift’s aim of treating the sciences with more tolerance (meaning “erga schedam”) while applying the utmost severity (meaning “damnatur”) to the fundamentally “useless” belles lettres.

Let us first look at a few examples of attacks on the Christian faith or the clergy. It is readily apparent that a treatise like G. Ch. Cannabich’s Kritik der practischen christlichen Religionslehre (Criticism of the Practical Christian Doctrine, 1811) provoked a host of objections that need not be discussed here. No less exceptionable in the eyes of the responsible censor was L.P.G. Happach’s Ueber die Beschaffenheit des künftigen Lebens nach dem Tode (On the Nature of the Future Life after Death, 1811), which describes the earth’s atmosphere as the living environment of the souls, who nevertheless need food and shelter like the living. As proof of his theory, the author mentions the phenomenon of the fata morgana, which he considers a reflection of the celestial dwellings. In keeping with the censorship regulations, the censor differentiated between educated and immature readers and forbade the text because “such notions of the future life may appear entertaining to educated readers; [but] they do not conform to the Christian fundamental tenets and might mislead unpracticed thinkers to new fallacies.”56

Roguish cleric or monk figures in novels were frequently rejected, for example an abbot named Hilarius in Geschichte zweyer Frauen aus dem Hause Blankenau. Eine Sage aus der Vorzeit (A Tale of Two Women from House Blankenau: A Myth from Times Past, 1811), whose character was “a mixture of bigotry, craftiness, pride, unfaithfulness, fanatism, and so on”57 according to the censor. A periodical like the Neue Oberdeutsche Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung was withdrawn from circulation for a single article—a review of the treatise Ueber das Bedürfniss einer Reformation des Priesterstandes (On the Need for a Reformation of the Priesthood, 1811), which was assessed as containing “grave insults to a profession which, once dispossessed of its dignity and its repute, is no longer able to do good.”58

Even Austrian public officials like Friedrich Schlegel, who served as court secretary in Vienna during this period, could not expect to be spared by the censors. Schlegel’s Lessing commentary Lessings Geist aus seinen Schriften (Lessing’s Spirit from His Writings, 1810) was forbidden because of a perceived “offensiveness against Vienna” (“Ausfall gegen Wien”) and in particular because of attacks against religion in the essays on fatalism, Christianity, reason, and the Freemasons. Besides the Masons, mention of the Rosicrucians and the Templars was likewise not acceptable, and Schlegel’s supposed trivialization of suicide can also be assigned to the area of theologically motivated reasons for prohibition.59

The most important political reason for book bans were attacks on the imperial family. In this regard, even a novel like Mme. Barthélemy-Hadot’s Clotilde de Hasbourg ou le tribunal de Neustadt (Clotilde of Habsburg or the Tribunal of Neustadt, 1810), a family saga set in the fourteenth century and revolving around Rudolf the Founder, was considered insulting because it presented “some of them [the members of the Habsburg Austrian House] as unnaturally dissolute and deplorable while the others, the oppressed, are portrayed as virtuous and likeable.”60 The censor found it “unbecoming to introduce such execrable characters and persons as the alleged Clotilde and the alleged Casimir as the oldest siblings of Emperor Rudolph are as being among the forebears and relatives of the Habsburg House, and to let them circulate as such among the audience.”61

Nor was shade allowed to be cast on any other legitimate dynasties. An issue of the journal Europäische Annalen was forbidden because of “the continued portrayal of the battles on the Champ de Mars, then because of the offensiveness to the Bourbons in Spain [and] to clergy and nobility in general”62 (referring to Europäische Annalen, 1810, 10th issue). Descriptions of the amorous adventures of kings in novels were also considered objectionable (for example in M. de Faverolle’s Le Parc aux cerfs, ou histoire secrète des jeunes Demoiselles qui y ont été renfermées [The Parc aux cerfs, or Secret History of Two Young Ladies Who Were Imprisoned There], 1809).

Another frequent reason for prohibition during this period were narrations of the military successes of the Napoleonic forces, since they implied defeats of the Austrians and their emperor. A censor accused the author of one such military history account of insulting the Austrian people by claiming that they had begged Napoleon for mercy and by presenting the Battle of Essling as a French victory (René Perin: Vie militaire de J. Lannes, Duc de Montebello [The Military Life of J. Lannes, Duke of Montebello], 1809).

As stipulated by the Vorschrift, special attention was paid to the feared subversion of patriotism during the censorship of popular writings and publications for the youth: The censor of Herzensgüte und Seelengröße. Eine Beyspielsammlung für Kinder (Kindness of the Heart and Greatness of the Soul: A Collection of Examples for Children, n.d.) reported that “the contents of this writ for young people, which on pp. 68–89 is a portrayal of military heroics of the French military, which therein are not rarely compared to the heroes of antiquity, are not proper reading for children who should honor and love their fatherland: Austria, their Sovereign, and their defenders.”63

It may come as a surprise that even criticism of the state finances constituted a reason for prohibition. In September 1811, the book Handels- und Finanz-Pandora der neuesten Zeiten (Trade and Finance Pandora of the Most Recent Times, 1810) by Georg Christian Otto Georgius was banned. The censor stated that while the author illuminated the condition of the European states’ finances, he wrote with a presumptuous tone that insulted the courts, especially that of Austria. An issue of the periodical Der Verkündiger (The Proclaimer, 1811, no. 31) was forbidden because the Austrian paper money was “demeaned with profane humor” (“mit derbem Witz herabgewürdigt”) within it. The background in this case were the financial problems resulting from the lost wars against Napoleon, which led to national bankruptcy and devaluation of the bills, the so-called Bancozettel (bank slips), in 1811.

As far as questions of morality were concerned, the censorial system exhibited a particular sensitivity to French writings, with national stereotypes occasionally being incorporated in the verdicts: “Even though no actual obscenities occur in this lyrical anthology, some passages due to the national frivolousness and due to French plays on words give enough cause […] to forbid it”64 (Anthologie lyrique, deuxième édition de Momus en délire [Lyrical Anthology, Second Edition by Momus in Delusion], 1810). Even a reference to a scorned author’s name was sometimes enough to elicit a ban: “Is an excerpt from Louve’s [sic] Faublas [Louvet de Couvray: Les amours du chevalier Faublas], and thus […] to be forbidden”65 (Pariser Nächte [Parisian Nights], 1811).

Not even Heinrich von Kleist was immune to accusations of immorality. The first volume of his collected Erzählungen (Stories, 1810), which included “Michael Kohlhaas,” “Die Marquise von O …,” and “Das Erdbeben in Chili” was rated “damnatur” in January 1811 by censor Baron Retzer, who specialized in belles lettres, owing to two relatively unremarkable passages in the latter story:

Though these stories are not without any value, their content can nevertheless not make one forget the immoral passages, which appear especially in the tale “The Earthquake in Chile” pp. 307 and 308. A young Spaniard, whose girl of his heart had been put in a convent by her father, seeks an opportunity to see her, and by an unfortunate coincidence he meets with her in a secretive night, and makes the convent garden the witness of his fullest carnal bliss. The girl is pregnant, and goes into labor precisely at the moment in which the ceremonial Corpus Christi procession of the nuns begins, which the novices are to follow. The outcome of this narration is most dreadful.66

The argument of a “dreadful, outrageous, and inhumane” (“gräßlich[en], empörend[en] und unmenschlich[en]”) ending was also applied to Kotzebue’s drama Adelheid von Wülfingen. Ein Denkmal der Barbarey des 13. Jahrhunderts (Adelheid of Wülfingen: A Memorial to the Barbarism of the 13th Century, 1810). The censor was apparently afraid that such an ending might engender doubts regarding the world order among readers.

When the following paragraphs mention several of the many forbidden novels, it is worth remembering that chivalric romanticism, horror stories modeled on the English gothic novel, and bandit tales about the likes of Rinaldo Rinaldini were in the late stage of their heyday at this time. Besides indecent scenes, it was therefore frequently the density of the adventures and the portrayed criminality that censors took offense at. One adventure novel presented a “scum of humanity” (“Abschaum der Menschheit”) as its hero (Le Capitaine subtle, ou l’ intrigue devoilée [Captain Subtle, or the Unveiled Intrigue], 1810), another was characterized as “pervaded by robbers’ and lovers’ adventures”67 (Legay: La roche du diable [The Devil’s Rock], 1809), a third eliminated as “a very ordinary tale of libertines and rascals”68 (Jean Clergeot, ou le danger [de changer] de nom [Jean Clergeot, or the Danger of (Changing) One’s Name], an 7 de la république).

Besides specific objectionable passages, the censors rarely neglected to mention the inferior literary quality of reviewed novels as well to justify a recommendation of “damnatur.” A further corroboration for proscription were derogatory remarks about the author like “The Abbé Sabatier is not one of the most exquisite authors of France”69 (Les Caprices de la fortune [The Whims of Fortune], 1809). The production of another novel writer was described as “the unprincipled babble of an inexhaustible French aesthete”70 (Agathe d’ Entragues. Roman historique de l’ auteur d’ Irma [Agathe d’ Entragues: Historical Novel by the Author of Irma], 1807). This occasionally went so far as to doubt a writer’s mental faculties, for example when a censor berated “excrescences of a half-insane mind”71 (Der Todesbund [The Death Alliance], 1811).

The renowned orientalist and later president of the Academy of Sciences, Hammer-Purgstall, offered up an exaggerated rhetorical analysis of the abovementioned novel Clotilde de Hasbourg when he wrote: “This work has no value from the perspective of imagination, arrangement, expression, and the other features that constitute the nature and the merits of an epic poem.”72 Similarly, the report about Sabatier de Castres stated that “neither his ingenuity, nor the execution of his works, nor his style”73 could be lauded (Les Caprices de la fortune, 1809). Phrasings assigning works to certain sociological or literary history categories, for example “a product of the writing-excited period of Austria [i.e. Josephinism],”74 also served as abbreviated assessments (Der deutsche Diogenes oder der Philosoph nach der Mode [The German Diogenes or the Philosopher Following Fashion], 1792).

As should be apparent from these examples, the Censorship Regulation of 1810 caused the censors to gauge the usefulness of literature and even employ stylistic deficiencies as additional arguments for prohibition besides the determination of objectionable contents. Long before the disputes about “Schmutz und Schund” (roughly: “filth and rubbish”) towards the end of the nineteenth century, this represents a systematic attempt to keep the emerging popular culture under control.

1.6 The Book Review Offices

The oldest Book Review Offices in the crown lands were the ones in Prague (1723) and Graz (1732); after 1792 and the transfer of the censorship agendas to the competency of the Court Police Section, the network of offices in the capitals of the provinces was expanded. In the 1830s and 1840s, mirroring the ongoing development of the book industry itself, there existed a total of 13 Book Review Offices in Vienna, Linz, Salzburg, Graz, Innsbruck, Laibach/Ljubljana, Triest/Trieste, Prague, Brünn/Brno, Lemberg/Lviv, Zara/Zadar, Milan, and Venice.75 In addition, the lists of allowed books occasionally mention administrative bureaus in Pest, Pressburg/Bratislava, Klagenfurt, and Ragusa/Dubrovnik that fulfilled the function of book review as well. The prohibition lists were accordingly produced for distribution in large editions of 165 copies during this period.76 Hungary and Transylvania possessed a special status in this regard, with their respective court chancelleries involved in the censorship decisions.

The Book Review Offices respectively the local censors were allowed to apply the assessments of “admittitur” and “transeat” to shorter, obviously unproblematic—and in particular, non-political—manuscripts and books of their own accord, thereby clearing them for printing, and to request minor changes or omissions in the case of manuscripts. A brief perusal was generally enough to determine the innocuousness of book announcements and other adverts and notices, the catalogs of publishers, antiquarians, auctions, and lending libraries, and even many regular printed works of minor importance. The book reviewers in the crown lands were not permitted to impose prohibitions, however—these had to be issued by the Court Police Section in Vienna. After all, the monthly or semi-monthly prohibition lists were ultimately approved by the emperor himself, at least by form. In addition to the above, the Book Review Offices were responsible for censoring local newspapers (but not periodicals), necessitated not least by the significant loss of time their dispatch to Vienna would have entailed, and they also organized the assignment of Scheden for books with the corresponding verdict. Exceptions to these limited competencies of the Book Review Offices in the capitals of the crown lands were the offices in Lemberg, Milan, and Venice, where all manuscripts for works to be published as well as books in Polish respectively Italian arriving from abroad were assessed. The lists of forbidden and permitted books reveal that this approach suggested itself due to the sheer quantity of works published in these languages.

The Book Review Offices also formed relay stations within the censorial process, and this function entailed various tasks to be fulfilled by the reviewers (only three reviewers were active at the Viennese Book Review Office in 1810) and their clerks: They accepted the submitted manuscripts along with books slated for reprinting and passed them on to suitable censors in case of concerns.77 They also issued the imprimaturs for obviously unobjectionable works as well as those cleared by the censors before returning them to their respective authors and publishers. All books arriving from abroad (as part of orders by booksellers or simply for review) and as yet unknown and therefore neither allowed nor banned in Austria had to be submitted to the censorship process. This often required extensive proficiency in the languages spoken within the monarchy as well as those used outside it: Besides works in French and English, many Italian, Polish, Ruthenian, Czech, and Hungarian writings were received.78 The censorial reports on foreign books had to be forwarded to the Court Police Section for the final decision on their verdict. It was also the duty of the Book Review Offices to request the opinion of the State Chancellery in the case of politically controversial literature, of the Court Chancellery in the case of legal subject matters, of the Court Education Commission in the case of textbooks, of the Imperial War Council in the case of military writings, and of the episcopal consistory in the case of religious literature.79 In addition, they had to inspect the baggage of travelers, libraries forming parts of estates, the catalogs of booksellers, antique dealers, and auctions as well as sheet music, maps, and artworks.

Every written or printed matter from epitaphs to encyclopedias, every image from cufflinks to copper engravings was examined. For pictures on rings, bosom pins, or pipe heads, the ambition to prevent any symbols of secret societies was also involved. In the case of music, texts and drawings had to be paid heed to, revolutionary or political songs were frowned upon; sometimes even dedications were disapproved of.80

This listing by Julius Marx could be expanded to include the ostensibly unsuspicious genre of dictionaries, which nevertheless faced censorial problems.81 As a complete catalog of forbidden titles did not exist, excellent bibliographical knowledge—especially regarding new publications—and an outstanding memory concerning previously assessed writings were requirements for working as a reviewer. Beginning in 1815, there were at least printed overall listings of the prohibited books in German, French, and Italian, which were subsequently supplemented by hand to include newly banned titles.82 In addition, the reviewers maintained handwritten cumulative thesauruses; for example, the Book Review Office in Graz had a list of all foreign newspapers, an index of musical works and lithographs (1780–1840), and a catalog of permitted books from 1770 to 1837 in 31 volumes.83 It would have been far too laborious to look up each individual title during the inspection of auction catalogs or the listings of booksellers and lending libraries, however; for this task, a reviewer had to use his experience and develop a certain intuition for problematic titles.

Furthermore, all activities had to be documented and report forms submitted weekly to the superordinate entity. The processing of the many periodicals and newspapers entailed considerable effort, particularly since every item that underwent review had to be inventoried in lists: In addition to the lists of forbidden writings to be compiled and issued in numerous copies every month (respectively every two weeks from 1822), a regulation issued in 1796 required even more extensive lists of permitted writings and manuscripts to be created (cf. Figures 4, 5, and 6).84 Contact also had to be maintained with the customs authorities regarding the return of imported prohibited books to their sources abroad, and the review officers cooperated with the local police forces to perform visitations at booksellers and private households. Last but not least, the Book Review Offices also accepted and processed the applications for Scheden.

d156124143e9250

Figure 4

List of books forbidden in the first half of April 1846, in lithographed form

d156124143e9262

Figure 5

List of books forbidden in January 1799, in printed form

d156124143e9274

Figure 6

List of works permitted during the military year 1816 (November 1815–October 1816), title page

Marx quotes a regulation on inquiries to be made in the case of an application for a Scheda: The required information included the “rank and employment of this Scheda applicant,” his “personal and family circumstances,” his “previous moral and political stance,” the “degree and orientation of his intellectual education”; in short, the extent of his “trustworthiness.”85 Beginning in 1803, the emperor perused the list of persons applying for Scheden for forbidden books and decided personally on each one. This naturally led to huge delays in the handling of these applications, and the Court Police Section feared that booksellers would shirk the process on behalf of their customers and smuggle books instead. The emperor eventually agreed to let the police handle the granting of Scheden in 1809; he still insisted on reviewing the records on permissions and rejections, however. Lists were to be kept not only of the names of trustworthy persons who were allowed to obtain prohibited books, but also of the names of individuals whose applications had been denied.

Not even members of the imperial family enjoyed the right to read forbidden writings at will. As proven by various objectionable works ordered by Archduke Johann, for example on scandals at various courts (Die geheime Geschichte des Hofes von St. Cloud [The Secret History of the Court of St. Cloud]; Vertraute Briefe über die inneren Verhältnisse am preußischen Hofe [Confidential Letters on the Internal Affairs at the Prussian Court]) or matrimony (Die reinmenschliche Ansicht der Ehe [The Purely Human View of Marriage; by Jakob Salat]), the emperor’s brother had a keen interest in literature considered taboo and therefore maintained close contact with the Book Review Office. When he was given the book Napoleon Buonaparte wie er leibt und lebt, und das französische Volk unter ihm (Napoleon Buonaparte in Real Life, and the French People under Him, Petersburg: Hammer 1806) without approval from Francis I, the emperor chastised Police Chief Sumerau:

It is not rightly done that you have given the mentioned book to my brother without obtaining my prior permission. You shall henceforth know to abide by my orders without consideration of the person and demand the granted book back from my brother.86

It is said that even the books of Francis I’ deceased wife Maria Ludovica were seized by the police and searched for forbidden titles.87

On the other hand, the emperor would write indignant handbills when prohibited books that were important for his ministers were delayed by the customs and censorship authorities, as was the case with L’ an mille sept cent quatre vingt quinze (The Year Seventeen Ninety-Five) by Maurice Montgaillard, which Foreign Minister Thugut was eagerly expecting but was being retained at the main customs office. Francis complained that the officers there should have recognized that the book was destined not for sale but for official use. In future, he demanded, “all parcels containing printed or unprinted writings and arriving by mail addressed to my Minister of the Exterior Baron of Thugut” were to be waved through.88

1.7 The State Chancellery

The State Chancellery was involved in all constitutional and delicate political questions—especially concerning day-to-day diplomatic affairs—and therefore also held sole responsibility for the official press (Wiener Zeitung, Österreichischer Beobachter). State Chancellor Metternich sometimes even intervened in person, for example in the infamous case of Grillparzer’s poem on the Campo Vaccino. On the occasion of a journey through Italy, the not yet 30-year-old Austrian poet had written verses on the ruins at the Roman Forum (also known as Campo Vaccino, a former cow pasture) that included an expression of his incomprehension at the “new ecclesiastic [character] or rather the priestliness imposed on things of old.”89 The two incriminated stanzas were:

Kolosseum, Riesenschatten

(Coliseum, giant shadow

Von der Vorwelt Machtkoloß!

Of the Old World’s hulking power!

Liegst du da in Tods-Ermatten,

Lie you there in death’s exhaustion,

Selber noch im Sterben groß?

Grand still in your final hour?

Und damit verhöhnt, zerschlagen,

And to earn your death as martyr,

Du den Martertod erwarbst,

Mocked and shattered far and wide,

Mußtest du das Kreuz noch tragen,

You were forced to bear the cross,

An dem, Herrliche[r]! du starbst!

O glorious one, by which you died!

Thut es weg dieß heil’ge Zeichen!

Take away this holy symbol!

Alle Welt gehört ja dir!

All the world at your command!

Ueb’rall, nur bey diesen Leichen,

Anywhere but by these corpses,

Ueb’rall stehe, nur nicht hier!

Anywhere but here to stand!

Wenn ein Stamm sich losgerissen

If a branch has broken free

Und den Vater mir erschlug,

And put to death the father mine,

Soll ich wohl das Werkzeug küssen,

Must I kiss this tool of killing

Wenn’s auch Gottes Zeichen trug?90

Just because it bears God’s sign?)

The cross installed on the Coliseum in honor of the Christian martyrs made the venerable site itself a “martyr” in the poet’s eyes. Grillparzer’s condemnation of the erection of the cross was interpreted as criticism of the reigning Pope Pius VII:

As Pope Pius VII, under whom the restoration of the Coliseum began, was still reigning (1800–1823), the attack against the cross […] could be construed as a personal insult to the Pope, and indeed one later spoke regularly of this “matter with the Pope” […].91

According to Grillparzer’s verses, the Church should respect (pagan) antiquity and its merits as well as its ruins. This notion was also visible in a comparison between Titus and the first Christian emperor Constantine:

Über Roma’s Heldentrümmern

(Over Rome’s heroic ruins

Hobst du deiner Meinung Thron;

You raised your opinion’s throne;

In der Meinung magst du schimmern,

In opinions you may shimmer,

Die Geschichte spricht dir Hohn.92

History offers scorn alone.)

The poem appeared in 1819 in the 1820 volume of the almanac Aglaja published by Wallishausser, and official censorship in the person of Grillparzer’s friend, the director of the Imperial Court Theater and Aglaja editor Joseph Schreyvogel, had raised no objection. 400 copies of the almanac had already been consigned when conservative Catholic circles complained about the poem. Grillparzer himself writes that the overeager publisher had given a copy of the almanac to “the wife of the crown prince of a neighboring court known for his enlightened views on art as well as for his stern religiousness,”93 which could only refer to the court of Bavaria. The crown prince had subsequently inquired with the emperor as to why the almanac had been approved by censorship in Vienna. Catholic romanticist poet Zacharias Werner is also mentioned as having denounced Grillparzer in this context.94 According to Julius Marx, Police Chief Sedlnitzky quickly read the verses himself and issued a prohibition, decreeing the pages with the incriminated poem to be torn out of all copies of the almanac discoverable in Vienna95—which unsurprisingly resulted in interested readers who were unable to get their hands on a printed copy making handwritten transcriptions of “The Ruins of Campo Vaccino” from several circulating intact issues of the book. Sedlnitzky reported to the emperor, justifying the removal of the poem from the printed copies of Aglaja by stating that “several passages of this poem violate sanctums of the Christian and especially the Catholic religion crudely and obviously.”96 Summoned by the police to explain himself, Grillparzer pointed to his restrained phraseology in the poem and attempted to protect Schreyvogel from being reprimanded for negligence in his concomitant roles as editor and censor. Since the poem indirectly attacked the pope for his “occupation” of the Forum with the Christian cross, the case was (also) a political one and hence fell into the competency of the State Chancellery besides that of the police. With assistance from two high-ranking clerks, Metternich wrote the corresponding expert opinion that sought to justify the ban. He confirmed that the poem was “written against the Christian religion as the alleged cause of the decline of the Roman Empire” and reproached the “assault on the erection of the cross in this day on the ground so many thousands of martyrs fertilized with their blood” in particular.97 This constituted the final decision against Grillparzer, Schreyvogel, and Wallishausser in this censorship case.

In another case, it was “chief ideologist” Friedrich von Gentz who became active as the State Chancellery’s censor. The text in question was Franz Julius Schneller’s manuscript Oesterreichs Einfluß auf Deutschland und Europa, seit der Reformation bis zu den Revolutionen unserer Tage [Austria’s Influence on Germany and Europe, from the Reformation to the Revolutions of Our Time], which the professor of history had submitted to the censorship authorities. An admirer of Joseph II and Napoleon, Schneller had already been under police observation for some time and had repeatedly come into conflict with the censorial apparatus.

The manuscript by the professor of history slated for printing was submitted to the publicist of the State Chancellery for censorship, who furnished it with very characteristic notes and marginalia, and in doing so, entirely in the spirit of the censorship instruction of 1810, united the office of the political judge with that of the literary critic. Piqued and offended to the marrow, the Austrian professor of history reached for his walking staff and put his work to press “abroad,” illustrated with Friedrich von Gentz’s censorial notes. It is well known what extraordinary sensation these marginalia by the great diplomatic censor elicited in Germany.98

Schneller left Austria for good and settled in Freiburg im Breisgau; his manuscript was ultimately published in two volumes in 1828–1829 by Franckh in Stuttgart.

2 Censorship in the Pre-March Period (1821–1848)

The (German) nationalist movements that had previously been welcome in connection with the liberation from Napoleon’s occupation were increasingly being perceived as a threat by the Austrian government as well as by the rulers of other countries, since they simultaneously advanced liberal political ideas. The first conflicts concerning Austrian rule arose in Lombardy and Venetia, with Hungary and Galicia respectively Poland likewise becoming centers of nationalist independence efforts not long thereafter.

The Austrian government under Metternich made every effort to block the constitutional developments by forbidding the fraternities and assuming control over the universities and supposed revolutionary groups, but also by way of comprehensive preventive censorship within the German Confederation. The first restorative thrust occurred as early as 1815 with the German Federal Act signed at the Congress of Vienna, and the Carlsbad Decrees followed in 1819. Metternich used the assassination of Kotzebue, who had worked as a Russian spy and dared to ridicule the German nationalists, by the student Karl Sand as a reason to retract the constitutional elements of the German Confederation—which at this point were still weak anyway—and introduce a general censorship obligation for all written works under 20 sheets in length. The German Confederation subsequently split into groups of more liberal (Bavaria, Württemberg, Baden) and more reactionary states (Austria, Prussia). The Carlsbad Decrees were not even published in Austria since they would have meant an easement compared to the prevailing censorship regulations. For example, the 20-sheet-rule did not apply in Austria, where all manuscripts were preventively censored regardless of their length.

The monitoring of communication by way of printed texts was now accompanied by the observation of suspicious persons; there is evidence of surveillance by police agents and informers as early as the beginning of the pre-March period. Besides France, England in particular was suspected of being a center of the efforts to revolutionize the continent. In 1819, for instance, an informer from Rome reported having heard from a high-ranking lady that “In Inghilterra e la focina della rivoluzione dell’Europa, ed ivi risiede il capo ed il direttore dei Settarij” (The source of the European revolution is in England, and there resides the leader and controller of the secret societies); a name had unfortunately not been determinable, only that the figure was “un uomo grand” (a great man).99 The first secret societies to attract attention were the Italian ones, with the best-known among them being the Carbonari, while the activities of the supporters of the Greek liberation movement came into focus in the 1820s.100

Madame de Staël was observed during her travels, which took her to Vienna among other places, as was Lord Byron during his sojourn in the Italian states. It is hardly necessary to note that numerous works by both authors are to be found in the lists of forbidden books: There are 19 entries for de Staël and 44 for Byron.

Madame de Staël came to Vienna twice—once in 1808 and once in 1812—and also visited Lombardy in 1815. On all of these occasions, her movements were monitored by agents and informers: Domestics were planted or bribed, her wastebasket was searched, and her correspondence opened or stolen; when she received visitors, spies eavesdropped at her door. A plethora of reports were compiled, with some of them addressed directly to the emperor, who took a personal interest in the famous author’s activities. Her expulsion from France by Napoleon was suspected of being a pretense for espionage and conspiracy in Austria. All the greater was the disappointment when her observation resulted in nothing but harmless contacts to the Austrian nobility and politically meaningless gossip.101 The most “explosive” outcome of the investigation was the discovery that de Staël advocated constitutionalism in salon discussions. As Count Franz Josef Saurau, governor of the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, summarily confirmed on November 1, 1815, she had never done political harm of any kind:

It is apparent that her principles, views, and statements identify her as a proponent of the constitutional forms of government and the prevailing ideas that wish to reshape Europe according to these new forms. But she has in no way personally compromised herself or transgressed the limits of reasonableness and caused political damage.102

Byron never made a secret of his disdain for the Austrian “Huns” and “barbarians” who were preventing liberal progress. It was no wonder that Metternich was convinced of the danger posed by the Englishman on the Italian peninsula. On December 25, half a year after the revolution in Naples, he reported to the emperor:

Englishmen with such radical principles as […] Lord Biron [sic] applies in Ravenna and as are known […] from the Lords Kinaird and Hamilton must be viewed as the most dangerous apostles of independence and revolution and should therefore, without accepting any objections from the British Government about intolerance against its subjects, be kept away from the peninsula by way of joint measures by all Italian governorates.103

With some delay, the seeds of the conspiracy theories that had circulated all through the late eighteenth century were now bearing fruit: The enlighteners and rationalists (Joachim Christoph Bode, Friedrich Nicolai, and others) had prophesied “the scenario of a Jesuit-controlled conspiracy against Enlightenment and Protestantism,” while more conservative voices had spoken of a “scenario of a conspiracy of Illuminati, enlightened ‘philosophers,’ and German Freemasons against political absolutism, revealed religion, and the regular clergy.”104 Metternich as well as Emperor Francis I were said to exhibit distinctly paranoid behavior, visible among other things in intensified censorship and the personal observation of all persons suspected of revolutionary machinations. Since the governments acted in arcane fashion and only publicized their decisions and actions when it seemed beneficial or advisable to do so, they assumed the same of their adversaries:

The conclusion by analogy from their own action and confidentiality strategies to the methods of competing opponents led to causal explanations that interpreted nearly all political and cultural goings-on as connected parts of a plan and intended results of “secret” and “disguised” manipulators.105

Wolfram Siemann has recently argued against the image common among the contemporary liberals of a blindly reactionary Austria under a Chancellor indulging in obscurantism. Siemann corroborates the hypothesis underpinning the censorial activities during this time that violent rhetoric could indeed lead to real acts of violence. The sensational murder of Kotzebue by Karl Sand was but one of several assassinations occurring in various parts of Europe. The radical students effectively viewed the liberation from the “princely yoke” as a sacred cause, and themselves as martyrs for the future united nation. To speak of terrorism in this context does not constitute an anachronism, as the term was already used by contemporary commentators.106 The Sand case became a huge media event, and the largely sympathetic or even enthusiastic comments on the student’s bloody deed were suitable for inspiring copycat criminals. The echo of the murder stimulated a wave of nationalist mobilization. “After the assassination of Kotzebue, the media landscape was suddenly a different one. Far too little attention is given to the fact that the more or less embellished glorifications of the act in the press provoked the many-voiced call for censorship.”107 According to Siemann’s analysis, the revolutionary propaganda appealed in particular to the “intellectual proletariat” forming in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars. The legion of badly salaried journalists and commission writers, revolutionary poets, and unemployed university graduates and trainee lawyers likely also represented a large share of the authors of writings banned in Austria during this period. A further group were the professors and lawyers, whom Metternich was especially suspicious of. The sociohistorical background for this development was the protracted economic crisis beginning after 25 years of continuous wars and conflicts. Bled out by Napoleon and heavily indebted as a result, the states were forced into austerity, and one of the groups most heavily aggrieved in this regard were the public servants.

The trend towards political assassinations extended to England, France, and the Italian states as well. Particularly alarming for rulers of monarchies was the murder of the Duc de Berry, a potential French heir to the throne, by the saddler Louis Pierre Louvel in February 1820.108 Siemann views Metternich not as a despot but instead as a politician who, while amenable to reforms and perhaps even to a constitution in principle, feared that abandoning the time-tested system would trigger nationality conflicts that could potentially be ruinous for the multi-ethnic Habsburg Empire.109

A second restoration campaign followed after the July Revolution of 1830 in France with the overthrow of Charles X. The immediate consequences were the July Revolution in Belgium as well as uprisings in Poland, Central Italy, and various German states like Brunswick and Saxony. The Hambach Festival in May 1832 further stoked the fear of revolution, and concerns regarding a Europe-wide conspiracy against the continent’s monarchs increased. In 1830, Metternich expanded his suspicion of plans for destabilization to the entire world:

The wicked fraternization that has been working incessantly for half a century towards the downfall of the existing and even of all possible legal order and all thrones has claimed a momentous victory in 1830 in France, which by no means suffices for it, however: Its plan continues, it spans the world.110

Under the impression of the recent events, Metternich established a secret surveillance and informant service in 1833: the Mainzer Informationsbüro, which would exist until 1842.111 Further spy services were installed within the monarchy in Lombardy-Venetia and Galicia in 1835 and in Hungary-Transylvania in 1837. A peculiarity of this surveillance system was the networking of data at the Wiener Zentralinformationskomitee, a central body established in 1834 where the various reports were consolidated in journals.112

The prohibition of the writers’ group “Junges Deutschland” (Young Germany) in 1835 was one of the many consequences of the gathered information. The authors subsumed under this denomination were only loosely connected with one another, and the group name was an invention of the authorities that was perhaps based on confusion with another group likewise called “Junges Deutschland” and formed in analogy to the political movements of the “Young Italy” and the “Young Europe” led by Giuseppe Mazzini. On November 13, 1835, Karl Gustav Noé von Nordberg, the head of the Mainzer Informationsbüro, sent to Vienna a report “On the Young Literary Germany” (“Über das junge literarische Deutschland”) in which he discussed dangerous activities by publisher Sauerländer and the authors Duller, Gutzkow, Menzel, Beurmann, Mundt, and Wienbarg, among others.113 On November 14, a decree explicitly mentioning Gutzkow, Laube, Wienbarg, and Mundt banned all existing and future writings by “Junges Deutschland” in Prussia; it was annulled as early as February 1836 for lack of a legal basis. Instead, the Geheimer Hofrat (secret privy councilor) Karl Ernst John was appointed as special censor responsible for the works of the group in June 1836.114 As specified in the motion to prohibit “Junges Deutschland” introduced by the president of the Confederate Diet, Münch-Bellinghausen, exception was taken to the “vilifications against religion,” the “transferal of the criticism of religion to the ‘literary field’,” and the “intimate connection of blasphemy with the excitement of sensuousness,” which united into a “complete system of profanity and bawdiness.”115 The ban had been triggered by the publication of Gutzkow’s novel Wally, die Zweiflerin (Wally the Doubter, 1835). Metternich attempted to have it extended to Heine and the entire territory of the German Confederation, but he was ultimately unsuccessful. Examples were to be made of publishing houses like Löwenthal in Mannheim or Hoffmann und Campe in Hamburg as well, but the Confederate Diet was only able to agree on December 10, 1835 to “bring to application in their full rigor” the criminal and police laws that were already contained in the state laws as well as the regulations against abuse of the press.116

Heine himself already voiced doubts concerning the effectiveness of the blanket prohibition, writing with obvious allusion to Luther about “much clamor and little wool” (“viel Geschrey und wenig Wolle”).117 Not only were numerous works by the affected authors readily available in various German states,118 but the seizures in Prussia and Saxony came too late, with the forbidden books already shipped and gone with the wind. What was more, the ban itself promoted the politicization of literature—and especially the criticism of repressive measures by the governments—even more.

2.1 Tightening of the Censorship Regulations and the Granting of Scheden

The Court Police Section, which determined the course in regard to censorship, was headed from 1817 to 1848 by Count Josef Sedlnitzky, also known as the “Streicher-Graf” (roughly: Count of Deletion).119 An overly correct public official at best, he was an excellent representative of the spirit guiding the censorial and surveillance apparatus. Similar to the emperor himself, for example, Sedlitzky assumed that “a people are in the first stage of revolution from the moment in which they begin to absorb education.”120

His reputation among authors was disastrous, and we can assume that not all of the many complaints regarding his narrow-mindedness were made up. The academic Hammer-Purgstall referred to him as a “most limited and feeble mind” (“höchst beschränkte[r] und schwachsinnige[r] Kopf”). Hammer-Purgstall followed the tried and tested strategy likewise employed by Nestroy and others of including a few passages in his writings that would be eliminated for certain in order to slip the rest past censorship. “The fervor to delete drew his [Sedlnitzky’s] fingers together spasmodically, and once he had slashed a few passages, he would allow others to pass that otherwise, had the stronger ones not been there to remove, would surely not have gone through.”121 Although this characterization likely contained some measure of intentional polemics and injured pride, it is a fact that Sedlnitzky at one point expressed the wish to censor the publications of the Academy of Sciences, an idea even Metternich voted against.122

In order to sharpen the tools of censorship, the verdict “damnatur nec erga schedam” that had been discontinued in 1803 was reintroduced in 1836. It meant that only the emperor himself could grant special permission to read the corresponding title. The same applied to the formula “remove from circulation” (“außer Kurs setzen”), which was usually applied to newspapers, periodicals, or continuous works like encyclopedias and amounted to a prospective Debitverbot (prohibition on placing an order for the work with an Austrian bookseller) or Pränumerationsverbot (prohibition on mail orders). In particularly turbulent times, seizures of books were also ordered more frequently, with the respective titles marked as “damnatur and to be confiscated” (“damnatur und mit Beschlag zu belegen”) in the prohibition lists. The focus lay on radical liberal writings assessed as revolutionary, and seizures were applied to works published by Hoffmann und Campe in Hamburg, Hoff in Mannheim, the Literarisches Institut in Herisau/Switzerland, and several other printers. While such confiscated books were to be destroyed immediately, they appear in practice to have sometimes been sent back to the original publishers or simply stored at the Court Police Section.123 Censorial verdicts could also be changed retroactively. Mitigations of prohibition verdicts were rare but did occasionally occur—for example in the case of extolments of Napoleon, which were tolerated from 1832. Harsher verdicts were more common, especially when multi-volume or serial works received a blanket “damnatur” instead of the previous “erga schedam” following the appearance of later volumes or issues.124

The number of works declared “damnatur” declined in favor of “erga schedam” verdicts during the entire period after 1792. For the Viennese Book Review Office, documentation on the number of Scheden applications is lacking. A projection for the presumably less frequented office in Graz based on fragments of the corresponding records results in an estimate of around 2,880 applications during the year 1839.125 At any rate, it is clear that it was mostly members of higher societal strata, and occasionally middle-class individuals considered reliable, who received Scheden. This practice of allotting the special permissions can be illustrated using the example of Eugène Sue’s successful novel Le juif errant (The Wandering Jew, 1844/45), a fantastic story about a conspiracy of the Jesuits attempting to gain control of the gigantic inheritance of a family with dishonest means. It was forbidden in Austria primarily due to its anti-clerical aspects. But besides anti-clerical and anti-monarchistic passages as well as regular frivolous scenes, Sue’s novels also featured a certain political explosiveness especially visible in the descriptions of poverty in the Mystères de Paris (Mysteries of Paris). Le juif errant was printed as a series in several newspapers (including the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, the Frankfurter Oberpostamtszeitung, the Frankfurter Konversationsblatt, the Berliner Pfennig-Blätter, and J.J. Weber’s Novellen-Zeitung).126 The Frankfurter Oberpostamtszeitung did not intend to relinquish the important Austrian market after the ban and proceeded to publish the novel in a separate series of booklets dispatched only to the small group of persons possessing the appropriate Scheden. As preserved applications from Prague show, permission to obtain Le Juif errant was granted to the following illustrious persons: Count Auersperg, k. k. chamberlain; Anton Veith, estate owner; Baron von Wessenberg; Count Lothar von Wurmbrand, k. k. chamberlain; Count Franz von Desfour; Baroness von Hruby, née Baroness von Wintzigerode; Count Joseph Matthias Thun-Hohenstein; Countess Anna Maria von Raitzenstein, née Countess zu Salm-Reifferscheid; Count Johann zu Salm, k. k. lieutenant colonel; Countess von Salm, née Countess von Pachta; Countess Gabriele von Bouquoy; Baron Joseph von Enid; Baron de Fin, k. k. chamberlain; Baroness Anna von Geisslern; Baroness Mladota von Solofisk; Count Erwin Nostitz, k. k. chamberlain; Count Rudolph Morzin, k. k. chamberlain; Count Karl Althan, k. k. chamberlain; Ritter von Bergenthal, k. k. gubernatorial secretary; Countess Marianne von Gaisruck, dean of the k. k. lady’s convent in Hradschin/Hradčany, Prague; Countess Johanna von Thun; Countess Elisabeth von Woratzicky Bissingen; Count Oktavian Kinsky; and Prince Karl zu Liechtenstein.127 This proves convincingly, yet somewhat surprisingly, that large parts of the Austrian high aristocracy were interested in Sue’s scandalous new bestseller. It is conceivable that some of the purchasers ordered the book on behalf of their domestics or other persons, but relaying as the primary motive for most of them seems highly unlikely even aside from the fact that it would have meant a violation of their Scheda.

Besides such waves of Scheda approvals, there are also examples of high-ranking individuals being denied special permission: Count Ludwig Batthyányi, for example, wanted to obtain the Deutsche Zeitung published in Heidelberg by Gervinus, but Sedlnitzky hesitated and consulted Metternich, who decided that the leader of the Hungarian opposition should not be allowed to read a newspaper advocating constitutionalism.128 A certain Count Comini in Brescia likewise did not seem trustworthy enough to the Lombardian governor. Another nobleman, Lieutenant Count Kosiebrodzki in Salzburg, had his Scheda for two novels by the notoriously frivolous Paul de Kock (Une jeune fille du faubourg [A Young Girl from the Suburbs] and La pucelle de Belleville [The Virgin of Belleville]) revoked after injuring with his saber a student he had felt derided by during a parade for the emperor’s birthday.129 In these cases, the denial of certain reading material appears almost like a patriarchal disciplinary measure—there was clearly no connection between the Lieutenant’s offense and Paul de Kock’s flippant novels.

For members of the middle class, the prospects of receiving a Scheda were limited at best, and at times their profession prevented them from being granted permission despite their trustworthiness. The Milanese seller of music supplies Ricordi, for example, was considered to be in the best possible repute, yet the authorities feared that he might “render information” (“Mitteilungen machen”) from the periodical L’ Illustration he had applied for to his customers in his busy salesroom—in other words, that he might display the magazine there as an attraction for his patrons.130

2.2 Visitations and the Artifice of Booksellers

Booksellers were able to obtain prohibited goods despite the efforts of the police. Raids regularly discovered forbidden writings, for example at the Viennese publishers Mösle in 1835,131 Schaumburg in 1838,132 and Braumüller in 1845133—all of which were not dubious companies, but in fact reputable purveyors of books. The renowned bookstore owned by Karl Gerold likewise attracted the authorities’ attention repeatedly; 205 volumes of banned works were seized there as early as 1821, for example.134 Gerold was widely known for being able to obtain any prohibited book.

The year 1843 seemed to finally offer the police an opportunity to make an example of the insubordinate firm. A clerk dismissed by Gerold reported a store of forbidden books on the premises that “likely may be called one of the most significant that perhaps exists in this regard in the k. k. Austrian Monarchy.”135 The informer disclosed the precise location of the hidden storeroom on two sheets of paper full of dense handwriting: From the salesroom, one had to take a spiral staircase to the first floor; through a corridor, one then reached the so-called publishing room that contained books from Gerold’s own publishing company as well as—through a door hidden behind bookshelves and opened by way of a spring mechanism—the secret room that Gerold called “Elysium.” Leaving nothing to chance, the denunciator even drew a sketch of the rooms in question (cf. Figure 7).

d156124143e9977

Figure 7

Sketch of the hidden storeroom in the Gerold bookstore

The report on the visitation performed on September 5, 1843 mentions that the authorities made their move in the early morning hours to avoid causing a commotion and that besides “our own officers and the book reviewer Janota only two policemen”136 took part in the operation. The secret storeroom was discovered without issue, but there was little in it to find fault with. However, the agents discovered numerous prohibited works hidden behind books published by Gerold on the shelves in the publishing room. The volume of seized goods was so large—1,000 books and booklets—that “three persons had to be employed to transport it to the local administration building in covered tubs and wheelbarrows.”137 Among the confiscated items were several copies of the particularly detested—and thus censorially designated for seizure—titles Oesterreich im Jahre 1843 (Austria in the Year 1843) and Oesterreich und dessen Zukunft (Austria and Its Future) by Baron Victor von Andrian-Werburg as well as Spaziergänge eines zweiten Wiener Poeten (Promenades by a Second Viennese Poet) by Ferdinand Avist. One is almost tempted to believe Grillparzer’s witty comment in his autobiography that the circulation of forbidden writings in Austria was “as common as anywhere in the world” and that he had “seen a horse carriage driver reading ‘Austria’s Future’ on the coach box.”138 Indeed, the first edition of Andrian-Werburg’s Oesterreich und dessen Zukunft comprising 2,000 copies was allegedly sold entirely within Austria.139 The Viennese booksellers Tendler & Schäfer were apparently Campe’s commission merchants in Vienna and, according to Andrian-Werburg’s diary entries, distributed a large number of copies even though the book had been banned immediately after appearing in Vienna in December 1842.140

The visitation of Gerold’s store was followed by an interrogation of the owner. He explained the existence of the secret storeroom with a lack of space; the forbidden books had been procured for persons possessing Scheden and subsequently not picked up or returned after having been read. The particularly objectionable titles mentioned above had been given to him for forwarding by the Brussels bookseller Cans, who was passing through. Despite these statements, the police maintained its urgent suspicion of trading in prohibited books. Simultaneously, however, the author of the report noted his resigned opinion that the well-known lax attitude of the Viennese magistrate meant a conviction was unlikely, “just like every local bookseller in most cases under the aegis of the magistrate, even in possession of the most notable stock of forbidden books, need only make sure that they do not appear too obviously earmarked for sale.”141

These concerns would prove to be well-founded, for the magistrate in person of Mayor Ignatz Czapka showed no eagerness whatsoever to punish Gerold. After discussing the matter, the city senate decided with a vote of 13 to 9 to take the stance that “a bookseller, even if he were to keep a stock of nothing but forbidden books, could not be punished as long as proof was not truly furnished that he had sold one of those books.”142 The chamber stood by its decision despite protestations by the Lower Austrian government,143 and the police and state authorities thus lost out to a book trader once again.

Another case illustrating the difficulty of convicting booksellers of possession of or trade in prohibited books is that of the Santini bookstore in Venice, where around 100 volumes of banned works were discovered in June 1837. Among the seized items were several historical books along with Boccaccio’s Decameron and contemporary novels by Victor Hugo, George Sand, Honoré de Balzac, Alphonse de Lamartine, Edward Bulwer-Lytton, and several others. The works had been delivered to Venice from the Rusconi bookstore in Padua, where the police confiscated a further eleven forbidden books in July. During the investigation of the case, it turned out that the local censor, who also fulfilled the duty of a book reviewer, had cleared the works in question for Santini because—as he initially claimed—he had simply overlooked them among the large number of books arriving for review from abroad. He did recall, however, having turned a package from Brussels over to the ostensibly trustworthy Rusconi under the condition that the latter return the prohibited books to the sender. Rusconi, on the other hand, stated that the censor’s order had been to sell the books with circumspection (“con circospezione”).144 The trader was ultimately acquitted due to the fact that the censor’s instructions had been unclear and no date for the return shipment of the books had been specified, and because Rusconi himself was not in possession of a copy of the catalogue of forbidden books that would have permitted verification of the titles in question.145

Although police operations like those against Gerold and Rusconi remained without immediate consequences, they do at times offer insight into the artifice and tricks employed by the booksellers. Gerold’s denunciator, for instance, pointed out the existence of a flaw in the police’s control system. His statements apparently included indications that “two people at the Gerold bookstore were practically instructed to secrete away forbidden goods under the eyes of the officials in the course of sorting during the collection of books from the Review Office, wherein Gerold’s domestic in particular allegedly proves to be an experienced prestidigitator, so that every load from the Review Office is always accompanied by a handsome quantity of such contraband.”146

The details of this process are elucidated in letters written to the bookseller Josef Sigmund in Klagenfurt by his assistant Eduard Liegel. Liegel spent the year 1831 in training at the Viennese bookstore owned by Johann Georg Mösle’s widow, where he had the opportunity to witness firsthand the goings-on at the Viennese Book Review Office. Although Elisabeth Mösle was Sigmund’s Viennese commission merchant, the shipments of books arriving for him from abroad were not reviewed in Vienna but instead in the Carinthian provincial capital. The books were “forwarded unopened from the censorship office building to the province under inclusion of the domestic articles.”147 This circuitous and effectively illegal procedure is indicative of an overburdening of the Viennese office and enabled the involved bookstore personnel to access the shipments. The spatial circumstances at the office appear to have been beneficial for these activities as well:

The Review Office is a rather large hall, in the middle of which two long tables are positioned in a row several steps apart. No more than two booksellers are allowed to open their bales at the same time. A censorship servitor stands between the two tables or skulks around so that nothing is stolen.* Once the bale is open, all the packages are placed on the table; one unpacks everything comfortably, confers, signs, and puts the unbound sheets, the brochures, and the journals in proper order, each separately; what is not to come under the reviewer’s gaze, however, is not unpacked but set aside. Once all this is done, the domestic takes the forbidden material, wraps it with the package that is dispatched to you and sews it up immediately (which is according to regulations), and has it sealed by the officials. […] The forbidden news or unused serials are put in the large cupboard allotted to the Mösle store. Gerold, Schaumburg, and Schalbacher even have two such cupboards each. One may root around among one’s books unimpeded under the pretext of seeking out that which has been dealt with, and then pack up for the province whatever one needs …

* “Stealing” was the customary expression for “saving from the hands of the censors.”148

A similar trick consisted of disguising packages from abroad as domestic shipments:

For one can either simply walk out the door with the packages under one’s arm, or one takes along to the censorship office prepared address labels made out to us, attaches them to the packages with forbidden books there, and throws the latter on the floor in front of the cupboard since they supposedly come from a bookseller in the province. The house servant will occasionally show them to the officials as domestic packages, which are never opened, and then calmly takes his spoils home …149

Such purloining was possible not only at the Book Review Offices but also on the way there, during transfer from the Main Customs Office. The head of the Book Review Office, Sartori, complained that books were not being inspected at the Main Customs Office but that instead for some time

Most books in bales and crates coming from the Rhenish Confederate States or from France are inspected in the warehouse on the pediment between the Main Customs Office and the Theresientor gate. There the book crates are torn open, the books strewn about and brought to the Review Office in complete disorder, partly in crates, partly wrapped in cloth. The booksellers are thus offered the easiest opportunity to take away whatever they want on the way from the pediment to the Review Office and abstract it from review, especially since the inspectors do not accompany the books on the way to the Review Office for lack of time or out of laziness.150

At the same time, the misbehavior documented here shows only one side of the coin. The occasional “stealing” of books was in fact a form of revenge for the constant harassment many booksellers had to endure. They were regularly convicted of violations of prohibitions, for example when antiquarian Ignaz Klang was sentenced to a fine of 200 guilders C.M. and one month of house arrest in September 1847 for offering Eugène Sue’s novels Der ewige Jude (The Wandering Jew) and Die Geheimnisse von Paris (The Mysteries of Paris) as well as Karl Gottlob Cramer’s Lilli von Arenstein for sale in a catalog.151 On the whole, the regulations were strict, but their application in practice was usually difficult. The virulent “conflict of interest between censorship and the state economy”152 existing since the eighteenth century made itself felt time and time again. Most notably, the local authorities—like the Viennese magistrate in Gerold’s case mentioned above—attempted to protect the businesses within their sphere of influence from the grasp of central power.

2.3 Complaints and Protests by Booksellers

The booksellers regularly complained to the authorities that censorship and the police were severely interfering with their business. Indeed, it was not just their stocks of books that were inspected but also the display cases set up on the sidewalks outside the salesrooms since—as mentioned before—works flagged as “transeat” were allowed to be sold but not displayed. Furthermore, the advertisements posted on street corners were not to be worded too clamorously.153 Another permanent bone of contention was the circumstance that although the prohibition lists were not issued to the booksellers for reasons of confidentiality and to avoid commotion, every book merchant and antiquarian had to be aware of all the current as well as the many previous bans. The Censorship Regulation of 1795 stipulated a fine of 50 guilders for the sale of forbidden books in the case of a first offense; repeat offenders were threatened with the loss of their license. The same punishment was prescribed for the printing of prohibited manuscripts or their shipment abroad, as well as for failure to incorporate changes or deletions mandated by censorship.

It was only in the years 1840, 1845, and 1848 that the booksellers eventually jointly submitted applications to the court in which they listed the following grievances:

the strict application of censorship, which kept many printed works from abroad out of Austria and tempted the booksellers to engage in book smuggling;154

the massive delays caused by the cumbersome processing of the bales of books arriving from foreign publishers;

the costs for return to the original publisher or bookseller incurred when already distributed works were banned;

the protracted procedure for the granting of Scheden and the fees associated with it;

the increase in costs for personnel required for the interaction with the Book Review Office;

the revenue-reducing prohibition on the announcement and advertisement of books labeled “transeat”;

the losses incurred by publishers in the crown lands when the Viennese central office passed a stricter verdict after local authorities had cleared a manuscript for printing;

the bad reputation of Austrian books, which diminished sales;

the detrimental delay in the production of new releases, for example when translations of fashionable novels could only be printed in Austria several months later than they could by German publishers located in Leipzig or Stuttgart;

the discouragement of Austrian writers and journalists, who were tempted to have their works printed abroad despite the fact that this was strictly forbidden.

In April 1840, the book merchants suggested unifying the entire process of censorship within a single authority that would also accept and handle complaints. Their most humble plea was supported, received, and transmitted to the emperor by Count Kolowrat.155 The petition’s only result, however, was that the emperor called for delays during the censorship process to be avoided as far as possible; in addition, Sedlnitzky had the Censorship Regulation of 1810 lithographed and distributed to the responsible offices in the crown lands for observance, and the emperor approved additional personnel for book reviewing.156 In a handbill dated October 15, 1840, Ferdinand I also repealed all of the directives issued since the Vorschrift of 1810, with processing to be expedited in particular by the fact that the Court Police Section was now empowered to decide on manuscripts and books without consulting with any other entities.157 The Austrian authorities came under increasing pressure during the 1840s because even close allies were reforming and slackening their procedures in terms of censorial strictness. Prussia, for example, introduced the 20-sheet-clause as late as 1842 and a High Censorship Court in 1843, thereby giving censorship a juridical foundation.158 What was more, the publishers and booksellers had the argument of the need for profitable business development on their side: Strict censorship was irreconcilable with the at least equally important goal of economic prosperity.

In 1846, Jakob Dirnböck, the director of the Viennese bookseller’s association, composed an exposé entitled “Ansichten und Notizen über Buchhandel und Censur in Oestreich” (Opinions and Notes about the Book Trade and Censorship in Austria),159 with the censorial activity naturally one of its primary topics. Dirnböck calculated that according to the list of allowed books, only roughly one quarter (2,289) of all titles (around 10,000) produced in Austria and Germany in 1845 had been approved. His suggestion was to convert the verdict “damnatur” into “transeat” while at the same time controlling the granting of Scheden more strictly. He repeated his appeal for moderation of censorship in 1848, this time addressed to the emperor directly and phrased in a subservient and overly dramatic tone that caused liberal commentators to mock it as “Dirnböck’s prayer.” The letter began with the salutation “In God’s name, Most Gracious Emperor! Our Father! Our Lord!” and ended with the invocation “Protect us, o Father! Us, your innocent children, legal citizens, faithful subjects until death. Yours is the empire! Yours is the power! We cannot despair. Amen!”160 This “prayer” would be answered not by the emperor but instead by the revolutionaries only a few days later.

2.4 Censorship and the Authors

The censors seemed to be the author’s natural enemies, and a plethora of quotations could be furnished as evidence. Let us content ourselves with a passage from a letter by Gustave Flaubert to Louise Colet on December 9, 1852 in which he described the censorship of thoughts as an “insult to the soul” in analogy to lèse-majesté: “Censorship, in whichever form it appears, is a monstrosity worse than murder. The attack on thought is an insult to the soul.”161

The relationship between the vast majority of Austrian writers and the censorship authorities was understandably very strained, but direct punitive measures against authors were nevertheless rare. Silvio Pellico was among the writers—with fellow campaigners including Ugo Foscolo and Alessandro Manzoni—who fought vehemently for liberation of the Italian states from the Austrian administration. On suspicion of being a member of the Carbonari, Pellico was sentenced to death in 1824 and initially interned in the Leaden Chambers in Venice. After being pardoned by the emperor, he was eventually transferred to Spielberg/Špilberk Castle in Brünn/Brno; despite being originally condemned to 15 years in prison, he was released in 1830.

A curious episode is the arrest of Josef Rank, a Bohemian-born writer of short stories and novels casting a critical light on the Austrian administration. The young author put his writings (the first of which was a collection entitled Aus dem Böhmerwalde [From the Bohemian Forest], 1843) to print with publisher Einhorn in Leipzig by way of precaution. As such circumvention of censorship through printing abroad was illegal, Rank was sternly reproved. In the same year, however, he published another novel with the title Vier Brüder aus dem Volke (Four Brothers from the Folk), again with Einhorn. Among other things, this book criticized “that the education of the people lay in the hands of the rural clergy and the latter proved unfit for this demanding task, that the bureaucracy acted far too arbitrarily, and that the long military obligation distressed the people excessively.”162 When this book received the verdict “damnatur” in Vienna, the police began searching for Rank. Heeding the advice of friends, he went into hiding in Vienna and Pressburg/Bratislava, but ultimately made the mistake in July 1844 of attempting to travel back to Leipzig without a passport in order to enjoy the freedom of publication offered there. He was arrested in Teplitz/Teplice and taken to Prague, where he was to await his trial in detention. The authorities in Prague showed no ambition to pass sentence on him, however, despite the fact that Sedlnitzky personally lobbied for his conviction, and he was released after twelve days. In April 1845, Rank even received a passport for the German Confederate States and proceeded to continue his provocations: He wrote a polemic report about his experience for the Leipzig periodical Die Grenzboten163 under the title “Zwölf Tage im Gefängnis” (Twelve Days in Jail) and, in the same year, put a further offensive novel entitled Waldmeister to print with Georg Wigand, a publisher in Leipzig. Rank’s undertakings benefited from the fact that the police codex knew only violations of the Censorship Regulation by printers and booksellers—but not by authors. Only if writings endangered the public peace and order could the respective author be persecuted.164

Likewise in 1845, the Austrian writers finally bestirred themselves to follow the example of the book merchants and draft a petition with suggestions for censorship reforms. Around 90 authors—among them Grillparzer, Stifter, Zedlitz, Pyrker, Bauernfeld, Castelli, and Frankl—as well as notable representatives of various scientific disciplines signed the request for

quicker processing of manuscripts, which—especially if multiple authorities were involved in their evaluation—sometimes took years to complete;

independent censors who did not have to be concerned about their careers;

a censorship law governing the criteria and principles for the appraisal of manuscripts and books and defining clear rules for what was allowed and forbidden for censors and authors alike;

a regulated procedure for appeals against censorial verdicts, which in turn implied the notification of authors regarding the reasons for a prohibition—something that occurred only sporadically in the established practice;165

the right to publish manuscripts in German states that likewise exercised censorship.

In short, the authors were asking for legal standardization of the censorship process—a demand voiced a decade and a half too early. It would eventually be realized in the shape of the Pressgesetz (Press Act) of 1862. In reaction to the exposé, Metternich stated with allusion to the Marquis Posa and with reference to the writers’ invocation of § 17 of the Civic Code of 1811, which guaranteed every human being their innate natural rights, that while thoughts were free, “the spoken and written ones are subject to moral law.”166 Nevertheless, the organization of censorship was simplified over the course of the following two years and—as suggested by the booksellers—conflated into a single entity, the newly created Zensuroberdirektion (Supreme Censorship Directorate), which handled all censorial and book review matters in the first instance. The only authority above it was the Zentralkolleg that handled appeals. The new structure was implemented in February 1848 and was thus in force for only one month. In the course of the revolution in March 1848, all police agendas were transferred to the Ministry of the Interior. The authors’ relief at the (temporary) discontinuation of censorship became visible in a host of satirical texts. Moritz Gottlieb Saphir, for example, versed the following in “Der todte Censor” (The Dead Censor):

Wohl ihm er ist heimgegangen

(Farewell to him, now gone home

Wo die Presse frei nicht ist,

Where the press is never free,

Und der Tod mit Censor-Zangen

And where Death with censors’ forceps

Uns den freien Mund verschließt.

Shuts our mouths, free though they be.

Wo die Würmer “Deleatur”

Where the worms a “deleatur”

Fressen ein in das Gebein,

Into bones do bite and drill,

Und die Hölle ihr “damnatur”

And where hell its own “damnatur”

Mitgibt als Geleiteschein!

Adds as a consignment bill!

Bringet her die Federgaben,

Bring here now the gifts of feathers,

Stimmet an die Todtenklag’,

And intone the death lament,

Alles sei mit ihm begraben,

Bury with him in the nethers

Was ihn dort erfreuen mag.167

What may there make him content.)

3 Commented Statistics of Prohibition Activity between 1792 and 1848

The first section examines the development of the numbers of book and manuscript prohibitions in comparison to the total book production in German and the number of books approved in Austria. This is followed as before by listings of the prohibitions by language and of the most frequently banned authors. These statistics will be split into a set for the period from 1792 to 1820 (Tables 8–10) and one for the period from 1821 to 1848 (Tables 11–13) to avoid overly long and unwieldy columns of numbers. The subsequent Tables 14–16, however, which offer a classification by scientific discipline as well as statistics on the most frequently affected publishers, span the entire period discussed in this chapter. This is because comparisons across the decades seem significant in the case of the disciplines—and in the case of the publishers, the continuum of the production by important enterprises like Cotta, Brockhaus, and others would otherwise have been arbitrarily fragmented.

3.1 Prohibitions and Approvals 1792–1820

Table 8a

Prohibitions (“damnatur” or “erga schedam”) and approvals (“admittitur” or “transeat”) of printed works between 1792 and 1820, compared to the total book production of the German states as per the Leipzig book fair catalog168

Year

Printed works

Fair catalog

Damnatur

Erga

Prohibitions

Admittitur

Transeat

Approvals

schedam

total

total

1792

179

179

3,397

1793

224

2

226

3,719

1794

447

73

520

3,456

1795

606

173

779

3,368

Table 8a

Prohibitions and approvals 1792–1820 of printed works (cont.)

Year

Printed works

Fair catalog

Damnatur

Erga

Prohibitions

Admittitur

Transeat

Approvals

schedam

total

total

1796

558

186

744

3,422

1797169

320

171

491

3,711

1798

641

198

839

3,904

1799

557

235

792

3,739

1800

513

212

725

4,012

1801

501

253

754

4,008

1802

431

310

741

4,010

1803

400

276

676

4,016

1804

353

245

598

4,049

1805

188

187

375

4,181

1806

127

127

254

3,381

1807

86

114

200

3,057

1808

127

128

255

3,733

1809

46

56

102

3,045

1810

76

82

158

3,864

1811

62

32

94

2,387

251

2,638

3,287

1812

39

44

83

3,162

1813170

96

34

130

2,323

1814

60

58

118

2,861

1815

22

35

57

985

174

1,159

3,225

1816

153

101

254

3,231

1817

131

109

240

3,291

1818

150

100

250

3,945

1819

207

107

314

2,008

600

2,608

3,622

1820

290

179

469

3,772

Total

7,590

3,827

11,417

102,791

1792–1820

Table 8b

Prohibitions (“damnatur”) and approvals (“admittitur” or “omissis deletis” / “correctis corrigendis”) between 1792 and 1820

Year

Manuscripts

Damnatur

Admittitur

Omissis del., corr. corr.

Approvals total

1808

78

1809

106

1810

181

1811

126

835

101

936

1812

118

1813171

123

1814

132

1815

88

1,439

156

1,595

1816

106

1817

117

1818

73

1819

131

2,161

245

2,406

1820

127

Total

1,506

Among the most significant information provided by Table 8 is the clearly visible surge in the number of prohibitions of printed works in 1794 and 1795 to around three-and-a-half times the value for 1793, which cannot be explained by a proportional rise in German book production (1790: 3,560 titles, 1795: 3,368 titles). Rather, what we see here is the phase of revolutionary terreur in Paris with the execution of the royal couple, as a consequence of which the fear of revolution increased dramatically in other areas as well—leading to the persecution of the “Jacobins” in the German states and Austria among other activities. The massive increase in prohibitions also brought with it the first issuance of the verdict “erga schedam” in 1793—which did not represent an easement in terms of censorship but instead served to make even comparatively harmless literature less accessible.172

The high rate of prohibitions reached in 1795 was maintained until 1802 before quickly dropping to less than a tenth of the value for 1802 until 1815, the year of the Congress of Vienna (1802: 741, 1815: 57). This decline was consistent with the recessive development of the book market caused by the disturbance of Napoleon’s campaigns affecting large areas of Europe—and not least the German states and Austria. German book production shrank by a quarter between 1800 and 1809, and eventually reached a long-time low in 1813. The ratio between works designated “damnatur” respectively “erga schedam” is also indicative of the attenuation of censorship during this period: While the ratio had been around 3:1 in 1795/96, the numbers had roughly evened out at a low level by 1805.

Manuscripts were reported in the prohibition lists beginning in 1808. This included manuscripts of any length submitted for printing in Austria; part of the category was represented by books slated for reprinting or translation. The annual number of forbidden manuscripts remained around 100 until 1820, while the fact that the number of approved manuscripts increased by 150 percent between 1811 (936) and 1819 (2,406) suggests that submitted works were being treated more leniently. The works that were prohibited or not approved for printing were mostly religious and nonfiction books as well as medical self-help literature, but also included smaller formats like one-off prints of songs, brochures, and the like. Among the most frequently encountered submitters of manuscripts is the imperial royal councilor Franz Xaver Sonnleithner, who—while also active as an author himself—presumably mostly turned in works written by others, at least during the years 1808/09. One may assume he cooperated with his brothers Joseph and Ignaz and perhaps even submitted manuscripts written by friends in his role as magistrate official in Vienna and imperial royal councilor in order to improve their chances of approval. If the latter was the case, however, his attempts failed miserably. The range of works submitted by Sonnleithner included humor, anecdotes, poems, a language learning series, pseudotheology, and self-help literature such as instructions for fast calculating, the nutriment of man, and writings on physical phenomena, e.g. “Die Kunst, sich unverbrennbar zu machen” (The Art of Making Oneself Non-Combustible).

Prohibition activity stagnated between 1815 and 1818, after which a marked increase can be observed. The reason is clear: Following the Wartburg Festival, the start of the student uprisings, and especially the murder of Kotzebue, the political climate became tense once again. The Carlsbad Decrees passed in reaction to Kotzebue’s assassination called for comprehensive monitoring of all written communication. Austria had been the primary driving force behind the Decrees and intended to be a role model for their implementation as well. The resulting increase in prohibitions marks the beginning of the pre-March period in Austria. Austrian writers were forced to adapt their activity by effectively practicing self-censorship, and literature published outside the monarchy had to be treated equally strictly. The ratio between prohibitions and approvals of submitted manuscripts was 1:18 in 1815 and 1819, then dropped to 1:4 in 1823; the ratio between prohibitions and approvals of foreign printed works shifted analogously from 1:20 in 1815 to 1:8 in 1819 and finally to 1:4 in 1823.

3.2 Prohibitions 1792–1820, by Language

Table 9

Number of prohibitions 1792–1820 (books and manuscripts), by language

Year

German

French

Italian

English

Polish

Latin

Multi-language

Other

Total

1792

105

64

2

2

4

2

179

1793

160

54

7

4

1173

226

1794

430

75

1

2

6

3

3174

520

1795

663

96

9

8

1

2

779

1796

620

99

1

22

1

1

744

1797

339

136

2

6

3

5

491

1798

639

174

10

5

7

4

839

1799

567

199

9

10

2

4

1175

792

1800

541

177

2

1

2

2

725

1801

524

224

4

1

1176

754

1802

552

166

13

3

1

4

1

1177

741

1803

533

131

3

3

3

3

676

1804

473

80

4

1

35

2

3

598

1805

276

56

3

36

3

1

375

1806

232

21

1

254

1807

157

36

3

1

1

2

200

1808

254

68

4

3

3

1

333

1809

182

21

2

2

1

208

1810

306

24

2

5

1

1178

339

1811

188

25

2

3

1

1

220

1812

179

10

1

1

7

3179

201

1813

226

18

1

2

3

1

2180

253

1814

236

9

3

1

1181

250

1815

112

14

3

8

4

4182

145

1816

230

69

33

1

15

5

1

6183

360

1817

272

29

18

2

5

3

2

26184

357

1818

235

48

17

1

16

4

1

1185

323

1819

326

55

10

1

10

2

4

37186

445

1820

454

109

11

6

3

3

5

5187

596

Total

10,011

2,287

170

82

131

94

55

93

12,923

1792–1820

Noteworthy in Table 9 is the rapid decrease in French writings following the revolutionary years. After contributing one third of all prohibitions in 1792 and one quarter in 1794, the language drops to less than 15 percent in 1794 and 12 percent in 1796. It then oscillates around 20 percent until 1803 before reaching the 10 percent mark in 1809 and subsequently declining into the single digits; in the years between 1815 and 1820, it rebounds back to an average of 15 percent. The “losses” in forbidden books in French were offset primarily by works in German, which represent 77 percent of all prohibitions, while English, Italian, Polish, and Latin exhibit essentially constant shares until 1815. Only English disappears largely from the statistics starting in 1800, and entirely in 1808. The share of Italian works increases beginning in 1816, as does that of Polish writings. The reasons for this development are easily understood: Western Galicia became a part of the Habsburg Monarchy in 1795, and Lombardy and Venetia were integrated in 1815. The “other languages” category subsumes only very few prohibitions; Hebrew forms the only major exception with more than 20 works banned during each of two years (1817 and 1819). This was likely the result of the processing of estates, confiscations of travelers’ books, or large individual orders by booksellers.

3.3 Most Frequently Prohibited Authors 1792–1820

Table 10

Most frequently prohibited authors 1792–1820188

1.

Sintenis, Christian Friedrich

36

2.

Albrecht, Johann Friedrich Ernst

30

3.

Voss, Christian Daniel

29

Vulpius, Christian August

29

5.

Cramer, Carl Gottlob

28

6.

Pigault-Lebrun, Charles Antoine Guillaume

27

7.

Arndt, Ernst Moritz

26

Bornschein, Johann Ernst Daniel

26

Kotzebue, August Friedrich Ferdinand von

26

10.

Laukhard, Friedrich Christian

22

Voss, Julius von

22

12.

Nougaret, Pierre Jean Baptiste

21

Spieß, Christian Heinrich

21

14.

Arnold, Ignaz Ferdinand

20

Galletti, Johann Georg August

20

16.

Becker, Gottfried Wilhelm

19

Campe, Joachim Heinrich

19

Pölitz, Karl Heinrich Ludwig

19

19.

Buchholz, Paul Ferdinand Friedrich

18

Fischer, Christian August

18

Jenisch, Daniel

18

22.

Rebmann, Andreas Georg Friedrich

17

23.

Bergk, Johann Adam

16

Riem, Andreas

16

Rousseau, Jean Jacques

16

Zschokke, Heinrich

16

27.

Brückner, Johann Jakob

15

Kant, Immanuel

15

Kerndoerffer, Heinrich August

15

Schilling, Gustav

15

Schreiber, Alois Wilhelm

15

Voltaire [= Arouet, François Marie]

15

33.

Benkowitz, Carl Friedrich

14

Mangelsdorf, Karl Ehregott

14

Paine, Thomas

14

Sonnleithner, Franz von

14

37.

Cannabich, Gottfried Christian

13

Dumouriez, Charles François Du Périer

13

Fichte, Johann Gottlieb

13

Grosse, Carl

13

Lafontaine, August Heinrich Julius

13

Massenbach, Christian Karl August Ludwig von

13

Mercier de Compiègne, Claude-François-Xavier

13

Schiller, Friedrich

13

Schlenkert, Friedrich Christian

13

47.

Bauer, Georg Lorenz

12

Bülow, Adam Heinrich Dietrich von

12

Maréchal, Pierre Sylvain

12

Mirabeau, Honoré Gabriel de Riquetti de

12

Regnault-Warin, Jean-Joseph

12

Rétif de la Bretonne, Nicolas Edme

12

Seidel, Karl August Gottlieb

12

54.

Eichhorn, Johann Gottfried

11

Flittner, Christian Gottfried

11

Grüner, Christoph Sigismund

11

Henke, Heinrich Philipp Conrad

11

Heynig, Johann Gottfried

11

Klinger, Friedrich Maximilian von

11

Knigge, Adolf Franz Friedrich Ludwig von

11

Langbein, August Friedrich Ernst

11

Pradt, Dominique Georges Frédéric Dufour de

11

Stäudlin, Karl Friedrich

11

Thieß, Johann Otto

11

Tieck, Ludwig

11

Tieftrunk, Johann Heinrich

11

Wolf, Peter Philipp

11

68.

Baur, Samuel

10

Ducray-Duminil, François Guillaume

10

Guénard, Elisabeth

10

Guichard, Auguste Charles

10

Luther, Martin

10

Meiners, Christoph

10

Müller, Heinrich

10

Pahl, Johann Gottfried von

10

Richter, Johann Paul Friedrich

10

Schad, Johann Baptist

10

Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von

10

Scherer, Johann Ludwig Wilhelm

10

Schumann, Friedrich August Gottlob

10

Staël-Holstein, Anne Louise Germaine de

10

Wagner, Johann Jakob

10

Wojda, Karol Fryderyk

10

The list of most frequently banned authors is somewhat surprisingly led by the Lutheran theologian and author of devotional and entertainment literature from Zerbst, Christian Friedrich Sintenis. Friedrich Christian Laukhard was likewise a theologian, but his writing focused primarily on contemporary history and reporting on the Napoleonic Wars, which he participated in personally, along with some novels. Many of Laukhard’s writings were also forbidden in German states, which prevented him from pursuing an academic career.189 The situation was similar for the historians and political scientists Christian Daniel Voss, who co-published with August Ludwig von Schlözer among others, and Johann Georg August Galletti. Rather more expected in the lineup of prolific and regularly proscribed authors is Johann Friedrich Ernst Albrecht, a writer of plays, novels, and medical treatises, translator of Rousseau, and proponent of the democratic revolution.190 Albrecht contributed to the abundance of romantic chivalry, banditry, and horror stories especially frowned upon in Austria; this genre was also the sphere of activity of Karl Gottlob Cramer, Christian August Vulpius, Johann Ernst Daniel Bornschein, Christian Heinrich Spieß, and Ignaz Ferdinand Arnold.191 The Frenchmen Charles Antoine Guillaume Pigault-Lebrun and Pierre Jean Baptiste Nougaret, on the other hand, were representatives of the sensational novel with revolutionary and anti-clerical themes respectively the libertine novel. Christian August Fischer likewise wrote libertine texts, while Gottfried Wilhelm Becker and Joachim Heinrich Campe dedicated themselves to the genre of popular enlightenment. The “classic” pro-Enlightenment and religion-critical authors Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, and Thomas Paine no longer rank among the most frequently forbidden writers, assuming mid-range positions along with the leading proponents of idealistic philosophy Kant, Fichte, and Schelling. Kant had been largely tolerated in Austria (and discussed especially in Masonic circles) under Maria Theresa and Joseph II, but was subsequently perceived as more subversive in regard to politics as well as religion after 1792.192 His first appearance in the prohibition lists was in 1776, long before he became a “regular” between 1794 and 1799; he is only encountered sporadically thereafter, most likely due to the blanket prohibition of all of his works in the year 1798.193

3.4 Prohibitions and Approvals 1821–1848

Table 11A

Prohibitions (“damnatur” or “erga schedam”) and approvals (“admittitur” or “transeat”) of printed works between 1821 and 1848 compared to the total book production of the German states as per the Leipzig book fair catalog194

Year

Printed works

Fair catalog

Damnatur

Erga

Prohibitions

Admittitur

Transeat

Approvals

schedam

total

total

1821

480

367

847

4,505

1822

463

476

939

4,414

1823

339

359

698

2,196

734

2,930

4,275

1824

269

371

640

4,346

1825

436

315

751

4,421

1826

556

477

1,033

5,168

1827

463

337

800

5,106

1828

550

398

948

5,148

1829

666

481

1,147

6,794

1830

532

447

979

4,811

1,272

6,083

7,308

1831

606

328

934

7,757

1832

601

354

955

8,555

1833

578

471

1,049

8,603

1834

679

535

1,214

9,258

1835

428

500

928

6,177

1,641

7,818

9,840

1836

453

493

946

9,341

1837

372

556

928

10,118

1838

586

672

1,258

10,567

1839

487

753

1,240

10,907

1840

369

591

960

6,638

1,182

7,820

11,151

1841

266

487

753

12,209

1842

286

505

791

12,509

1843

285

601

886

14,039

1844

267

601

868

13,119

1845

430

877

1,307

13,008

1846

518

806

1,324

10,536

1847

575

878

1,453

10,684

1848195

90

135

225

Total

12,630

14,171

26,801

233,686

1821–1848

Table 11B

Prohibitions (“damnatur”) and approvals (“admittitur” or omissis deletis” / “correctis corrigendis”) of manuscripts between 1821 and 1848

Year

Manuscripts

Damnatur

Admittitur

Omissis del., corr. corr.

Approvals total

1821

174

1822

201

1823

205

2,641

445

3,086

1824

276

1825

417196

1826

374

1827

223

1828

216

1829

331

1830

305

4,480

628

5,108

1831

213

1832

290

1833

249

1834

197

1835

247

4,166

699

4,865

1836

171

1837

176

1838

239

1839

178

1840

164

5,589

701

6,290

1841

200

1842

162

1843

260197

1844

238198

1845

165

1846

143

1847

245

1848199

17

Total

6,276

1821–1848

Taking printed publications and manuscripts together, the number of prohibitions grew by 150 percent between 1819 (445) and 1822 (1140). This increase suggests the conclusion that it was only during these years that the politically and ideologically agitated pre-March period began in earnest in Austria. The ramping up of prohibition activity also seems to have necessitated compiling lists of forbidden books every two weeks instead of once a month. Until the late 1840s, the numbers remain roughly at the level of 1822; it was only during the final year of the system of preventive censorship prior to its abrogation in the course of the revolution of 1848 that the prohibitions reached their all-time peak (1847: 1,698 prohibitions). The increase in book production, which nearly quadrupled during the same period (1820: 3,772 titles; 1843: 14,039 titles), is not reflected in the censorship activity even though there is no indication of a slackening of censorial regulations or practice. Instead, we may assume that the production of books effectively outran the censorship efforts, meaning that the developments on the book market increasingly eluded the administration’s grasp—representing a symbolic parallel to the political events culminating in the revolution of 1848. If we include the number of books permitted in Austria, we see that the ratio between prohibitions and approvals of foreign printed works shifted noticeably in favor of allowance (1823: 1 to 4, 1830: 1 to 6, 1835 and 1840: 1 to 8). The ratio for manuscripts submitted by Austrian writers developed similarly (1823: 1 to 15, 1830: 1 to 16, 1835: 1 to 20, 1840: 1 to 38). We can surmise from these numbers that the presumptive key intention behind the censorial measures, namely to incite domestic authors to censor themselves, was in fact fully accomplished.

3.5 Prohibitions 1821–1848, by Language

Table 12

Prohibitions 1821–1848 (books and manuscripts), by language

Year

German

French

Italian

English

Polish

Czech

Latin

Multi-lang.

Other

Total

1821

771

198

16

20

6

5

1

4200

1,021

1822

830

206

35

23

16

7

7

4

12201

1,140

1823

678

150

37

6

14

4

9

1

4202

903

1824

692

121

54

7

15

14

5

5

3203

916

1825

776

190

92

13

11

62

10

6

8204

1,168

1826

1,033

230

84

28

2

19

6

3

2205

1,407

1827

830

119

48

4

7

5

5

2

3206

1,023

1828

896

158

56

15

16

8

3

5

7207

1,164

1829

1,094

208

84

19

24

32

8

9208

1,478

1830

918

225

76

14

19

19

5

1

7209

1,284

1831

952

145

20

6

6

2

10

3

3210

1,147

1832

872

241

43

12

48

15

9

3

2211

1,245

1833

908

259

70

9

22

10

9

6

5212

1,298

1834

949

285

76

27

43

13

4

3

11213

1,411

1835

868

195

44

18

24

8

6

5

7214

1,175

1836

798

177

50

12

56

6

3

4

11215

1,117

1837

890

100

27

20

47

4

1

5

10216

1,104

1838

1,185

154

34

13

80

9

7

3

12217

1,497

1839

1,118

178

40

12

54

6

4

1

5218

1,418

1840

831

110

75

14

59

15

3

12

5219

1,124

1841

677

122

70

13

34

9

6

3

19220

953

1842

711

135

34

7

48

1

3

9

5221

953

1843

824

91

81

9

102

12

9

5

13222

1,146

1844

744

104

95

6

108

18

11

5

15223

1,106

1845

1,169

66

77

13

121

16

4

1

5224

1,472

1846

1,142

85

98

3

77

16

2

5

39225

1,467

1847

1,131

151

261

36

76

25

3

8

7226

1,698

1848

179

26

22

4

6

1

2

2

242

Total

24,466

4,429

1,799

383

1,141

356

159

111

233

33,077

1821–1848

German continued to be the dominating language on the prohibition lists, with an average share of 74 percent throughout the entire period. French takes second place with a share of around 13 percent. The following positions are held by Italian and Polish, the languages of the two regions most affected by pro-independence movements. English remained of minor significance, roughly on par with Czech. The group of “other” languages becomes more varied, with writings in Yiddish, Serbian, Spanish, Portuguese, Ukrainian, Russian, Slovenian, Slovak, Illyrian (Croatian), and Wallachian (Romanian) appearing alongside the works in Greek, Hebrew, and Hungarian encountered in the previous period.

3.6 Most Frequently Prohibited Authors 1821–1848

Table 13

Most frequently prohibited authors 1821–1848227

1.

Kock, Charles Paul de

73

2.

Sue, Eugène

67

3.

Krug, Wilhelm Traugott

56

4.

Dumas, Alexandre (père)

52

5.

Sismondi, Jean Charles Léonard Simonde de

46

6.

Balzac, Honoré de

45

7.

Lamothe-Langon, Etienne Léon de

43

8.

Sand, George

40

9.

Scott, Sir Walter

39

10.

Byron, George Gordon Noel Lord

38

Hugo, Victor

38

12.

Bronikowski, Alexander

33

Schoppe, Amalie

33

Soulié, Frédéric

33

15.

Luther, Martin

29

Schaden, Adolph von

29

17.

Fischer, Anton Friedrich

28

Zschokke, Heinrich

28

19.

Gutzkow, Karl

27

Herloßsohn, Carl

27

Westphal, Carl

27

22.

Becker, Gottfried Wilhelm

26

Jacob, Paul L. de [= Lacroix, Paul]

26

Neidl, Julius

26

Storch, Ludwig

26

Touchard-Lafosse, Georges

26

27.

Glaßbrenner, Adolph

25

Scribe, Eugène

25

29.

Arnault, Antoine Vincent

24

Carové, Friedrich Wilhelm

24

Clauren, H. [= Heun, Carl Gottlieb Samuel]

24

32.

Harring, Harro Paul

23

33.

Bergk, Johann Adam

22

Duller, Eduard

22

Groß-Hoffinger, Anton Johann

22

Pradt, Dominique Dufour de

22

37.

Belani, H.E.R. [= Häberlin, Karl Ludwig]

21

Bretschneider, Karl Gottlieb

21

Heine, Heinrich

21

Wangenheim, Franz Theodor

21

41.

Ducange, Victor

20

Leibrock, August

20

Münch, Ernst

20

Paulus, Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob

20

Rotteck, Carl von

20

46.

Bonaparte, Napoléon

19

Czajkowski, Michal

19

Dietrich, Ewald Christian

19

Gersdorf, Wilhelmine von

19

Janin, Jules

19

Korn, Friedrich

19

Mundt, Theodor

19

Spindler, Carl

19

Voss, Julius von

19

55.

Bartels, Friedrich

18

Barthélemy, Auguste

18

Lamennais, Felicité Robert de

18

Meynier, Johann Heinrich

18

Oettinger, Eduard Maria

18

Ortlepp, Ernst

18

Raumer, Friedrich von

18

Ronge, Johannes

18

Stahmann, Friedrich

18

64.

Abrantès, Napoléon-Andoche Junot d’

17

Ammon, Christoph Friedrich von

17

Cochem, Martin

17

Dulaure, Jacques-Antoine

17

Ellendorf, Johann Otto

17

Hase, Karl August von

17

Morgan, Sidney Owenson Lady

17

Immediately we see that the dominance of German-speaking authors visible in the previous period (1792–1820) no longer exists. The only German author near the top of the list is philosopher and state theorist Wilhelm Traugott Krug, followed with a considerable margin by popular novelists Alexander Bronikowski, one of the many Walter Scott epigones, and Amalie Schoppe. The roster is led by French writers: Paul de Kock, known for his frivolous stories; Eugène Sue, author of adventure and social novels who regularly borrowed from Dark Romanticism; Alexandre Dumas, Honoré de Balzac, George Sand, Frédéric Soulié, Victor Hugo, and Etienne Léon de Lamothe-Langon, who published in all genres (with the latter specializing in biographies). An outlier in this regard is the Genevan historian and economic theorist Simonde de Sismondi. Walter Scott and Lord Byron, the two most provocative British authors of the 1820s, complete the top ten. The writers and journalists perhaps most commonly associated with pre-March censorship, like Heine, Gutzkow, Mundt, Glaßbrenner, Herloßsohn, or Groß-Hoffinger play comparatively minor roles in this statistic.

3.7 Prohibitions 1792–1848, by Discipline or Genre

Table 14

Prohibitions 1792–1820 respectively 1821–1848, by discipline or genre

Discipline/genre

1792–1820

1821–1848

Books

Manuscripts

Total

Books

Manuscripts

Total

Religion

1,252

310

1,562 (12.1 %)

3,066

933

3,999 (12.1 %)

Philosophy

657

28

685 (5.3 %)

657

102

759 (2.3 %)

Historiography

1,836

186

2,022 (15.6 %)

3,338

372

3,710 (11.2 %)

Literature, language, art, pedagogy

313

45

358 (2.8 %)

812

219

1,031 (3.1 %)

Geography

481

15

496 (3.8 %)

757

69

826 (2.5 %)

Natural science (incl. medicine)

140

54

194 (1.5 %)

943

283

1,226 (3.7 %)

Political and military science, law

735

133

868 (6.7 %)

545

207

752 (2.3 %)

Economy and technology

78

37

115 (0.9 %)

226

110

336 (1.0 %)

Advisory literature, guidebooks

172

44

216 (1.7 %)

332

65

397 (1.2 %)

Humor

137

41

178 (1.4 %)

164

60

224 (0.7 %)

Poetry

274

140

414 (3.2 %)

804

453

1,257 (3.8 %)

Narrative prose

2,095

96

2,191 (17.0 %)

4,869

808

5,677 (17.2 %)

Theater

203

40

243 (1.9 %)

540

351

891 (2.7 %)

Music

96

15

111 (0.9 %)

248

227

475 (1.4 %)

Fine art, maps

85

47

132 (1.0 %)

414

512

926 (2.8 %)

Other

2,428

62

2,490 (19.3 %)

1,063

508

1,571 (4.7 %)

Periodicals

435

213

648 (5.0 %)

8,023

997

9,020 (27.3 %)

Total

11,417

1,506

12,923 (100 %)

26,801

6,276

33,077 (100 %)

Philosophy and historiography were banned less frequently during the final three decades of censorial activity by the police, as were political and military science. The enormous increase in forbidden periodicals, on the other hand, is striking—the host of journalists was discovering a new and rapidly growing field of activity. The number of prohibited theological and philosophical writings decreased by nearly half compared to the 1754–1780 period, respectively to below one third of the frequency during the Josephinian decade. Among the literary genres, poetry and—surprisingly—narrative prose also represented smaller shares of the prohibited works. The oft-cited political poetry of the Vormärz as well as the critical social novel of the 1830s and 1840s were apparently less weighty in quantitative terms than literary historians have previously assumed.

3.8 Most Frequently Prohibited Publishers 1792–1848

Table 15

Publishers appearing most frequently in the prohibition lists, 1792–1848

1.

Brockhaus (Leipzig)

563

2.

Cotta (Stuttgart, Tübingen)

437

3.

Verlags-Comptoir (Grimma)

408

4.

Hoffmann, Hoffmann und Campe (Hamburg)

379

5.

Arnold (Dresden, Leipzig)

313

6.

Kollmann (Leipzig)

309

7.

Hammerich (Altona)

302

8.

Wigand (Leipzig)

287

9.

Basse (Quedlinburg)

284

10.

Becker (Gotha)

280

11.

Sauerländer (Aarau)

255

12.

Wagner (Neustadt/Orla)

224

13.

Industrie-Comptoir (Leipzig)

210

14.

Voigt (Ilmenau, Sondershausen, Weimar, Hamburg)

208

15.

Reclam (Leipzig)

206

16.

Fleischer (Leipzig)

197

17.

Sauerländer (Frankfurt)

192

18.

Bran (Jena)

188

19.

Fürst (Nordhausen)

182

20.

Voss (Berlin, Leipzig)

175

21.

Baumgärtner (Leipzig)

151

22.

Leske (Darmstadt)

144

23.

Schwetschke (Halle)

141

24.

Mayer (Leipzig)

140

25.

Maurer (Berlin)

136

26.

Goedsche (Meissen)

118

27.

Hinrichs (Leipzig)

117

28.

Hilscher (Dresden, Leipzig)

115

29.

Hennings (Gotha)

112

30.

Perthes (Gotha, Hamburg)

111

31.

Breitkopf & Härtel (Leipzig)

109

32.

Scheible (Stuttgart, Leipzig)

105

Vieweg (Braunschweig)

105

34.

Enslin (Berlin)

104

Horneyer (Braunschweig, Leipzig)

104

36.

Fournier (Paris)

103

Schlesinger (Berlin)

103

38.

Ernst (Quedlinburg, Leipzig)

102

39.

Treuttel & Wurtz (Paris)

101

40.

Franckh (Stuttgart)

100

Hallberger (Stuttgart)

100

42.

Hermann (Frankfurt)

99

43.

Literaturzeitung (Jena, Leipzig)

97

44.

Metzler (Stuttgart)

96

45.

Barth (Leipzig)

94

46.

Orell, Geßner, Füßli & Co. (Zurich)

92

Baudoin (Paris)

92

Duncker & Humblot (Berlin)

92

Herold (Hamburg)

92

50.

Barba (Paris)

91

Meyer (Braunschweig)

91

52.

Campe (Nuremberg)

90

Engelmann (Leipzig)

90

54.

Schumann (Zwickau, Leipzig)

89

55.

Reimer (Berlin)

85

56.

Hahn (Hanover)

83

57.

Franke (Leipzig)

81

58.

Helbig (Altenburg)

80

59.

Korn (Breslau)

79

60.

Meline & Cans & Comp. (Brussels, Leipzig)

78

61.

Béchet (Paris)

77

Vollmer (Hamburg)

77

63.

Gosselin (Paris)

76

Nicolai (Berlin, Stettin)

76

65.

Sommer (Vienna)

75

Kummer (Leipzig)

75

67.

Sommer (Leipzig)

72

Lecointe (Paris)

72

Unger (Berlin)

72

Hartknoch (Riga, Leipzig)

72

71.

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht (Göttingen)

71

Literarisches Museum (Leipzig)

71

73.

Schultheß (Zurich)

70

74.

Dupont (Paris)

69

Köhler (Leipzig, Stuttgart)

69

76.

Heinsius (Leipzig, Gera)

68

77.

Didot (Paris)

67

Dumont (Paris)

67

Lachapelle (Paris)

67

Literarisches Comptoir (Zurich, Winterthur)

67

Rein (Leipzig)

67

Weygand (Leipzig)

67

The list of publishing houses for this period contains almost only new names as compared to the one for 1751–1791. The years following the disturbances in Central Europe caused by Napoleon’s campaigns were a founding period for the German publishing industry. Many new companies appeared that engaged in book printing in a purely speculative fashion—meaning they were focused exclusively on commercial success—and the sheer quantity of production grew considerably as a result.228 The two presumably most renowned German publishers of the nineteenth century, Brockhaus and Cotta, head the ranking, with Brockhaus’s 563 entries outdistancing Cotta, the Verlags-Comptoir in Grimma, Hoffmann und Campe, and all the other newcomers by far.229 As evidenced by the enterprise of Julius Campe, who was considered the “leftist Cotta,”230 radical political engagement and business acumen could coalesce without issue under the right circumstances. It is clear that Campe owed much of his success to censorship and the many prohibitions: “Without the German censorship circumstances, without the constant threat of prohibition, confiscation, conviction, Julius Campe would never have achieved the significance that made Hoffmann und Campe a hallmark.”231 Fictitious publisher names and places of printing were still being specified on occasion, but the practice was declining compared to the eighteenth century and no longer plays an important role in terms of the frontrunners on this list.

The large number of titles produced by Brockhaus, the liberal German publishing house par excellence, is due in part to individual publications but mostly to the many periodicals printed there, of which individual issues were banned. The Literarisches Conversationsblatt (Literary Conversation Gazette; from 1818) alone, later published under the title Blätter für literarische Unterhaltung (Gazette for Literary Entertainment), was forbidden 88 times. Further periodicals frequently encountered on the prohibition lists are Isis, oder enzyklopädische Zeitung, vorzüglich für Naturgeschichte, vergleichende Anatomie und Physiologie (Isis, or Encyclopedic Newspaper, Primarily for Natural History, Comparative Anatomy, and Physiology), published by the Wartburg professor and struggler for press freedom Lorenz Oken (from 1819, forbidden 54 times), Hermes, oder kritisches Jahrbuch der Literatur (Hermes, or Critical Yearbook of Literature; from 1820, forbidden 17 times), and Zeitgenossen, ein biographisches Magazin für die Geschichte unserer Zeit (Contemporaries, a Biographical Magazine for the History of Our Time; from 1817, forbidden 16 times). Other only occasionally prohibited journals were the Repertorium der gesammten deutschen Literatur (Repertory of the Entire German Literature), the Allgemeine Preß-Zeitung (General Press Newspaper), Annalen der Presse, der Literatur und des Buchhandels (Annals of the Press, of Literature, and of the Book Trade), the Echo de la littérature française (Echo of French Literature), and Der neue Pitaval (The New Pitaval). Brockhaus was—and still remains to this day—most famous for its encyclopedia initially published under the title Conversations-Lexikon. Numerous volumes of the various editions of this reference work pervaded by a liberal spirit were banned in Austria, and in fact it was one of the last books to be prohibited in Austria in February 1848, now under the title Allgemeine Real-Enzyklopädie.

From its very beginnings, the publishing house led by Friedrich Arnold Brockhaus, who had grown up in the spirit of the French Revolution and presented himself as a German patriot in the final phase of the Napoleonic era, dedicated itself to political literature. The Prussian administration decreed in May 1821 that all of the works it had published were to be submitted to strict postcensoring, since they generally bespoke a “bad purpose” (“schlechter Sinn”) and served to disseminate revolutionary ideas.232 It was only after Friedrich Arnold’s death in August 1823 that the general postcensoring of his company in Prussia was repealed.233

Adam Müller, the Austrian consul general in Leipzig, reported the prevailing opinion on Brockhaus in Vienna in a letter to the publisher:

The publisher and editor of the “Conversations-Lexicon” could hardly deny that he had for several years been one of the most untiring promoters of the teachings and opinions that, according to the immutable convictions of the Imperial Royal Administration, were incompatible with the peace of the world and the true wellbeing of the nations; by far the largest part of his publishing house consisted until the most recent times of writings connected precisely to the most dangerous activities of the period, and he had proven on more than one occasion that not simply mercantile speculation, but a personal desire and drive to serve the party seeking to break up all existing orders guided him in his undertakings.234

To avoid compromising himself all too much, Brockhaus used the fictitious designation “Peter Hammer in Cologne” at least three times.235 According to censorship researcher Houben, the publisher’s problems with the Austrian censorial authorities began with an attempt to exact revenge on Austria in general and former liberal Friedrich von Gentz in particular: Brockhaus reprinted the latter’s “youthful folly,” an exposé on the accession of King Frederick William III of Prussia in 1797, in which Gentz had appealed for freedom of the press. The reprint appeared in 1820 under the title Seiner königlichen Majestät Friedrich Wilhelm dem Dritten, bei der Thronbesteigung allerunterthänigst überreicht (am 16. Nov. 1797), neuer wörtlicher Abdruck; nebst einem Vorwort über das Damals und Jetzt (Presented Most Humbly to His Royal Majesty Frederick William the Third for His Accession to the Throne (on November 16th, 1797), New Verbatim Reprint; alongside a Foreword about the Then and Now) with the imprint “Brüssel: C. Frank und Comp.” and was immediately (in January 1820) labeled “damnatur” by the Austrian censors. According to Houben, Gentz—who was now a censor—subsequently initiated a vengeance campaign against the publisher by way of regular prohibitions of instalments of the Conversations-Lexikon, among other measures.236 Trouble had already been afoot between Vienna and Leipzig before this episode: The precursor of Brockhaus’s Conversations-Lexikon had been banned as early as 1799, and two works on Andreas Hofer and the resistance against Napoleon in Tyrol, written by Archduke Johann with the help of historian Joseph von Hormayr and published anonymously by Brockhaus in 1816/17, had promptly been removed from circulation in Austria.237 It is noteworthy, however, that prohibitions of works printed by Brockhaus increased dramatically after 1819: 22 titles were banned in 1820, followed by 40 in 1821, 33 in 1822, 18 in 1823, and so on.

Whether it was targeted revenge or not, the fact remains that the ninth and tenth volumes of the 5th edition of the Conversations-Lexikon were forbidden in Austria in October 1820. The booksellers in the monarchy subsequently petitioned to be allowed to ship these volumes to so-called praenumerants—customers who had already paid for their copies. The head of the Book Review Office warned them that great care would have to be applied in this regard. The volumes could be given without concern to holders of Scheden possessing sizable libraries—for example, the princes and counts Liechtenstein, Schwarzenberg, Batthyányi, Grasalkowitz, Lobkowitz, and Harrach. Likewise eligible for Scheden were persons qualified due to their rank or position and living abroad, like Baron Miltitz, Archduke of Tuscany, or Count Woijna, chargé d’ affaires in Stockholm. Of the remaining individuals on the list of praenumerants, only persons of rank, high-level public officials, and professors and scholars could be considered so long as they could justify their need for the two volumes; the same did not apply to lower-level public servants and businesspersons. In general, the reply cautioned against the dissemination of a work “of such bad tendency” (“von so schlechter Tendenz”); booksellers and their customers had themselves to blame if a “speculative deal that they entered into at their own risk with the bookseller Brockhaus, badly notorious in the political sense for a considerable time, now turns out to their disadvantage.”238

Such a drastic restriction of the circle of purchasers in large areas of the German-speaking world endangered the publication project as a whole. Brockhaus was accordingly willing to relent and offered to produce redacted versions of the two volumes—as well as of future editions—for Austria, but this proposal was rejected.239 Meyer’s encyclopedia did not fare much better. Such reference works were likely targeted specifically by censorship because they addressed a new readership that was hungry for knowledge and significantly transcended the previous circles of the educated audience, allowing them to be printed and sold in correspondingly large quantities. By the middle of the century, around 150,000 copies of Brockhaus’s Conversations-Lexikon had been marketed.240

Cotta likewise ran into issues primarily with the periodicals he produced, especially with the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung, the Europäische Annalen, Archenholz’s Annalen der britischen Geschichte (Annals of British History), Schlözer’s Staats-Archiv, the journals Italienische Miscellen, Französische Miscellen, and Englische Miscellen (Italian/French/English Miscellany), Schiller’s Horen (Horae), and the Morgenblatt für gebildete Stände (Morning Gazette for Educated Ranks) as well as various almanacs. Even the large number of German classics printed by Cotta as well as his scientific publishing did not entirely escape censorship.

Johann Friedrich Cotta had begun to engage with a circle of supporters of the French Revolution early on. Journalists like Ernst Ludwig Posselt and Ludwig Ferdinand Huber gave direction to the historical and political newspapers and periodicals he published, including the Allgemeine Zeitung, which initially appeared under the title Neueste Weltkunde (Newest World Knowledge) beginning on January 1, 1798. After Friedrich Schiller refused, the paper was edited by historian and journalist Posselt. Goethe found its style, which reminded him of Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart’s aggressive and scandal-seeking Deutsche Chronik (German Chronicle), lacking in elegance and dignity.241 In his introductory article entitled “Der Nord und der Süd” (The North and the South), Posselt wrote “once again of the final battle between the republican and the despotic system.”242 The first issue’s table of contents likewise leaves little doubt regarding the publication’s republican bias, listing articles entitled “Revolution Helvetiens” (Revolution of Helvetia), “Revolution von Rom” (Revolution of Rome), “Of- und DefensivAllianz- und HandelsTractat zwischen der Fränkischen und Cisalpinischen Republik” (Offensive and Defensive Alliance and Trade Treaty between the Franconian and the Cisalpine Republic), and “Batavische Republik” (Batavian Republic).243 Cotta had obtained an exemption from censorship for his new newspaper from the Duke of Württemberg, but conflicts with the governments of other countries were foreseeable. As early as March 1798, the Austrian envoy in Württemberg lodged a protest against the paper’s publication, and the Imperial Privy Council ordered Duke Frederick to forbid it in August. The ultimate motive for the prohibition was a report on Austria’s acceptance of the cession of the territories on the left bank of the Rhine to France that the Austrian government declared to be factually incorrect.244

As was often the case with censorship measures, the order from Vienna caused diplomatic rifts between members of the German Confederation: Duke Frederick replied that he had already imposed a prohibition, but simultaneously offered to let Cotta continue the paper under a different name. Cotta thus reestablished the publication under the name Allgemeine Zeitung and moved the editorial office to Stuttgart. Since the Duke had to subject the paper to a pro forma preventive censorship, which occurred in the capital, too much time would otherwise have been lost between printing and censorial review. Cotta even applied for an imperial privilege for the gazette in order to ensure its distribution by the Thurn und Taxis-operated Reichspost.245 Despite this privilege and the new name and location, however, the Allgemeine Zeitung did not change its orientation. On October 13, 1803, it was forbidden entirely in Württemberg until further notice, and as a consequence transferred its offices yet again—this time to Ulm, which belonged to Bavaria at the time.246 The paper’s seat was finally moved to Augsburg in 1810. In Austria, the Allgemeine Zeitung was first included in the list of newspapers approved and cleared for subscription in 1804, and attracted between 300 and 400 subscribers in Vienna alone in 1807.247 The Austrian censorial authorities dithered between the temptation to frequently prohibit individual issues and the knowledge that this would draw even more attention to the gazette. Count Franz Anton Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky, for example, felt compelled to report to Sedlnitzky from Prague in 1819 in the wake of the Carlsbad Decrees that issues 267 and 268 of the Allgemeine Zeitung contained “articles of a revolutionary tendency” (“Artikel einer revoluzionären Tendenz”) that should in reality be forbidden, but that he had hesitated to pass the corresponding verdict because “such a prohibition only provokes curiosity and becomes an inducement for this type of papers, which one seeks to obtain through other channels anyway, to be read all the more attentively and eagerly.”248 In Metternich’s eyes, on the other hand, the dreadful consequences of such articles leading “in a direct line to revolutionary desires, and ultimately to real attacks and alliances against the governments” could not be reasoned away with tactical arguments; instead, he advocated “clear measures against this newspaper mischief.”249

Of the remaining publishing houses that frequently featured in the prohibition lists, the Verlags-Comptoir in Grimma (3rd position in the list) and Kollmann (6th position) did so primarily due to their mass production of novels, usually translations from French and English. Several radical periodicals were also produced in Grimma (Unser Planet [Our Planet]; Der Hochwächter. Literarisch-kosmopolitische Beiblätter der Constitutionellen Staats-Bürgerzeitung [The High Guardian: Literary-Cosmopolitan Supplements to the Constitutional State Citizen Newspaper]). Arnold in Dresden (5th position) published the often-banned Abendzeitung (Evening News). These prohibitions were likely owed to the stories and novels by Gustav Schilling, Karl Franz van der Velde, Alexander von Oppeln-Bronikowski, August von Tromlitz, Christian Heinrich Spieß, H. Clauren, and others that were printed in the paper and whose book editions were likewise banned. Light fiction was also one of the mainstays of Basse in Quedlinburg (9th position), who produced contributions to the romantic “knights and robbers” genre by authors such as Christoph Hildebrandt, Heinrich Müller, and Karl Nikolai. He also published periodicals (Wetterfahnen [Weathervanes], Leuchtkugeln [Flares]) as well as medical and other self-help books, Protestant devotional literature, and writings criticizing religion and the Catholic church. A further focus of Basse’s work that was apparently compatible with his light fiction specialization was the genre of so-called popular medicine, which advertised quack therapies and household remedies that were ineffective at best. On these, one commentator noted sarcastically: “The main producers of this trend are Misters Voigt in Weimar and Basse in Quedlinburg, later joined by Mister Fürst in Nordhausen, who overdid the matter so badly that the former men left the previously quite cultivated genre almost entirely so as not to be thrown into a category together with the productions of Mister Fürst.”250 Another opinion on Fürst (19th position), who seems to have been serving the same market as Basse and Voigt (14th position), was that “at first he was very active in the production of bandit novels, then he proceeded little by little to popular medicine, albeit without neglecting the other genres of popular literature like ‘cheese making,’ ‘distilling,’ ‘livestock fattening,’ and so on.”251 Sauerländer in Aarau (11th position) was dedicated to liberal popular enlightenment. His house author and frequent editor was the extremely productive writer Heinrich Zschokke. Besides devotional literature, Sauerländer also printed contributions to political science, law, and history as well as light fiction. Frequently forbidden periodicals were the Miscellen für die neueste Weltkunde (Miscellany for the Newest World Knowledge), the Rheinische Taschenbuch (Rhenish Almanac), the Erheiterungen (Amusements), and the Unterhaltungsblätter für Welt- und Menschenkunde (Entertainment Gazette for Knowledge of the World and Man).

Moving on to the field of political literature, the first major player is Hammerich in Altona (7th position), who published numerous periodicals in the years during and after the revolution including Schleswigsches Journal (Schleswigian Journal), Der Genius der Zeit (The Genius of the Time), Deutsches Magazin, Annalen der leidenden Menschheit (Annals of Suffering Humanity), and Theologische Beiträge (Theological Contributions). They were later followed by the Staats-Lexikon edited by Rotteck und Welcker, works by Young Germany writers (Theodor Mundt, Eduard Beurmann, Sylvester Jordan), political magazines like Der Pilot and Der Freihafen (The Free Port), and historical novels by Louise Mühlbach as well as translations of English writings.

Gottfried Vollmer (61st position) and Wilhelm Hennings (29th position) from Erfurt, who also used alternative addresses in Hamburg respectively Altona, specialized in “clandestine” literature—which included revolutionary as well as scandalous and pornographic writings—during the 1790s. Revealing texts about monarchs, the nobility, and the clergy were close neighbors to lecherous stories featuring monasteries, bawdy robbers’ tales, and personal pamphlets by authors like Johann Friedrich Ernst Albrecht, Friedrich Rebmann, Ignaz Ferdinand Arnold, and Heinrich Gottlieb Schmieder. Like with other publishers, Vollmer’s use of fictitious or missing publisher identification and places of printing means that we can assume he produced more works than we know of—titles that would only be traceable by way of painstaking bibliographic research. So far, “due to the impenetrable coppice of fabrications, masking, and lack of information in the imprints, by far not all titles of the publishing house have been identified as Vollmer products.”252 In the name of the Austrian government, Franz von Colloredo-Mannsfeld, vice-chancellor of the German Empire, prompted the Electoral Saxon envoy in Vienna in 1800 to effect from his territorial ruler the prevention of the dissemination of works published by Vollmer. The envoy did his best to comply with this demand, albeit with little success;253 the Viennese censorship authorities subsequently still found ample reason to forbid books produced by the publisher.

Complete Debitverbote were imposed at least temporarily on the publishers discussed in the following paragraphs, which meant that Austrian book merchants were prohibited from ordering any works produced by them. In 1845, Leipzig publishers Philipp Reclam jun. (15th position), Otto Wigand (8th position), and Gustav Mayer (24th position) attempted to import forbidden writings into Austria, partly via Bukovina, Hungary, and Transylvania. A Debitverbot for Wigand and Reclam was subsequently issued in March 1846 as a punitive measure. Wigand had been providing intense medial support for the national liberation movement in Hungary by way of bookstores and publishing activities in Kaschau/Košice, Pressburg/Bratislava, and Pest. He also provided forged passports to Polish refugees who were forced to leave the country following the November Uprising in 1830. This put him under surveillance by the Austrian police, causing him to return to Leipzig, where he campaigned for liberal reforms and press freedom while producing and marketing writings criticizing Austria. Among his authors were Ludwig Feuerbach and Max Stirner as well as the Young Hegelians Arnold Ruge and Bruno Bauer. On March 26, 1846, the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung quoted from the corresponding court decree:

By reason that an incendiary pamphlet in Hungarian under the title “Anti-urbér valtság” has recently been published by the bookseller Otto Wigand in Leipzig, of which several thousand copies were illegally imported to Hungary via Bukovina and Transylvania, and in consideration of the circumstance that this bookseller has already allowed himself to be used multiple times as a tool for the dissemination of products of the printing press containing the most reprehensible, state-endangering, and felonious teachings, [and] in confederation with the equally ill-reputed Leipzig publisher Reclam jun. issued a host of the most salacious and untruthful pasquinades against the Austrian government […] and since the usual statutory censorship provisions are insufficient for the effective remediation of such misdemeanor by these foreign booksellers that pursues high treason and turmoil: Thus His Imperial Royal Majesty has deemed it proper, by the contents of a high court decree of March 21/26, with supreme decision of March 13, to prohibit the Debit of all publishing products of the bookstore of Otto Wigand and the bookstore of Reclam jun. in Leipzig in all His States and under explicit responsibility of the domestic booksellers.254

Wigand vowed to change his ways, and the ban against him was subsequently repealed as early as June 1846. A German publisher could hardly afford to forfeit the large market of the Austrian monarchy; on the other hand, however, Wigand was keen to maintain his reputation of being a spearhead of the radical liberal movement—and indeed his submission provoked some displeasure among like-minded book merchants.

Reclam’s plea to lift the boycott was initially rejected, whereupon he began to specify other names and places on his products, for example Vogler in Brussels, and founded new companies and dummy firms (Verlagsmagazin, Literarisches Institut). All of these attempts were quickly recognized, however, and Reclam remained barred from the Austrian market until October 1846, when the prohibition was revoked. Along with Wigand, the Reclam publishing house was considered the main staging area for radical liberal publishing, offering its services to numerous Austrian exile authors.255 One of the reasons for the prolongation of the boycott against Reclam may have been his production of a translation of Thomas Paine’s The Age of Reason in June 1846, a work that radically criticized religion and openly professed deism.256 The book was forbidden not only in Austria but also in Saxony, Prussia, and France. It even caused considerable scandal in England, earning its publisher Daniel Eaton seven convictions, 15 months of incarceration, and three years of outlawry (meaning the forfeiture of his civic rights); on the occasion of the appearance of the book’s third part in 1812, he was sentenced to a further 18 months in jail as well as time in the pillory.257

The apparent success of his measures, inferred from the reactions of the affected publishers, caused Metternich to decide to issue Debitverbote against other insubordinate publishing houses in a court decree on January 4, 1847; the boycotted companies were those of Hoffmann und Campe (4th position), Ernst Keil, and Gustav Mayer (24.),258 and the measure would remain in place until 1848.259 Hoffmann und Campe had already fallen out of favor repeatedly in Austria as a publisher of Heinrich Heine, Ludwig Börne, Friedrich Hebbel, Hoffmann von Fallersleben, Karl Gutzkow, Ludwig Wienbarg, Anastasius Grün, and other politically active authors. The Young Germany movement, liberal constitutionalists, and radical democrats alike found publishing support there. In 1843, Viktor von Andrian-Werburg’s Österreich und dessen Zukunft as well as Franz Schuselka’s Deutsche Worte eines Österreichers (German Words by an Austrian) caused irritation among the Austrian government, which threatened the publisher with a blanket ban (but ultimately refrained from issuing one to avoid unwelcome attention). However, the usual fine of 50 guilders for trading in forbidden books was increased drastically to 1,000 guilders in the case of Österreich und dessen Zukunft.260 The government allegedly also purchased a large share of the first edition.261 The publication of Franz Schuselka’s Oesterreichische Vor- und Rücktritte (Austrian Forward and Backward Steps) in 1846 represented the last straw.

Ernst Keil, a further publisher sharing the misfortune of being boycotted by the Austrian government, had produced Népkönyv (The People’s Book) in 1846, which was interpreted as an anti-monarchy tirade in Austria. He also published the liberal periodicals Unser Planet (Our Planet) and Leuchtturm (Lighthouse). The Gustav Mayer publishing house, established in 1842 by Mayer together with Georg Wigand,262 printed the writings of Karl Biedermann as well as Schuselka’s Briefe einer polnischen Dame (Letters from a Polish Lady, 1846) and Sociale und politische Zustände Oesterreichs mit besonderer Beziehung auf den Pauperismus (Social and Political State of Austria with Special Reference to Pauperism, 1847).

Following the ban, Keil renamed his company to Kabinett für Literatur (Cabinet for Literature) and also traded under the name Volksbücher-Verlag (People’s Book Publisher); he blithely continued to publish and deliver his books to Austrian booksellers. Campe produced special title pages concealing the true contents of books for consignment to Austria; Börne’s Briefe aus Paris (Letters from Paris), for example, which discussed political questions, were shipped as Beiträge zur Länder- und Völkerkunde (Contributions to Knowledge on Countries and Peoples).263 According to contemporary commentator August Prinz, Austrian booksellers used a special symbol (++) when placing orders to denote forbidden books that had to be imported “discreetly.”264 Campe also published works under false names, for example the second part of Österreich und dessen Zukunft and Heine’s Atta Troll under the moniker G.W. Niemayer. These attempts at legerdemain were exposed, however.265 How deftly Campe operated is illustrated by an anecdote about how he defeated an Austrian attempt to spy him out. The authorities in Vienna made it one of their top priorities to find the anonymous author of Oesterreich und dessen Zukunft, and they consequently dispatched a Prague police officer by the name of Muth to Hamburg. Muth posed as a merchant from Vienna, purchased several books banned in Austria from Campe and casually inquired about the author of the sensational text. Campe replied that the creator, a high-ranking Austrian public official, wished to remain anonymous but that he, Campe, had asked him for permission to reveal his identity to trustworthy customers due to the many requests he had received. When the police spy repeated his question two weeks later, Campe—who in the meantime had sent out his own intelligencers—disclosed the “secret”: The author of the scandalous book was police inspector Muth from Prague.266 After this mission to determine the wanted writer’s identity had failed, Deinhardstein himself was allegedly sent to Hamburg to persuade Campe to divulge the name. He too, however, was unable to coax the information out of the publisher “in any possible way, even by intoxication with champagne.”267

Less well known than the measures aimed at the mentioned German publishers is the fact that a general ban had previously already been imposed on the Literarisches Comptoir of Julius Fröbel (77th position), which had been operating in Zurich and Winterthur since 1841. The Swiss publisher had offered his services to radical liberal German exiles, and the list of his authors constituted a “who’s who of the literary opposition during the German pre-March”:268 Georg Herwegh, Hoffmann von Fallersleben, Robert Prutz, Rudolf von Gottschall, the Young Hegelians Bruno and Edgar Bauer, Ludwig and Friedrich Feuerbach, and Arnold Ruge were joined by the early socialist theorists Louis Blanc, Karl Grün, Wilhelm Schulz, and several others. Owing to their proximity to the border, the Swiss publishing houses and their presumptive smuggling activities with the help of colporteurs also frequently became the subjects of reports by informers for the Mainzer Informationsbüro.269

The example of the Miniatur-Bibliothek deutscher Classiker (Miniature Library of German Classics) published from 1827 by Meyer in Gotha shows that prohibitions were not always the result of contents inadmissible from the Austrian perspective. The reason could have to do with the publisher as well: Prussia and Saxony as well as other German states prohibited the series simply because it was considered an unauthorized reprint.270 Meyer argued that the printing of works in anthologies and the partial reproduction of copyrighted texts was permitted, but the ban nevertheless hit him hard. He henceforth operated using the (not particularly credible) fictitious location “Hildburghausen und New York.” After individual volumes had been forbidden in Austria beginning in 1827, the prohibition list for April 1831 suddenly included the annotation “the entire series” (“die ganze Sammlung”). Meyer subsequently eluded the authorities by selling via colporteurs, which were naturally more difficult to monitor than the stationary book trade.

3.9 Most Frequently Prohibited French Publishers, 1792–1848

Since more than one fifth of the forbidden writings were in French, an overview of the French publishing houses most frequently affected by prohibitions seems appropriate.

Table 16

French publishers on the lists of forbidden books, 1792–1848

Fournier

104

Treuttel & Wurtz

101

Baudouin

91

Meline & Cans & Comp.

78

Béchet

77

Gosselin

76

Lecointe

70

Dupont

69

Didot

67

Dumont

67

Ladvocat

65

Dondey-Dupré

64

Ponthieu

62

Bossange

58

Eymery

58

Maradan

56

Renouard

49

Souverain

46

Renduel

42

Pagnerre

41

Fournier printed books from diverse scientific disciplines, with a focus on historiography, correspondence, memoirs, and pedagogy. The field of the belles lettres was likewise dominated by historical novels (by Roger de Beauvoir, Prosper Mérimée, Massimo d’Azeglio, and Edward Bulwer). The lion’s share of prohibitions targeting works produced by Fournier, however, is represented by the issues of the review journal Revue des deux mondes (Review of the Two Worlds), which featured texts by the most renowned French authors as well as reports on the most important currents of European and American culture.

The company Treuttel et Wurtz had offices in Paris and Strasbourg and maintained a branch in London from 1819 as well. It specialized in exports of French literature to Germany and England, but also engaged in publishing business in the opposite direction.271 Since the French Revolution, Treuttel et Wurtz printed historical and legal treatises as well as travel literature, fiction including the collected works of Madame de Staël, and encyclopedic works like the Précis historique de la révolution française (Historical Compendium of the French Revolution, 1806), the multi-volume Histoire de France by Charles de Lacretelle, the Encyclopédie des gens du monde (Encyclopedia of the People of the World), and an annual collective bibliography of French literature (Journal général de la littérature de France).

The orientation of Baudouin’s company was initially republican, then Bonapartist; it published historico-political treatises and memoirs. The same applies to Bossange. Dupont likewise produced political literature, along with rather sensationalistic and trivial fiction by authors like Paul de Kock or Etienne Léon de Lamothe-Langon. Meline, Cans & Co. has already been mentioned as the foremost Belgian reprinting house for French literature. Gosselin was the leading publisher of fictional prose, producing (among others) works by Madame de Staël, Alphonse de Lamartine, Victor Hugo, and Honoré de Balzac as well as translations of Walter Scott and James Fenimore Cooper. Ladvocat specialized in translations (Byron, Chefs-d’ œuvre des Théâtres étrangers [Masterpieces of Foreign Drama]), while Souverain published Honoré de Balzac, Frédéric Soulié, Alphonse Brot, and many other novelists. Renduel printed a mixture of romantic literature (including Hugo, Musset, Gautier, Lamennais, and Heine) and popular novels (P.L. Jacob).

To end this section, the following diagram visualizes the movement—from northwest to southeast—of the printed works forbidden in Vienna and the liberal and Enlightenment ideas they transported. The seven cities most frequently specified as printing locations of prohibited writings across the entire period discussed in this study are Leipzig (7220), Paris (5915), Berlin (2769), Hamburg incl. Altona (1841), Frankfurt (1591), Stuttgart (1173), and London (854).

d156124143e24709

Diagram 1

The seven most important places of publication of books prohibited in Austria (1754–1848)

1

Reinhart Koselleck: Kritik und Krise. Eine Studie zur Pathogenese der bürgerlichen Welt. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp 1979 (first edition 1959), 132–157, explains this process using Rousseau’s concept of the volonté générale of society and its relationship to the decisions of the king, i.e. of the state. In Austria, however, the sovereign authority was not replaced by a democratic collective like in France but instead by a renewal of the absolute monarchy.

2

Quoted in Heindl: Der “Mitautor,” 42: “[…] Frieden des Staates […] seine Interessen und seine gute Ordnung verwirren.”

3

Quoted in ibid.: “[…] dem Staate Nachteiliges […] die Ruhe der Mehrzahl.”

4

Reinalter: Die Französische Revolution und Mitteleuropa, 102.

5

Wangermann: Von Joseph II. zu den Jakobinerprozessen, 126.

6

Cf. Helmut Reinalter: Österreich und die Französische Revolution. Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag 1988, 82–83.

7

See ibid., 86.

8

Hofdekret an sämmtliche Länderstellen vom 22. Februar, und an die Niederöstreichische Regierung vom 30. Mai, kundgemacht durch die Regierung ob der Enns unter dem 24., durch das Tiroler Gubernium den 27., durch das Gubernium in Steiermark und Krain unterm 28. März, durch das Böhmische den 15., durch das Mährische Gubernium unter dem 16. Mai, durch die Niederöstreichische Regierung unter dem 3. das Gubernium in Triest unterm 7. Junius 1795. In: Sammlung der Gesetze welche unter der glorreichen Regierung des Kaisers Franz des II. in den sämmtlichen K.K. Erblanden erschienen sind in einer Chronologischen Ordnung von Joseph Kropatschek. Fünfter Band enthält die 1te Hälfte des Jahres 1795. Vienna: Mösle n.d., 182–194; see appendix, pp. 372–374.

9

Cf. The information in the statistical section below.

10

Jacob Pickharts Peregrinationen. 2 vols. Leipzig: Supprian 1798. Vol. 1, 43–44; quoted in Dirk Sangmeister: Erkundungen in einem wilden Feld. Clandestine und subversive Literatur Erfurter Autoren und Verlage im Zeitalter der Französischen Revolution. In: Dirk Sangmeister and Martin Mulsow (eds.): Subversive Literatur. Erfurter Autoren und Verlage im Zeitalter der Französischen Revolution (1780–1806). Göttingen: Wallstein 2014, 7–70, here 28: “Mit Schrecken sieht man, daß die Zahl der Bücher, über welche die Herrn zu Wien das Interdikt aussprechen, jedesmal um so vieles ansehnlicher wird, daß schier zu befürchten steht, sie werden in wenig Jahren den Meßkatalogus über Bausch und Bogen verbieten.”

11

Quoted in Dirk Sangmeister: Vertrieben vom Feld der Literatur. Verbreitung und Unterdrückung der Werke von Friedrich Christian Laukhard. Bremen: edition lumière 2017, 33, according to Neue Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek 1799, Intelligenzblatt, no. 34, 280: “[…] von der Wiener oder andern regierenden Herren Censur.”

12

Cf. Zensurprotokolle des Jahres 1805 (Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Polizeihofstelle H11/1805).

13

Cf. Madl and Wögerbauer: Censorship and Book Supply, 82. Partial holdings of the lists are also available at major libraries; in Vienna, at the Austrian National Library and the University Library.

14

Cf. Wögerbauer: Die Zensur ist keine Wissenschaft, 118–121.

15

Benna: Organisierung und Personalstand der Polizeihofstelle, 221: “[…] ideen fortgepflanzt werden und gesinnungen der staatsbürger ihre richtung erhalten.”

16

Quoted in Wolfram Siemann: “Deutschlands Ruhe, Sicherheit und Ordnung.” Die Anfänge der politischen Polizei 1806–1866. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1985, 48: “eine bloße Polzeianstalt.”

17

Cf. Hadamowsky: Ein Jahrhundert Literatur- und Theaterzensur, 301.

18

Quoted in Friedrich Wilhelm Schembor: Meinungsbeeinflussung durch Zensur und Druckförderung in der Napoleonischen Zeit. Eine Dokumentation auf Grund der Akten der Obersten Polizei- und Zensurhofstelle. Vienna 2010 (https://fedora.phaidra.univie.ac.at/fedora/get/o:62678/bdef:Book/view [last accessed on 12/13/2021]), 32.

19

Wienbibliothek, Handschriftensammlung, Abschriften nach Akten des Ministeriums des Inneren, Bücherzensur Bd. 2 (1793–1797), fol. 214–215: “Darstellung des Unwesens der sogenannten Illuminaten”, “die zu widerlegenden Ausfälle gegen Gottesdienst, Regenten, etc. bekannt werden zu lassen”, “Gegenstück wider die sozialen revolutionären Schriften”, “eben unter dieser Maske, da Voltär und Consorten die Sultane und Bonzen lächerlich machten, haben sie auch die Häupter unserer Monarchie verhasst zu machen sich bestrebet.”

20

Wiesner: Denkwürdigkeiten der Oesterreichischen Zensur, 394. Details on salary demands and raise increments of the censorship officers around 1800 can be found in Schembor: Meinungsbeeinflussung durch Zensur.

21

The numbers in parentheses specify the period during which the respective person was employed as a censor according to the court schematics. I would like to thank Daniel Syrovy for perusing the schematics.

22

Cf. Waltraud Heindl: Zensur und Zensoren, 1750–1850. Literarische Zensur und staatsbürgerliche Mentalität in Zentraleuropa. Das Problem Zensur in Zentraleuropa. In: Marie-Elizabeth Ducreux and Martin Svatoš (eds.): Libri Prohibiti. La censure dans l’ espace habsbourgeois 1650–1850. Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag 2005, 27–37; Waltraud Heindl: Der “Mitautor”; on Seidl and the attacks against him, see Julius Marx: Johann Gabriel Seidl als Zensor. In: Jahrbuch des Vereines für Geschichte der Stadt Wien 15/16 (1959/60), 254–265.

23

Cf. Karl Kasper: Schuberts Freund Mayrhofer als Bücherrevisor. In: Börsenblatt für den deutschen Buchhandel, no. 198, August 25, 1928, 950–953.

24

Cf. Schembor: Meinungsbeeinflussung durch Zensur, 172–175, according to records of the Court Police Section.

25

Cf. Hadamowsky: Ein Jahrhundert Literatur- und Theaterzensur, 302.

26

Schembor: Meinungsbeeinflussung durch Zensur, 69–70: “Es gehörte zu den Plänen unbescheidener Beförderung einer unbedingten und ungemessenen Volksaufklärung unter der Regierung des höchstseligen Kaisers Joseph, die Anzahl der Buchdrucker zu vermehren und die einmal gereizte Lesesucht überall auf die leichteste und wohlfeilste Art zu befriedigen. Die Früchte zeigen, welche Verwirrung der Ideen hieraus entstanden sei, wie wahre gründliche Gelehrsamkeit und Geisteskultur abgenommen und bodenlose Vielwisserei und leidenschaftlicher Geschmack an faden Romanen und geistlosen Broschüren zugenommen habe.”

27

Archiv der Korporation der Wiener Buch-, Kunst- und Musikalienhändler, 1804, 5 (January 9, 1804).

28

Schembor: Meinungsbeeinflussung durch Zensur, 79 and 87; on this case, cf. also Otto Rauscher: Der Wiener Nachdruck und die Zensur von Wielands Werken. In: Chronik des Wiener Goethe-Vereins 39 (1934), 39–41.

29

Archiv der Korporation der Wiener Buch-, Kunst- und Musikalienhändler, 1807, 42 (October 10, 1807).

30

“Zensur-Vorschrift vom 12. September 1803. Anleitung für Zensoren nach den bestehenden Verordnungen.” Prior to the fire at the Palace of Justice, this instruction was included in files of the Court Police Section that a clerk had compiled; cf. Heribert Nagler: Regierung, Publizistik und öffentliche Meinung in den Jahren 1809–1815 in Österreich. Diss. Vienna (typewritten) 1926, 16–17 and 67–72; see appendix, pp. 382–385.

31

Quoted in Nagler: Regierung, Publizistik und öffentliche Meinung, V: “[…] in einem ausgezeichnet elenden Ton oder ohne Richtigkeit und Ordnung in den Gedanken hineingehudelt, oder auf eine andere Weise ganz ohne Gehalt sind.”

32

Deists and Socinians were Hussite groups in the broadest sense that appeared in Bohemia during the decade of Joseph II. They were persecuted even by this relatively tolerant monarch and banished—preferably to Transylvania—if they could not be converted to Catholicism; cf. Wangermann: Die Waffen der Publizität, 103–107.

33

Cf. Nagler: Regierung, Publizistik und öffentliche Meinung, VII: “[…] Schwindelgeist, Geringschätzung der Staatsverwaltung, Unordnungen, Unruhe, Misstrauen, Missvergnügen oder sogar Aufstand erregen könnten.”

34

For example, the Neue Allgemeine Deutsche Bibliothek reprinted the lists of books forbidden in Vienna starting in 1793.

35

The prohibition of Masonic writings was introduced in 1797 and remained in effect unchanged into the pre-March period; cf. Archivio di stato, Milano, Atti di governo, Studi p. m. 87, letter from Sedlnitzky to Saurau on 10/4/1816 (thanks to Daniel Syrovy for the friendly hint).

36

See Nagler: Regierung, Publizistik und öffentliche Meinung, VII: “[…] die Einbildungskraft spannen und beschäftigen, sie mit abenteuerlichen Idealen füllen, oder gar dem Verbrechen den Anstrich von Grösse geben.”

37

Quoted in Madl and Wögerbauer: Censorship and book supply, 79: “[…] die Köpfe nicht mit Ideen aus der Romanenwelt angefüllt, die Einbildungskraft nicht überspannt, und dem Geiste eine falsche Richtung gegeben werde.”

38

Julius Marx: Die amtlichen Verbotslisten. Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte der österreichischen Zensur im Vormärz. In: Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 11 (1958), 412–466, here 418.

39

See Dirk Sangmeister: Zehn Thesen zu Produktion, Rezeption und Erforschung des Schauerromans um 1800. In: Lichtenberg-Jahrbuch 2010, 177–217, here 179–181. On bandit novels, cf. Holger Dainat: Abaellino, Rinaldini und Konsorten. Zur Geschichte der Räuberromane in Deutschland. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1996, 43, who identified only roughly 320 such novels for the time between 1795 and 1850.

40

See Nagler: Regierung, Publizistik und öffentliche Meinung, XIV: “Die Hauptrücksichten sind immer nach dem a. h. Willen Sr. Majestät: Beförderung der Religion, der Sittlichkeit, der ernsten Wissenschaften und alles dessen, was wirklich gut, wahr, schön und gemeinnützig ist; möglichste Unterdrückung alles dessen, was zur Irreligion, zur Sittenlosigkeit, zur Unzufriedenheit, zum Philosophismus, zur Aufklärerei hinführen kann.”

41

Cf. Franz Hadamowsky: Schiller auf der Wiener Bühne 1783–1959. Vienna: Wiener Bibliophilen-Gesellschaft 1959, 18.

42

Über die neue Wiener Preßfreiheit (first published in: Österreichische Zeitung 1809, 107–108). In: Friedrich Schlegel: Studien zur Geschichte und Politik. Eingeleitet u. hg. v. Ernst Behler. (Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Ausgabe, vol. 7) Munich, Paderborn, Vienna: Schöningh, Zurich: Thomas Verlag 1966, 96–99, here 97 and 98: “[…] den männlichen deutschen Nationalcharakter zu erschlaffen und zu manchen in der neuesten Zeitgeschichte vorkommenden Erniedrigungen fähig zu machen […] schmutzigsten Produkt, welches die französische Literatur in dieser Gattung aufzuweisen hat […] die dem neuen System so verhaßten Triebfedern der wahren Ehre und eines männlichen Freiheitssinnes.”

43

Cf. Karl Glossy: Schiller und Österreich. In: K.G.: Kleinere Schriften. Vienna, Leipzig: Fromme 1918, 18–37, here 20.

44

Cf. Schembor: Meinungsbeeinflussung durch Zensur, 39–41.

45

Cf. Nagler: Regierung, Publizistik und öffentliche Meinung, 102.

46

See appendix, pp. 388–390. There exists a draft of this 1810 regulation written by the president of the Court Censorship Section, Hager, that was more liberal than the final product (printed in Nagler: Regierung, Publizistik und öffentliche Meinung, XVXXI). For example, Hager had called for complete freedom for scientific works and serious fiction (“classics”).

47

Cf. Pierre Horn: Vom autokratischen Kaiserreich zur konstitutionellen Monarchie: Zensur und Emanzipation der französischen Presse im Vormärz (1804–1848). In: Gabriele B. Clemens (ed.): Zensur im Vormärz. Pressefreiheit und Informationskontrolle in Europa. Ostfildern: Jan Thorbecke Verlag 2013, 23–38, here 26.

48

Quoted in Fischer: Deutsche Kommunikationskontrolle, 66: “[…] die Popularität und den moralischen Kredit der österreichischen Regierung ungeheuer heben […]. Mit solchen Waffen müssen wir unseren neuen Freund forthin zu bekämpfen suchen.”

49

Wolfram Siemann: Metternich. Stratege und Visionär. Eine Biografie. Munich: C.H. Beck 2016, 319.

50

Cf. ibid., 322.

51

Quoted in Julius Marx: Die österreichische Zensur im Vormärz. Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik 1959, 73: “[…] zweckmäßig geleitete Lese- und Schreib Freyheit […] obersten Regenten- und Vaterpflichten […] mit vorsichtiger Hand […] Herz und Kopf der Unmündigen vor den verderblichen Ausgeburten einer scheußlichen Phantasie, vor dem giftigen Hauche selbstsüchtiger Verführer, und vor den gefährlichen Hirngespinnsten verschrobener Köpfe.”

52

Quoted ibid., 74: “[…] endlose Wust von Romanen, welche einzig um Liebeleyen als ihre ewige Achse sich drehen […] die Sinnlichkeit zu wiegen […]. Es soll daher allen Ernstes getrachtet werden, der so nachtheiligen Romanen-Lektüre ein Ende zu machen.” To conclude herefrom that the censors arrogated competence for literary criticism, as Wiesner (Denkwürdigkeiten der Oesterreichischen Zensur, 225 and 228) claims, would be a mistake; rather, it was about evaluating the contents of light fiction in terms of their putative effect.

53

On the procedure, cf. Wiesner: Denkwürdigkeiten der Oesterreichischen Zensur, 266–298; a similar description is offered by Thomas Olechowski: Die Entwicklung des Preßrechts in Österreich bis 1918. Ein Beitrag zur österreichischen Medienrechtsgeschichte. Vienna: Manz 2004, 168.

54

Cf. Giese: Studie zur Geschichte der Pressegesetzgebung, 410–411.

55

The records cited in the following are accessible at the Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Polizeihofstelle, under the shelfmark 97k/1811.

56

“solche Vorstellungen vom künftigen Leben gebildeten Lesern wohl unterhaltlich scheinen”, “sie aber dem christlichen Lehrbegriffe nicht entsprechen, und ungeübte Denker zu neuen Irrthümern verleiten könnten”.

57

“ein Gemisch von Bigotterie, Schlauheit, Stolz, Treulosigkeit, Fanatism, und so weiter”.

58

“grobe Beleidigungen gegen einen Stand vorkommen, welcher, sobald er um seine Würde und sein Ansehen gebracht wird, nichts Gutes mehr zu wirken vermag”.

59

In the cases of Achim von Arnim: Halle und Jerusalem. Studentenspiel und Pilgerabentheuer (Heidelberg 1811) and W. Blumenhagen: Freia. Romantische Dichtungen (Erfurt 1811). On this, cf. also Chapter 6.3. below.

60

“die einen [der Mitglieder der habsburgischen Dynastie] ebenso unnatürlich lasterhaft und verabscheuungswürdig, als die andern, die unterdrückten, tugendhaft und liebenswürdig”.

61

“unschicklich, solche gräßliche Charaktere und Personen, wie die angebliche Clotilde, und der angebliche Casimir als die ältesten Geschwister des Kaisers Rudolph sind, als zu den Voreltern und Verwandten des Habsburgischen Hauses gehörig vorzustellen, und als solche im Publicum cursiren zu lassen”.

62

“[w]egen der fortgesetzten Darstellung der Schlachten auf dem Marsfelde, dann wegen der Ausfälle auf die Bourbons in Spanien auf Clerus und Adel überhaupt”.

63

“Der Inhalt dieser Jugendschrift, welche von S. 68–89 eine Darstellung militärischer Heldenthaten des französischen Militärs ist, welche darin nicht selten mit den Helden des Alterthums verglichen werden, ist keine anständige Lectüre für Kinder, welche ihr Vaterland: Oesterreich, ihren Fürsten und ihre Vertheidiger achten und lieben sollen”.

64

“Obschon in dieser lyrischen Anthologie keine eigentlichen Obscönitäten vorkommen, so geben doch einige Stellen durch die nationelle Frivolität und durch französische Witzspiele Anlaß genug dieselbe […] zu verbiethen.”

65

“Ist ein Auszug aus Louves [sic] Faublas [d. i. Louvet de Couvray: Les amours du chevalier Faublas], und daher […] zu verbiethen.”

66

“Wenn diese Erzählungen auch nicht ohne allen Werth sind, so kann ihr Gehalt doch die unmoralischen Stellen [nicht] vergessen machen, welche besonders in der Erzählung “das Erdbeben von Chili” S. 307 und 308 vorkommen. Ein junger Spanier, dem der Vater das Mädchen seines Herzens in ein Kloster gegeben hatte, sucht Gelegenheit sie zu sehen, durch einen unglücklichen Zufall kommt er mit ihr in einer verschwiegenen Nacht zusammen, und macht den Klostergarten zum Zeugen seines vollensten körperlichen Glückes. Das Mädchen ist schwanger, und bekommt eben in dem Augenblick die Mutterwehen, als die feierliche Frohnleichnahmsprocession der Nonnen beginnt, welcher die Novizinnen folgen sollen. Der Ausgang dieser Erzählung ist in höchstem Grade gräßlich.”

67

“mit Räuber- und Liebesavanturen durchflochten”.

68

“eine ganz gewöhnliche Libertin und Spitzbubengeschichte”.

69

“Der Abbé Sabatier ist keiner von den vorzüglichsten Schriftstellern Frankreichs.”

70

“das prinziplose Gewäsch eines nie sich erschöpfenden französischen Schöngeistes”.

71

“Geburten eines halb verrückten Gehirns”.

72

“Dieses Werk hat von Seite der Erfindung, der Anordnung, des Ausdruckes und der übrigen Eigenschaften, die das Wesen und die Vorzüge eines epischen Gedichtes ausmachen, keinen Werth”.

73

“weder seine Erfindungsgabe, weder die Ausführung seiner Werke, noch sein Vortrag gerühmt werden”.

74

“ein Product aus der schreibseligen Periode Oesterreichs [d. i. des Josephinismus]”.

75

Cf. Oesterreichische National-Encyclopädie, oder alphabetische Darlegung der wissenswürdigsten Eigenthümlichkeiten des österreichischen Kaiserthumes. In sechs Bänden. Erster Band. Vienna: In Commission der Friedrich Beck’schen Universitäts-Buchhandlung 1835, 418; Hof- und Staatshandbuch des österreichischen Kaiserthumes. Vienna: K. k. Hof- und Staatsdruckerey 1844, 571–572.

76

Cf. Giese: Studie zur Geschichte der Pressegesetzgebung, 411; Marx: Die amtlichen Verbotslisten, 416.

77

Two censors were usually assigned to each manuscript, with a third censor consulted in the event that their opinions conflicted, see Marx: Die österreichische Zensur im Vormärz, 18. Individual cases like that of Grillparzer’s poem “Campo vaccino” in the almanac Aglaja (see below) show, however, that this time-consuming procedure was not followed consistently. In any case, only one expert opinion was required for the review of already printed books.

78

Cf. the detailed listings of censored manuscripts and books by language in the section on statistics.

79

Cf. Olechowski: Die Entwicklung des Preßrechts, 169.

80

Marx: Die österreichische Zensur im Vormärz, 55: “Von der Grabinschrift bis zum Lexikon wurde alles Geschriebene oder Gedruckte, vom Manschettenknopf bis zum Kupferstich jede Abbildung geprüft. Bei Bildern auf Ringen, Busennadeln oder Pfeifenköpfen war auch das Bestreben, jedes Abzeichen geheimer Gesellschaften zu verhindern, mitbeteiligt. Bei der Musik waren Texte oder Zeichnungen zu beachten, revolutionäre oder politische Gesänge waren verpönt; manchmal beanstandete man Widmungen.”

81

Cf. Daniel Syrovy: Das Wörterbuch muss verboten werden! Niccolò Tommaseos Synonymwörterbuch der italienischen Sprache und die Zensur im habsburgischen Mailand. In: Zibaldone—Zeitschrift für italienische Kultur der Gegenwart 61 (2016), 9–21.

82

Neu durchgesehenes Verzeichniss der verbothenen deutschen Bücher. Vienna 1816; Catalogue revue et corrigée des livres prohibés, françois, anglois et latins. An 1816; Catalogo de’ libri italiani o tradotti in italiano proibiti negli stati di sua maestà l’imperatore d’Austria. Venezia 1815.

83

Friedrich Wilhelm Kosch: Das Grazer Bücherrevisionsamt 1781–1848. In: Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereines für Steiermark 60 (1969), 45–84, here 83–84.

84

Hadamowsky: Ein Jahrhundert Literatur- und Theaterzensur, 302.

85

Julius Marx: Vormärzliches Schedenwesen. In: Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 16 (1963), 453–468, here 459: “Stand und die Beschäftigung dieses Schedenwerbers […] seine persönlichen und Familienverhältnisse […] seine bisherige moralische und politische Haltung […] Grad und die Richtung seiner intellektuellen Bildung […] Vertrauenswürdigkeit.”

86

Schembor: Meinungsbeeinflussung durch Zensur, 98: “Es ist nicht recht geschehen, dass Sie das angeführte Buch Meinem Herrn Bruder, ohne vorläufig Meine Begnehmigung einzuholen, ausgefolgt haben. Sie werden künftig Meinen Befehlen ohne Rücksicht der Person nachzuleben wissen und das ausgefolgte Buch von Meinem Herrn Bruder zurückfordern.”

87

Cf. Wagner: Die Zensur in der Habsburger Monarchie, 218.

88

Wienbibliothek, Handschriftensammlung, Abschriften nach Akten des Ministeriums des Inneren, Bücherzensur Bd. 2 (1793–1797), fol. 239: “[…] alle Pakete, die gedruckte, oder ungedruckte Schriften enthalten, und unter der Aufschrift meines Ministers der auswärtigen Geschäfte Frh. v. Thugut auf Postwegen ankommen.”

89

Franz Grillparzer: Selbstbiographie. In: Grillparzers Werke in sechs Bänden. Vol. 5. Vienna: Österreichische Staatsdruckerei n.d., 193: “neue Kirchliche oder vielmehr dem Alten aufgedrungene Pfäffische.”

90

Quoted according to August Sauer: Proben eines Commentars zu Grillparzers Gedichten. In: Jahrbuch der Grillparzer-Gesellschaft 7 (1897), 1–170, here 40. This is the version that appeared in Aglaja; other editions and manuscripts read “Herrlicher” instead of “Herrliche.”

91

Franz Grillparzer: Gedichte, erster Teil (Sämtliche Werke. Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe. Hg. v. August Sauer fortgeführt von Reinhold Backmann. Erste Abtheilung, vol. 10). Vienna: Anton Schroll, Deutscher Verlag für Jugend und Volk 1932, 279: “Da Papst Pius VII., unter dem die Herstellung des Kolosseums begann, noch regierte (1800–1823), konnte der Angriff gegen das Kreuz […] als eine persönliche Beleidigung des Papstes aufgefaßt werden, und in der Tat sprach man später immer wieder von dieser ‘Geschichte mit dem Papste’ […].”

92

Sauer: Proben eines Kommentars, 39. In other versions, the word “Meinung” (opinion) is replaced with “Kirche” (church). On the context, namely Grillparzer’s anti-clerical stance in the tradition of the Enlightenment, cf. Ritchie Robertson: Poetry and Scepticism in the Wake of the Austrian Enlightenment: Blumauer, Grillparzer, Lenau. In: Austrian Studies 12 (2004), 17–43.

93

Grillparzer: Selbstbiographie, 194: “der Gemahlin des ebenso wegen seiner erleuchteten Kunstansichten als wegen seiner strengen Religiosität bekannten Kronprinzen eines benachbarten Hofes zugeeignet.”

94

Cf. Gedichte, erster Teil (Sämtliche Werke. Historisch-kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol. 10), 278.

95

Julius Marx: Metternichs Gutachten zu Grillparzers Gedicht “Campo vaccino.” In: Jahrbuch der Grillparzer-Gesellschaft, Neue Folge 2 (1942), 49–69, here 59.

96

Quoted in Sauer: Proben eines Kommentars, 131: “mehrere Stellen dieses Gedichtes gegen Heiligthümer der christlichen und besonders der katholischen Religion grell und offenbar verstossen.”

97

Quoted in Marx: Metternichs Gutachten, 63: “gegen die christliche Religion, als die angebliche Ursache des Verfalls des Römischen Reiches geschrieben […] Ausfall auf die Aufstellung des heute auf dem Boden, den so viele Tausende von Martirer mit ihrem Blute düngten, errichteten Kreuzes.” Cf. also Julius Marx: Die Zensur der Kanzlei Metternichs. In: Österreichische Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht, Neue Folge 4 (1952), 170–237.

98

Wiesner: Denkwürdigkeiten der Oesterreichischen Zensur, 258: “Die zum Druck bestimmte Handschrift des Professors der Geschichte ward dem Publizisten der Staatskanzlei zur Zensur überwiesen, der es mit sehr karakteristischen Noten und Randglossen versah, und dabei, ganz im Geiste der Zensurinstrukzion von 1810, das politische Richteramt mit dem literarisch-kritischen vereinte. Gekränkt und in’s Innerste verletzt, ergriff der öster. Professor der Geschichte den Wanderstab, und gab im ‘Auslande’ sein Werk, illustrirt durch die Zensurnoten Friedrich’s von Gentz, in die Presse. Es ist bekannt, welche außerordentliche Sensazion diese Randglossen des großen diplomatischen Zensors in Deutschland hervorriefen.”

99

Quoted in Karl Brunner: Byron und die österreichische Polizei. In: Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 80 (1925), vol. 148, 28–41, here 31.

100

Cf. Alfred Noe (ed.): Der Philhellenismus in der westeuropäischen Literatur 1780–1830. Amsterdam, Atlanta/GA: Rodopi 1994.

101

Examples of disappointing results: “Dans la maison qu’habite Mme de Staël on dispose d’ une personne de confiance, et sur ses assurances il ne s’ est rien passé de particulier à signaler.” (In the house inhabited by Madame de Staël we have a confidant who assures that nothing worth communicating has happened.), 19; “On a trouvé l’ occasion de se le procurer trois fois et de pouvoir le lire entièrement. Il contient surtout des essais sur la philosophie et les arts.” (We managed to get hold of it [her correspondence] three times and read it entirely. It contains mainly essays on philosophy and art.), 24. Quoted from Georges Solovieff: Madame de Staël et la police autrichienne. In: Cahiers Staëliens, nouvelle série No. 41 (1989–1990), 13–54.

102

Quoted in ibid., 52: “Il est évident que ses principes, ses vues et déclarations la désignent comme une initiatrice des formes constitutionnelles de gouvernement et des idées dominantes devant transformer le monde européen en ces formes nouvelles. Mais elle n’ a nullement donné prise sur soi ou dépassé les limites du raisonnement par quelque effet politique nuisible.”

103

Quoted in Brunner: Byron und die österreichische Polizei, 32: “Engländer mit solch radicalen Grundsätzen wie sie […] Lord Biron in Ravenna bethätigt und wie solche […] von den Lord Kinaird und Hamilton bekannt sind, müssen als die gefährlichsten Independenz- und Revolutionsapostel betrachtet werden, und sollten daher, ohne irgend eine Reklamation der Großbrittanischen Regierung wegen Intoleranz gegen ihre Unterthanen zu besorgen durch gemeinsame Maßregeln aller Italienischer Gouvernements von der Halbinsel fernegehalten werden.”

104

Klausnitzer: Poesie und Konspiration, 148–149: “das Szenario einer jesuitisch gesteuerten Verschwörung gegen Aufklärung und Protestantismus […] Szenario einer Verschwörung von Illuminaten, aufgeklärten ‘Philosophen’ und deistischen Freimaurern gegen politischen Absolutismus, Offenbarungsreligion und Ordensgeistlichkeit.” Klausnitzer (p. 29) describes Jean de Filleau’s treatise Relation juridique de ce qui s’ est passé à Poitiers touchant la nouvelle doctrine des Jansénistes (Juridical Treatise on What Happened at Poitiers Concerning the New Doctrine of the Jansenists, 1654) on a purported secret meeting of Jansenists in the charterhouse at Bourg-Fontaine in 1621, during which they allegedly decided to fight various Christian—and especially Catholic—dogmas as the “ ‘birth certificate’ of modern conspirationism.”

105

Klausnitzer: Poesie und Konspiration, 269: “Der Analogieschluss von eigenen Handlungs- und Geheimhaltungsstrategien auf die Verfahren konkurrierender Opponenten führte zu Kausalerklärungen, die nahezu alle politischen und kulturellen Vorgänge als zusammenhängende Teile eines Planes modellierten und als intendierte Resultate ‘verlarvter’ und ‘verkappter’ Drahtzieher deuteten.”

106

Cf. Siemann: Metternich, 665, a citation from the Österreichischer Beobachter of 12/10/1817.

107

Ibid., 681: “Nach dem Attentat auf Kotzebue war mit einem Male die Presselandschaft eine andere. Es wird viel zu wenig beachtet, dass gerade die mehr oder weniger verbrämten Verherrlichungen der Tat in der Presse den vielstimmigen Ruf nach Zensur provozierten.”

108

Cf. ibid., 715.

109

Wolfram Siemann: Metternich’s Britain. London: The German Historical Institute 2012, 14–18.

110

Quoted in Dominik Burkard, Gisbert Lepper, Wolfgang Schopf, and Hubert Wolf: Die Macht der Zensur. Heinrich Heine auf dem Index. Düsseldorf: Patmos 1998, 19: “Jene verruchte Verbrüderung, welche seit einem halben Jahrhundert an dem Umsturze der bestehenden und selbst aller möglichen gesetzlichen Ordnung und aller Throne unablässig arbeitet, hat im Jahre 1830 in Frankreich einen bedeutenden Sieg errungen, welcher ihr jedoch keineswegs genügt: Ihr Plan geht weiter, er umfaßt die Welt.”

111

On its establishment, cf. Fritz Reinöhl: Die österreichischen Informationsbüros des Vormärz, ihre Akten und Protokolle. In: Archivalische Zeitschrift, 3. Folge, 5 (1929), 261–288; on the activity of the Informationsbüro, cf. in detail Hoefer: Pressepolitik, 72–178; on the reports, cf. the editions by Karl Glossy: Literarische Geheimberichte aus dem Vormärz. Mit Einleitung und Anmerkungen hg. v. Karl Glossy. Vienna: Konegen 1912, as well as Adler: Literarische Geheimberichte.

112

On this, see Hoefer: Pressepolitik, 60–61 and 66–68.

113

Burkard, Lepper, Schopf, and Wolf: Die Macht der Zensur, 64.

114

Grimm: Karl Gutzkows Arrivierungsstrategie, 176.

115

Quoted in Burkard, Lepper, Schopf, and Wolf: Die Macht der Zensur, 81–82: “Schmähungen gegen die Religion […] Hinüberziehen der Religionskritik auf das ‘belletristische Gebiet’ […] innige Verbindung der Blasphemie mit der Aufregung der Sinnlichkeit […] vollständigen Systeme der Gotteslästerung und Unzucht.”

116

Quoted according to Jan-Christoph Hauschild (ed.; in cooperation with Heidemarie Vahl): Verboten! Das Junge Deutschland 1835. Literatur und Zensur im Vormärz. Düsseldorf: Droste 1985, 38.

117

In a letter to Campe on January 12, 1836; quoted in Hauschild: Verboten!, 123.

118

Cf. James Brophy: Grautöne. Verleger und Zensurregime in Mitteleuropa 1800–1850. In: Historische Zeitschrift, vol. 301 (2015), 297–345, here 317.

119

Burkard, Lepper, Schopf, and Wolf: Die Macht der Zensur, 39.

120

Quoted in Inge Kießhauer: Otto Friedrich Wigand (10. August 1795 bis 1. September 1870). In: Leipziger Jahrbuch zur Buchgeschichte 1 (1991), 155–188, here 157: “[…] ein Volk vom Augenblick an, wo es anfängt, Bildung in sich aufzunehmen, im ersten Stadium der Revolution […].”

121

Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall: Erinnerungen und Briefe, vol. 3, part 5. Scan of the typewritten transcript of Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall: Erinnerungen aus meinem Leben. Ed. Walter Höflechner and Alexandra Wagner. Graz 2011 (http://gams.uni-graz.at/context:hp [last accessed on 12/13/2021]), 22: “Die Wut zu streichen zog ihm [Sedlnitzky] krampfartig die Finger zusammen und hatte er erst ein paar Stellen gestrichen, so liess er andere hingehen, die sonst, wenn jene stärkeren nicht zum Streichen vorhanden gewesen, gewiss nicht durchgelaufen sein würden.”

122

Cf. Julius Marx: Österreichs Kampf gegen die liberalen, radikalen und kommunistischen Schriften 1835–1848 (Beschlagnahme, Schedenverbot, Debitentzug). Vienna, Cologne, Graz: Böhlau 1969, 11.

123

Cf. Marx: Österreichs Kampf gegen die liberalen, radikalen und kommunistischen Schriften, 13.

124

Cf. Marx: Die amtlichen Verbotslisten, 155–156.

125

Kosch: Das Grazer Bücherrevisionsamt, 72.

126

Details on the dissemination and reception of the novel can be found in Norbert Bachleitner: Der englische und französische Sozialroman des 19. Jahrhunderts und seine Rezeption in Deutschland. Amsterdam, Atlanta/GA: Rodopi 1993, 89–192.

127

Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Polizeihofstelle H 146/1845.

128

Marx: Die amtlichen Verbotslisten, 446.

129

Marx: Vormärzliches Schedenwesen, 460–461.

130

Ibid., 462.

131

Cf. Marx: Die österreichische Zensur im Vormärz, 5.

132

Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Akten der Polizeihofstelle, 207/1838.

133

Marx: Die amtlichen Verbotslisten, 425.

134

Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Akten der Polizeihofstelle, 10434/1821

135

Ibid., 5588/1843: “wohl eines der bedeutendsten genannt werden kann, welches vielleicht in dieser Beziehung die k. k. oesterr. Monarchie aufzuweisen hat.” All following quotations pertaining to the visitation of Gerold’s shop are likewise taken from this document.

136

“eigenen hierseitigen Beamten und dem Bücher-Revisor Janota nur noch zwei Polizeidiener.”

137

“drey Personen zur Verschaffung derselben in das hiesige Amtsgebäude mittels bedekter Butten und Schubkarren verwendet werden mußten.”

138

Grillparzer: Selbstbiographie. In: Grillparzers Werke in sechs Bänden. Vol. 5, 295: “so allgemein als irgendwo in der Welt […] Fiaker auf dem Kutschbock ‘Östreichs Zukunft’ lesen gesehen.”

139

Viktor Franz Freiherr von Andrian-Werburg: “Österreich wird meine Stimme erkennen lernen wie die Stimme Gottes in der Wüste.” Tagebücher 1839–1858. Hg. u. eingeleitet von Franz Adlgasser. Vienna, Cologne, Weimar: Böhlau 2011, vol. 1, 380 (4/23/1843).

140

On 1/19/1843, he noted: “Incidentally, the book goes very quickly here [in Milano], the greater half of the copies sent here is already sold out” (ibid., vol. 1, 351: “Übrigens geht das Buch hier [in Mailand] sehr schnell ab, die größere Hälfte der hieher gesandten Exemplare ist bereits vergriffen.”); on 2/11/1843, he mentions 20 copies, once again for purchasers in Milano: “Incidentally, Tendler has sold 20 copies here in no time, and many more were requested, albeit by people to whom he deemed it advisable not to give them” (ibid., vol. 1, 362: “Übrigens hat Tendler hier im Nu 20 Exemplare abgesetzt, und noch viel mehr wurden verlangt, jedoch von Leuten, denen er sie nicht zu geben für gerathen fand.”); on 5/1/1843, he received a message stating that 600 copies had already been sold in Vienna (ibid., vol. 1, 382).

141

“wie denn überhaupt jeder hiesige Buchhändler in den meisten Fällen unter der Aegide des Magistrates selbst im Besitze des namhaftesten Lagers verbotener Bücher nur dafür zu sorgen braucht, daß ihr Verkauf nicht zu deutlich vorgemerkt erscheine.”

142

Wiener Stadt- und Landesarchiv, Präsidiumsakten, 377/1844 on 3/4/1844: “[…] ein Buchhändler und wenn er selbst ein Lager von blos verbothenen Büchern halten sollte, so lange nicht gestraft werden könnte, bis nicht der Beweis wirklich vorliegt, ob er auch ein Buch verkauft hat.”

143

Ibid., 549/1844 on 3/29/1844.

144

Quoted in Marco Callegari: Produzione e commercio librario nel Veneto durante il periodo della Restaurazione (1815–1848). Tesi di Dottorato, Università degli Studi di Udine 2013, 344.

145

On the case in general, cf. ibid., 343–345.

146

Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Akten der Polizeihofstelle, 5588/1843: “[…] zwei Leute aus der Gerold’schen Buchhandlung förmlich instruirt seyen, bei Bücherabholungen aus dem Revisionsamte jederzeit verbotene Waare während des Sortirens unter den Augen der Beamten bei Seite zu schaffen, wobey sich besonders der Gerold’sche Hausknecht als routinirter Escamoteur erweisen soll, so daß bei jeder Fracht aus dem Revisionsamte immer auch eine hübsche Quantitaet solcher Paschwaare mitgeht.”

147

Die Censur vor siebzig Jahren. Aus den Briefen Eduard Liegel’s an seinen ehemaligen Lehrherrn Josef Sigmund in Klagenfurt. In: Österreichisch-ungarische Buchhändler-Correspondenz, Nr. 46 vom 14. November 1900, 618–619: “[…] vom Censuramtslokale aus uneröffnet unter Beipackung der inländischen Artikel nach der Provinz spedirt.”

148

Ibid.: “Das Revisionsamt ist ein ziemlich großer Saal, in dessen Mitte in einer Linie zwei lange Tafeln stehen, die mehrere Schritte voneinander entfernt sind. Es dürfen nicht mehr als zwei Buchhändler zu gleicher Zeit ihre Ballen öffnen. Ein Censurdiener sitzt zwischen den beiden Tafeln oder schleicht herum, damit nichts gestohlen* werde. Ist der Ballen geöffnet, so kommen alle Pakete auf die Tafel; man packt hier bequem aus, conferirt, zeichnet und legt das Rohe, Broschirte und die Journale, jedes besonders, in schöne Ordnung; was aber nicht unter die Augen des Revisors kommen soll, wird nicht ausgepackt, sondern beiseite gelegt. Ist das alles geschehen, so nimmt der Hausknecht das Verbotene, packt es zu dem Pakete, das an Sie abgeht und näht es allsogleich ein (was der Vorschrift gemäß ist) und läßt es vom Amte versiegeln. […] Die verbotenen Neuigkeiten oder nicht verbrauchten Fortsetzungen kommen in den großen Schrank, der für die Möslesche Handlung bestimmt ist. Gerold, Schaumburg und Schalbacher haben sogar jeder zwei solche Schränke. Man kann ungehindert unter seinen Büchern herumbohren, unter dem Vorwande, das Erledigte herauszusuchen und dann, was man eben braucht, für die Provinz verpacken … * ‘Stehlen’ war der gebräuchliche Ausdruck für ‘aus den Händen der Censoren erretten’.”

149

Ibid.: “Man kann nämlich entweder die Pakete theilweise unter dem Arm zur Thüre hinausspazieren lassen, oder man nimmt vorbereitete Adressen, welche an uns lauten, auf die Censur mit, steckt sie dort auf die Pakete mit verbotenen Büchern und wirft diese, weil sie angeblich von einem Buchhändler aus der Provinz kommen, vor dem Kasten auf den Boden. Der Hausknecht zeigt sie dann gelegentlich dem Beamten als inländische Pakete vor, welche nie geöffnet werden, und trägt dann seine Beute ruhig nachhause …”

150

Schembor: Meinungsbeeinflussung durch Zensur, 57: “[…] die meisten Bücher in Ballen und Kisten, welche aus den Rheinischen Bundesstaaten oder aus Frankreich kommen, in dem Magazin auf dem Glacis zwischen der Hauptmaut und dem Theresientor beschaut werden. Die Bücherkisten werden da aufgerissen, die Bücher umhergestreut und in vollkommener Unordnung teils in Kisten, teils in Tüchern auf das Revisionsamt gebracht. Den Buchhändlern wird so die leichteste Gelegenheit dargeboten, auf dem Wege von dem Glacis bis auf das Revisionsamt davon wegzunehmen und der Revision zu entziehen, was ihnen beliebt, besonders, da oft die Beschauer aus Mangel an Zeit oder aus Bequemlichkeit die Bücher nicht auf das Revisionsamt begleiten.”

151

Cf. Jacques Eisenstein: Der Antiquarbuchhandel in Österreich und Ungarn. In: Österreichisch-ungarische Buchhändler-Correspondenz 1910, Festnummer anläßlich des 50jährigen Bestehens, I, 62–69, here 66.

152

Ernst Fischer: “Immer schon die vollständigste Preßfreiheit?” Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis von Zensur und Buchhandel im 18. Jahrhundert. In: Wilhelm Haefs and York-Gothart Mix (eds.): Zensur im Jahrhundert der Aufklärung. Geschichte—Theorie—Praxis. Göttingen: Wallstein 2007, 61–78, here 70: “Interessenkonflikt zwischen Zensur und Staatsökonomie.”

153

Cf. Archiv der Corporation der Wiener Buch-, Kunst- und Musikalienhändler, 1821, 28 and 1820, 34.

154

Cf. e.g. the list of more than 1,000 English and French novels prohibited between 1815 and 1848 in Norbert Bachleitner (ed.): Quellen zur Rezeption des englischen und französischen Romans in Deutschland und Österreich im 19. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1990, 60–93.

155

On Kolowrats attempts to exert influence on the censorship process, cf. most recently Isabella Schüler: Franz Anton Graf von Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky (1778–1861). Der Prager Oberstburggraf und Wiener Staats- und Konferenzminister. Munich: Utz 2016, 241–243.

156

Anna Hedwig Benna: Die Polizeihofstelle. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Österreichischen Zentralverwaltung. Diss. Vienna (typewritten) 1942, 211.

157

Cf. the corresponding report in the Leipziger Allgemeine Zeitung, no. 307, November 2, 1840, 3409, and the transcription in the Archiv der Corporation der Wiener Buch-, Kunst- und Musikalienhändler, 1840, 45.

158

See Bärbel Holtz: Staatlichkeit und Obstruktion—Preußens Zensurpraxis als politisches Kulturphänomen. In: Acta Borussica. Neue Folge, 2. Reihe: Preußen als Kulturstaat. Abteilung II: Der preußische Kulturstaat in der politischen und sozialen Wirklichkeit. Vol. 6: Preußens Zensurpraxis von 1819 bis 1848 in Quellen. 1st half volume. Berlin: de Gruyter Akademie Forschung 2015, 1–105, here 87–93, and the documents ibid., 2nd half volume, 761–782.

159

Archiv der Corporation der Wiener Buch-, Kunst- und Musikalienhändler, 1846, 1.

160

Archiv der Corporation der Wiener Buch-, Kunst- und Musikalienhändler, 1848, 8: “Im Namen Gottes, Allergnädigster Kaiser! Unser Vater! Unser Herr! […] Schütze uns o Vater! Uns, deine schuldlosen Kinder, rechtliche Bürger, bis in den Tod getreue Unterthanen. Dein ist das Reich! Dein ist die Macht! Wir können nicht verzagen. Amen!”

161

Gustave Flaubert: Correspondance. Vol. 2 (juillet 1852–décembre 1858). Ed. par Jean Bruneau. Paris: Gallimard 1980, 202: “La censure, quelle qu’ elle soit, me paraît une monstruosité, une chose pire que l’ homicide. L’ attentat contre la pensée est un crime de lèse-âme.”

162

Anton Ernstberger: Josef Rank in Zensurhaft. Prag 1844. In: Stifter-Jahrbuch 7 (1962), 113–130, here 120: “[…] daß der Volksunterricht in Händen der Landgeistlichkeit lag und diese sich der hohen Aufgabe nicht gewachsen zeigte, daß die Bürokratie viel zu eigenmächtig verfuhr und daß die lange Militärpflicht das Volk allzu stark bedrücke.”

163

Zwölf Tage im Gefängniß. (Aus einem Privatschreiben Josef Rank’s). In: Die Grenzboten 4 (1845), 1. Semester, vol. 1, 158–181.

164

Cf. Primus-Heinz Kucher: Herrschaft und Protest. Literarisch-publizistische Öffentlichkeit und politische Herrschaft in Oberitalien zwischen Romantik und Restauration 1800–1847. Vienna, Cologne, Graz: Böhlau 1989, 126.

165

The authors complained that it was incomprehensible “that the author in his most holy right of thought should be less protected than the lowliest craftsman in that of his daily business, than even the criminal in his right to his defense” (“weshalb der Schriftsteller in seinem heiligsten Rechte des Gedankens minder beschützt sein sollte, als der letzte Handwerker in dem des täglichen Erwerbes, als selbst der Verbrecher in dem Rechte seiner Verteidigung”). Denkschrift über die gegenwärtigen Zustände der Zensur in Österreich (1845). In: Eduard von Bauernfelds Gesammelte Aufsätze. In Auswahl hg. und eingeleitet v. Stefan Hock. Vienna: Verlag des Literarischen Vereins in Wien 1905, 1–27, here 24.

166

Benna: Die Polizeihofstelle, 214: “die gesprochenen und geschriebenen unterliegen dem Sittengesetz.”

167

Excerpt from Moritz Gottlieb Saphir: Der todte Censor. In: Der Wiener Parnaß im Jahre 1848. Hg. v. Joseph Alexander Freiherr von Helfert. Wien: Manz 1882, 60–61.

168

The prohibition numbers in tables 8A and 8B are based on analysis of the database “Verpönt, Verdrängt—Vergessen?” (http://univie.ac.at/zensur [last accessed on 12/13/2021]). Manuscripts are only specified on the prohibtion lists beginning in 1808.—The data on the total German book production (“Fair catalog”) follow the Codex nvndinarivs Germaniae literatae bisecvlaris. Meß-Jahrbücher des Deutschen Buchhandels von dem Erscheinen des ersten Meß-Kataloges im Jahre 1564 bis zur Gründung des ersten Buchhändler-Vereins im Jahre 1765. Mit einer Einleitung von Gustav Schwetschke. Halle: Schwetschke 1850, as well as the Codex nvndinarivs Germaniae literatae continvatvs. Der Meß-Jahrbücher des Deutschen Buchhandels Fortsetzung die Jahre 1766 bis einschließlich 1846 umfassend. Vorwort von Gustav Schwetschke. Halle: Schwetschke 1877.—The numbers of approved printed works and manuscripts are based on analysis of Verzeichniß der im Militärjahre 1810 bis 1811 bey der k. k. Central-Bücher-Censur in Wien zugelassenen in- und ausländischen Werke, Journale, Handschriften, Landkarten, Zeichnungen, Musikalien u. s. w. Wien: Kaiserl. Königl. Hof- und Staats-Druckerey 1810 (= Nov. 1810 to Oct. 1811); Verzeichniß der im Militär-Jahre 1816 bey der k. k. Central-Bücher-Censur in Wien zugelassenen in- und ausländischen Werke, Journale, Handschriften, Landkarten, Zeichnungen, Musikalien u. s. w. Wien: B.Ph. Bauer 1816 (= Jan. to Dec. 1815); and Verzeichniß der im Militär-Jahre 1819 bey der Central-Bücher-Censur in Wien zugelassenen in- und ausländischen Werke, Journale, Handschriften, Landkarten, Zeichnungen, Musikalien u. s. w. Wien: B.Ph. Bauer 1819 (= Nov. 1818 to Oct. 1819).

169

The prohibition list for the month of August is missing for this year.

170

The prohibition list for the month of November is missing for this year.

171

The prohibition list for the month of November is missing for this year.

172

Scheden had already been issued previously, albeit without a group of works having been specifically earmarked for them.

173

Greek.

174

1 Greek, 1 Hebrew, 1 Hungarian.

175

Czech.

176

Danish.

177

Greek.

178

Hungarian.

179

2 Greek, 1 Hebrew.

180

2 Greek.

181

Hebrew

182

1 Greek, 3 Hebrew.

183

1 Greek, 4 Hebrew, 1 Czech.

184

21 Hebrew, 3 Czech, 1 Hungarian, 1 Moldavian.

185

Hungarian.

186

3 Greek, 28 Hebrew, 4 Czech, 2 Hungarian.

187

3 Greek, 1 Hebrew, 1 Spanish.

188

Author names are provided for 6,330 of the 12,923 banned works; the remainder were recorded in the lists anonymously.

189

Cf. Dirk Sangmeister: Vertrieben vom Feld der Literatur, 27–88.

190

On him, cf. most recently: Rüdiger Schütt (ed.): Verehrt, verflucht, vergessen. Leben und Werk von Johann Friedrich Ernst Albrecht (1752–1814). Hanover: Wehrhahn 2015; cf. also Sangmeister: Erkundungen in einem wilden Feld.—Several of Albrechts works were published anonymously or with referential author declarations, and we must therefore assume the number of prohibitions pertaining to his writings to be even higher.

191

On this, cf. e.g. Holger Dainat: “Die Rache schläft nicht!” Über die Räuberromane von Albrecht und Arnold. In: Martin Mulsow and Dirk Sangmeister (eds.): Subversive Literatur. Erfurter Autoren und Verlage im Zeitalter der Französischen Revolution (1780–1806). Göttingen: Wallstein 2014, 454–478.

192

Cf. Alexander Wilfing: Die frühe österreichische Kant-Rezeption—Von Joseph II. bis Franz II. In: Violetta L. Waibel (ed.; in cooperation with Max Brinnich, Sophie Gerber, and Philipp Schaller): Umwege: Annäherungen an Immanuel Kant in Wien, in Österreich und in Osteuropa. Göttingen: V&R unipress, Vienna University Press 2015, 27–33; Alexander Wilfing: Die staatlich erwirkte Kant-Rezeption—Von Franz II. bis Graf Thun-Hohenstein. In: Ibid., 33–39.

193

Cf. Wilfing: Die frühe österreichische Kant-Rezeption, 27.

194

The prohibition numbers are based on analysis of the database “Verpönt, Verdrängt—Vergessen?” (http://univie.ac.at/zensur [last accessed on 12/13/2021]).—The data on the total German book production (“Fair catalog”) follow the Codex nvndinarivs Germaniae literatae bisecvlaris. Meß-Jahrbücher des Deutschen Buchhandels von dem Erscheinen des ersten Meß-Kataloges im Jahre 1564 bis zur Gründung des ersten Buchhändler-Vereins im Jahre 1765. Mit einer Einleitung von Gustav Schwetschke. Halle: Schwetschke 1850; and the Codex nvndinarivs Germaniae literatae continvatvs. Der Meß-Jahrbücher des Deutschen Buchhandels Fortsetzung die Jahre 1766 bis einschließlich 1846 umfassend. Vorwort von Gustav Schwetschke. Halle: Schwetschke 1877; the number for 1847 is taken from Reinhard Wittmann: Buchmarkt und Lektüre im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Beiträge zum literarischen Leben 1750–1880. Tübingen: Niemeyer 1982, 117.—The numbers of approved printed works and manuscripts are based on analysis of Verzeichniß der im Miltär-Jahre 1823 bey der k. k. Central-Bücher-Censur in Wien zugelassenen in- und ausländischen Werke, Journale, Handschriften, Landkarten, Zeichnungen, Musikalien u. s. w. Wien: B.Ph. Bauer 1823 (= Nov. 1822 to Oct. 1823); Verzeichniß der im Militär-Jahre 1830 von der kaiserl. königl. Central-Bücher-Censur in Wien und von den in den k. k. Provinzen bestehenden Censurs-Behörden zugelassenen in- und ausländischen Werke, Journale, Handschriften, Landkarten, Zeichnungen, Kupferstiche, Musikalien u. s. w. Wien: Kaiserl. königl. Hof- und Staats-Aerarial-Druckerey 1829 (= Nov. 1829 to Oct. 1830); Verzeichniß der im Militär-Jahre 1835 von der kaiserl. königl. Central-Bücher-Censur in Wien und von den in den k. k. Provinzen bestehenden Censurs-Behörden zugelassenen in- und ausländischen Werke, Journale, Handschriften, Landkarten, Zeichnungen, Kupferstiche, Musikalien u. s. w. Wien: Kaiserl. königl. Hof- und Staats-Aerarial-Druckerey 1834 (= Nov. 1834 to Oct. 1835); and Verzeichniss der im Militärjahre 1840 von der k. k. Central-Bücher-Censur in Wien und von den in den k. k. Provinzen bestehenden Censurs-Behörden zugelassenen in- und ausländischen Werke, Journale, Handschriften, Landkarten, Zeichnungen, Kupferstiche, Musikalien u. s. w. Wien: Kaiserl. königl. Hof- und Staats-Aerarial-Druckerey 1839 (= Nov. 1839 to Oct. 1840, with the exception of the second half of November 1839, which is missing; it was replaced with the first half of October 1839).

195

Only four prohibition lists exist for this year, namely those from January to the second half of February; the Revolution began in mid-March.

196

The verdict “typum non meretur,” representing not a prohibition but instead something like an official confirmation of lacking quality and significance, was issued only once.

197

Includes three works assessed as “typum non meretur.”

198

Includes four works assessed as “typum non meretur.”

199

Only four prohibition lists exist for this year, namely those from January to the second half of February; the Revolution began in mid-March.

200

3 Greek, 1 Hungarian.

201

5 Greek, 3 Hungarian, 4 Spanish.

202

2 Greek, 1 Hungarian, 1 Serbian.

203

1 Greek, 1 Hebrew, 1 Hungarian.

204

1 Greek, 4 Hebrew, 1 Serbian, 2 Spanish.

205

1 Hebrew, 1 Serbian.

206

1 Greek, 2 Hebrew.

207

1 Greek, 3 Hebrew, 1 Hungarian, 2 Spanish.

208

3 Greek, 4 Hebrew, 1 Hungarian, 1 Spanish.

209

1 Greek, 4 Hebrew, 1 Serbian, 1 Portuguese.

210

1 Hebrew, 2 Serbian.

211

1 Hungarian, 1 Portuguese.

212

1 Greek, 1 Hebrew, 2 Hungarian, 1 Serbian.

213

2 Greek, 7 Hungarian, 2 Serbian.

214

2 Hungarian, 3 Serbian, 2 Spanish.

215

5 Hebrew, 4 Hungarian, 2 Serbian.

216

4 Hebrew, 1 Hungarian, 4 Serbian, 1 Ukrainian.

217

11 Hebrew, 1 Spanish.

218

2 Hebrew, 2 Hungarian, 1 Russian.

219

3 Hebrew, 1 Serbian, 1 Slovenian.

220

14 Hebrew, 5 Hungarian.

221

2 Hebrew, 1 Hungarian, 1 Spanish, 1 Russian.

222

4 Hebrew, 4 Hungarian, 1 Wallachian, 2 Serbian, 1 Slovenian, 1 Russian.

223

2 Hebrew, 10 Hungarian, 1 Serbian, 1 Illyrian, 1 Russian.

224

1 Greek, 1 Hebrew, 1 Yiddish, 2 Hungarian.

225

1 Hebrew, 1 Yiddish, 36 Hungarian, 1 Spanish.

226

1 Hebrew, 3 Hungarian, 2 Serbian, 1 Slovak.

227

Author names are provided for 14,836 of the 33,077 banned works; the remainder were recorded in the lists anonymously.

228

On this, cf. Wittmann: Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels, 201–203.

229

Along with Campe, Reclam, Löwenthal, Otto and Georg Wigand, and several others, Brockhaus and Cotta were among the publishers under special observation by the Mainzer Informationsbüro; cf. Hoefer: Pressepolitik, 137.

230

Ibid., 221.

231

Gert Ueding: Hoffmann und Campe. Ein deutscher Verlag. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe 1981, 292: “Ohne die deutschen Zensurverhältnisse, ohne die dauernde Bedrohung von Verbot, Beschlagnahme, Verurteilung hätte Julius Campe nie die Bedeutung erlangt, die Hoffmann und Campe zum Markenzeichen machte.”

232

Cf. Heinrich Eduard Brockhaus: Die Firma F.A. Brockhaus von der Begründung bis zum hundertjährigen Jubiläum 1805–1905. Leipzig: Brockhaus 1905 (facsimile Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut & F.A. Brockhaus 2005), 12–14, citation on page 13; and Acta Borussica. Neue Folge, 2. Reihe: Preußen als Kulturstaat. Abteilung II: Der preußische Kulturstaat in der politischen und sozialen Wirklichkeit. Vol. 6: Preußens Zensurpraxis von 1819 bis 1848 in Quellen. 1st half volume. Berlin: de Gruyter Akademie Forschung 2015, 278.

233

Holtz: Staatlichkeit und Obstruktion, 75.

234

Heinrich Eduard Brockhaus: Friedrich Arnold Brockhaus. Sein Leben und Wirken nach Briefen und andern Aufzeichnungen geschildert. 3 vols. Leipzig: Brockhaus 1872–1881, vol. 3, 368–369: “Der Verleger und Herausgeber des ‘Conversations-Lexicon’ könne schwerlich in Abrede stellen, daß er seit mehrern Jahren einer der rastlosesten Beförderer der Lehren und Meinungen gewesen, die nach den unwandelbaren Ueberzeugungen der k. k. Regierung mit der Ruhe der Welt und dem wahren Wohle der Völker unvereinbar sind; der bei weitem größere Theil seines Verlags habe bis auf die allerneuesten Zeiten in Schriften bestanden, die mit den gefährlichsten Umtrieben der Zeit genau zusammenhingen, und er habe bei mehr als einer Gelegenheit bewiesen, daß nicht blos mercantilische Speculation, sondern ein persönlicher Wunsch und Trieb, der Partei, welche alle bestehenden Ordnungen aufzulösen sucht, zu dienen, ihn bei seinen Unternehmungen leitete.”

235

Cf. Brockhaus: Die Firma F.A. Brockhaus, 21.

236

Article “Brockhaus’ Konversationslexikon.” In: Houben: Verbotene Literatur, 81–90.

237

The titles were: Geschichte Andreas Hofer’s, Sandwirths aus Passeyr, Oberanführer der Tyroler im Kriege von 1809 (1817), and: Das Heer von Innerösterreich unter den Befehlen des Erzherzogs Johann im Kriege von 1809 in Italien, Tyrol und Ungarn. Von einem Stabsoffizier des k. k. Generalquartiermeister-Stabes eben dieser Armee (1817). Cf. Brockhaus: Friedrich Arnold Brockhaus, vol. 1, 374–380.

238

Archiv der Korporation der Wiener Buch-, Kunst- und Musikalienhändler, 1821, 26 (1/13/1821): “[…] Speculationsgeschäft das sie mit dem schon seit längerer Zeit im politischen Sinn übel berüchtigten Buchhändler Brockhaus auf ihr Risico eingingen, nunmehr zu ihrem Nachtheil ausschlägt.”

239

On later prohibitions of the Conversations-Lexikon, cf. Julius Marx: Die amtlichen Verbotslisten. In: Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 9 (1956), 150–185, here 169.

240

See Wittmann: Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels, 211.

241

Cf. Bernhard Fischer: Johann Friedrich Cotta. Verleger—Entrepreneur—Politiker. Göttingen: Wallstein 2014, 124.

242

Ibid., 121: “[…] wieder einmal vom Endkampf des republikanischen und des despotischen Systems.”

243

Quoted according to Hans-Joachim Lang: Johann Friedrich Cottas 1798 in Tübingen gegründete politische Tageszeitung. In: Evamarie Blattner, Georg Braungart, Helmuth Mojem, and Karlheinz Wiegmann (eds.): Von der Zensur zum Weltverlag. 350 Jahre Cotta. Tübingen: Kulturamt 2009, 53–59.

244

Eduard Heyck: Die Allgemeine Zeitung 1798–1898. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Presse. Munich: Verlag der allgemeinen Zeitung 1898, 53–54.

245

See Fischer: Johann Friedrich Cotta, 129.

246

Cf. ibid., 214–226.

247

Fischer: Johann Friedrich Cotta, 332; Heyck: Die Allgemeine Zeitung, 239.

248

Quoted in Giese: Studie zur Geschichte der Pressegesetzgebung, col. 370: “[…] ein derlei Verbot nur die Neugierde reizt, und zur Veranlassung wird, daß derlei Blätter, die man sich doch auf andern Wegen zu verschaffen sucht, nur um so aufmerksamer und begieriger gelesen werden.”

249

Quoted ibid.: “[…] im geraden Wege zu revoluzionären Wünschen, und endlich zu wirklichen Anschlägen und Verbindungen gegen die Regierungen […] klare Maßregeln gegen diesen Zeitungsunfug.”

250

August Prinz: Der Buchhandel vom Jahre 1815 bis zum Jahre 1843. Bausteine zu einer späteren Geschichte des Buchhandels. Zweite verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage. Altona: Verlags-Bureau 1855 (Reprint Heidelberg: Winter 1981), 18: “Die Hauptproducenten dieser Richtung sind die Herren Voigt in Weimar und Basse in Quedlinburg, denen sich später Herr Fürst in Nordhausen zugesellte, der die Sache aber so übertrieb, daß die ersten Herren fast ganz das früher sehr gepflegte Genre verließen, um nicht mit den Productionen des Herrn Fürst in eine Klasse geworfen zu werden.”

251

Ibid., 19: “Zuerst war er sehr thätig in der Erzeugung von Räuberromanen, dann trat er peu à peu in die Volksmedicin über, ohne dabei die übrigen Branchen der Volksliteratur zu vernachlässigen, wie z. B. ‘Käsebereitung,’ ‘Destillation,’ ‘Mästung des Viehs’ u. s. w.”

252

Sangmeister: Erkundungen in einem wilden Feld, 28: “[…] aufgrund des undurchdringlichen Gestrüpps von Fingierungen, Maskierungen und fehlenden Informationen in den Impressen längst nicht alle Titel des Verlags als Produkte von Vollmer identifiziert werden.”

253

Ibid., 13.

254

Quoted according to Kießhauer: Otto Friedrich Wigand, 168: “Aus dem Anlasse, daß in dem Verlage des Buchhändlers Otto Wigand zu Leipzig soeben eine incendiarische Flugschrift in ungarischer Sprache unter dem Titel ‘Anti-urbér valtság’ erschienen ist, von welcher mehrere tausend Exemplare über die Bukowina und Siebenbürgen nach Ungarn eingeschwärzt wurden, und mit Rücksicht auf den Umstand, daß dieser Buchhändler sich schon mehrere Male als Werkzeug zur Verbreitung die verwerflichsten, staatsgefährlichsten und verbrecherischsten Lehren enthaltender Erzeugnisse der Druckpresse gebrauchen ließ, im Bunde mit dem gleich ihm äußerst schlecht berüchtigten Leipziger Verleger Reclam jun. eine Menge der aufreizendsten und lügenhaftesten Schmähschriften gegen die österreichische Regierung herausgab […] und da zur wirksamen Abstellung solchen Hochverrat und Aufruhr bezweckenden Unfuges dieser auswärtigen Buchhändler die gewöhnlichen gesetzlichen Zensurverfügungen nicht ausreichen: so haben Se. k. k. Majestät nach Inhalt eines hohen Hofdekrets vom 21/26 März, mit allerhöchster Entschließung vom 13. März, den Debit sämmtlicher Verlagsartikel der Otto Wigandschen Buchhandlung und der Buchhandlung des Reclam jun. zu Leipzig in allen ihren Staaten und unter ausdrücklicher Verantwortung der inländischen Buchhändler zu verbieten für gut befunden.”

255

Cf. Wittmann: Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels, 224.

256

On this, cf. the documentation by Volker Titel and Frank Wagner: Angeklagt: Reclam & Consorten. Der Zensur- und Kriminalfall “Das Zeitalter der Vernunft” 1846–1848. Beucha: Sax-Verlag 1998.

257

E.P. Thompson: The Making of the English Working Class. Harmondsworth: Penguin 1982, 105–106.

258

Cf. Christian Liedtke: Julius Campe und das “Österreichische System.” Unbekannte Buchhändlerbriefe zum Verlagsverbot von 1847. In: Christian Liedtke (ed.): Literatur und Verlagswesen im Vormärz. Bielefeld: Aisthesis 2011, 121–138, here 122–125.

259

See Marx: Die amtlichen Verbotslisten. Neue Beiträge, 439.

260

Cf. Über die Presse in Österreich. In: Revue östreichischer Zustände 1843, vol. 2, 23–45; printed in: Madeleine Rietra (ed.): Jung Österreich, 54, which mentions a fine of 800 thalers.

261

Andrian-Werburg: “Österreich wird meine Stimme erkennen lernen,” vol. 1, 367 (2/22/1843).

262

Cf. Rudolf Schmidt: Deutsche Buchhändler, deutsche Buchdrucker. Berlin and Eberswalde 1902–1908. Reprint Hildesheim, New York: Olms 1979, 549.

263

Prinz: Der Buchhandel vom Jahre 1815 bis zum Jahre 1843, 42.

264

Cf. ibid.

265

On this section, cf. Marx: Österreichs Kampf, 16–24.

266

Cf. Wittmann: Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels, 222–223. According to an entry in Andrian’s diary, Muth allegedly offered Campe the sizeable sum of 20,000 guilders in exchange for disclosure of the author’s name: Andrian-Werburg: “Österreich soll meine Stimme erkennen lernen,” vol. 1, 422, (9/8/1843).

267

Ibid., vol. 1, 468 (12/21/1843): “auf jede mögliche Weise, selbst durch Berauschung mit Champagner.”

268

Thomas Christian Müller: Der Schmuggel politischer Schriften. Bedingungen exilliterarischer Öffentlichkeit in der Schweiz und im Deutschen Bund (1830–1848). Tübingen: Niemeyer 2001, 69: “[…] ‘Who’s who’ der literarischen Opposition im deutschen Vormärz”; on the prohibition, see pages 73 and 282. A comprehensive list of the persons intensively observed by the Mainz informers can be found in Hoefer: Pressepolitik, 135.

269

Müller: Der Schmuggel politischer Schriften, 279–286.

270

See Prinz: Der Buchhandel vom Jahre 1815 bis zum Jahre 1843, 16. Wittmann: Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels, 212, speaks of “near reprints” (“Fast-Nachdrucken”).

271

See Giles Barber: Treuttel and Würtz. Some Aspects of the Importation of Books from France, c. 1825. In: The Library, fifth series, vol. 23, no. 2 (1968), 118–144.

  • Collapse
  • Expand