Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science and Its Publics: Internationality and National Languages in Central Europe

  • Chapter
The Nationalization of Scientific Knowledge in the Habsburg Empire, 1848–1918

Abstract

Shortly after the collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy, the newly emerged successor states faced fundamental changes in the scientific infrastructure of Central Europe. The end of the multinational empire meant a gain of autonomy in science policy, and political sovereignty was perceived as a new chance to pursue what seemed to have been restricted in the past, the cultivation of science independently of foreign influences. Contemporary discussions as to what form the new science should take, however, showed that the nationalization of science that had been pursued during the nineteenth century had lost its attractiveness and was being gradually replaced by pronounced internationalism. 1 With the nation seen as the primary point of reference, science was now consciously transgressing cultural boundaries. For example, linguist Andrzej Gawroński stated during a debate on the reform of scientific infrastructure in Poland after 1918 that only when scholars representing different styles of research met and communicated could objective and unbiased truth be obtained. 2 In this regard internationalism and interculturality became the same term. Whereas nationality represented unified and standardized culture, international science was to be a mixture of psychologically and linguistically defined styles of research, which would now be called ‘national sciences’. 3

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. For approaches to the relationship between the nationalization and inter-nationalization of science, see Mitchell G. Ash (2000) ‘Internationalisierung und Entinternationalisierung der Wissenschaften im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert – Thesen’, in Manfred Lechner and Dietmar Seiler (eds.) zeitgeschichte.at. Österreichischer Zeithistorikertag 1999 (Innsbruck: StudienVerlag), 4–12;

    Google Scholar 

  2. Elisabeth Crawford (1992) Nationalism and Internationalism in Science, 1880–1939: Four Studies of the Nobel Population (Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press), esp. 79–106;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  3. Ralph Jessen and Jakob Vogel (2002) ‘Die Naturwissenschaften und die Nation. Perspektiven einer Wechselbeziehung in der europäischen Geschichte’, in idem (eds.) Wissenschaft und Nation in der europäischen Geschichte (Frankfurt am Main, New York: Campus Verlag), 7–37.

    Google Scholar 

  4. An interesting approach to (inter)nationalism in physics can be found in Matthew Konieczny (2008) ‘Science and culture on the imperial periphery: the worldview of Władysław Natanson’, in Arnold Suppan and Richard Lein (eds.) From the Habsburgs to Central Europe: The Centers for Austrian and Central European Studies at the Universities of Stanford, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Edmonton, Jerusalem, Budapest and Vienna (Vienna, Berlin: LIT Verlag), 113–29.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Andrzej Gawroński (1923) ‘Nauka narodowa czy międzynarodowa’ [National or international science?], Nauka Polska. Jej potrzeby, organizacja i rozwój , 4, 36–44; though different solutions were proposed during this debate, the internationality of science was a position on which most speakers agreed.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gawroński supported his view with ideas of the Polish philosopher Wincenty Lutosławski; see especially Wincenty Lutosławski (1913) Volonté et Liberté (Paris: Félix Alcan), 266–68.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Similar thoughts were expressed at the beginning of the twentieth century by the Czech philosopher Emanuel Rádl; see Tomáš Hermann (2003) ‘Originalita vědy a problém plagiátu. Tři výstupy Emanuela Rádla k jazykové otázce ve vědě z let 1902–1911’ [Authenticity of science and the issue of plagiarism. Contributions of E. Rádl to the language issues in science], in Harald Binder, Barbora Křivohlavá and Luboš Velek (eds.) Místo národnich jazyku ve výuce, vědě a vzdělání v Habsburské monarchii 1867–1918 [Position of National Languages in Education, Educational System and Science of the Habsburg Monarchy 1867–1918] (Praha: Výzkumné centrum pro dějiny vědy), 441–68.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Philipp Ther (2007) ‘Das Europa der Nationalkulturen: Die Nationalisierung und Europäisierung der Oper im “langen” 19. Jahrhundert’, Journal of Modern European History , 5, 39–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. For methodological approach to nationalism and internationalism in Central Europe from the perspective of political history see also Kerstin Jobst (1996) Zwischen Nationalismus und Internationalismus: Die polnische und ukrainische Sozialdemokratie in Galizien von 1890 bis 1914. Ein Beitrag zur Nationalitätenfrage des Habsburgerreichs (Hamburg: Dölling und Galitz).

    Google Scholar 

  10. This process is analysed in Jan Surman (2009) ‘Imperial Knowledge? Die Wissenschaften in der späten Habsburgermonarchie zwischen Kolonialismus, Nationalismus und Imperialismus’, Wiener Zeitschrift zur Geschichte der Neuzeit , 9/2, 119–33.

    Google Scholar 

  11. The constructed character of the term ‘nation’ has recently been explored in a series of publications, none of which proposes an alternative, non-emotional designator. In this article all notions in quotes are thus actor-categories used by nationalists in nation-building discourse.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See the fundamental work of Barbara Skarga (1964) Narodziny pozytywizmu polskiego, 1831–1864 [The Beginnings of Polish Positivism, 1831–1864] (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe); for Czech appropriation of the concept of organic work

    Google Scholar 

  13. See Miloš Havelka (1998) ‘“Nepolitická politika”: kontexty a tradice’ [“Non-Political Politics”: Contexts and Traditions], Sociologický časopis , 34/4, 455–66.

    Google Scholar 

  14. For example, in the 1870s the Cracow daily Country ( Kraj ) published the first translation of Charles Darwin into Polish and also one of the first social-Darwinist books in Polish, Ludwik Masłowski’s Prawo postępu: Studium przyrodniczo-społeczne [The Law of Progress. A Social-Naturalist Study]; another Cracow daily, Time ( Czas ) published inter alia the inaugural lectures of professors at the Jagiellonian University and presentations in the Cracow Learned Society; alternating with literary texts, scientific literature was published, beginning on the front page, in parts over several weeks.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See Hans Lemberg (2003) ‘Die Einführung der deutschen Unterrichtssprache in den deutschen Universitäten und ihre Auswirkungen auf Ostmitteleuropa’, in Binder, Křivohlavá and Velek (eds.) Místo národnich jazyku , 169–82.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See, for example, Karel Ignac Thám (1783) Obrana gazyka českého protí zlobiwým geho vtrhacům, též mnohým wlastencům, w cwičenj se w něm liknawým a nedbalým sepsaná [Apology of the Czech Language Against Slenderers as well as many Countrymen Negligent and Indolent in the Practice of the Language] (Praha: J.F. ze Schönfeldu)

    Google Scholar 

  17. And Josef Dobrovský (1791) Über die Ergebenheit und Anhänglichkeit der Slawischen Völker an das Erzhaus Oesterreich (Prague).

    Google Scholar 

  18. For an English translation of Thám by Derek Paton with comments on the genre, see Balázs Trencsényi and Michal Kopeček (eds.) (2006) Discourses of Collective Identity in Central and Southeast Europe 1770–1945, Vol. I. Late Enlightenment – Emergence of the Modern ‘National Idea’ (Budapest: CEU Press), 205–9.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Onufry Andrzej Kopczyński (1804) O duchu języka polskiego: wstęp. Na posiedzeniu publicznem dnia 16 listopada 1804 [On the Spirit of the Polish Language: Introduction. Read at the Public Meeting on 16. November 1804] (Warsaw), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Karel Ignac Thám, Obrana gazyka českého , quoted in translation by Derek Paton (see note 11).

    Google Scholar 

  21. See Jürgen Schriewe (1998) Die Macht der Sprache: Eine Geschichte der Sprachkritik von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (Munich: Beck).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jan Svatopluk Presl (1837) Nerostopis, čili, Mineralogia [Decription of Minerals, or, Mineralogy] (Prague: Jan Spurný), iv.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jan Śniadecki (1818) ‘O logice i retoryce’ [On Logics and Rhetoric], in Pisma rozmaite Jana Śniadeckiego, Tom III. Zawieraiący listy i rozprawy o naukach [Various Writings of Jan Śniadecki. Vol. 3 including letters and essays on the sciences] (Wilno: Józef Zawadzki), 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jan Śniadecki, ‘O ięzyku polskim’ [On the Polish Language], ibid., 1–121, here 6.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ibid., 66.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ibid., 22.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jan Śniadecki (1837 [1813]) ‘O ięzyku narodowym w matematyce. Rzecz czytana na posiedzeniu Literackiem Uniwersytetu Wileńskiego dnia 15. Listopada roku 1813. v.s’ [On National Language in Mathematics. Presented at a Literary Meeting at Wilno University on 15. November 1813], in Michał Baliński (ed.) Dzieła Jana Śniadeckiego [The Works of Jan Śniadecki], vol. 3 (Warszawa: Emanuel Glücksberg), 183–204, here 195.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Śniadecki, ‘O logice i retoryce’, 199.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jan Śniadecki (1802) ‘O obserwacyach astronomicznych’ [On Astronomical Observations], Rocznik Towarzystwa Warszawskiego Przyjaciół Nauk , 1, 432–526;

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jan Śniadecki (1818) Jeografia, czyli opisanie matematyczne i fizyczne ziemi [Geography, that is, Mathematical and Physical Description of the Earth] (Wilno: Józef Zawadzki).

    Google Scholar 

  31. See also Jadwiga Waniakowa (2004) ‘Historia polskiego podstawowego słownictwa astronomicznego na tle słowiańskim’ [The history of Polish basic astronomical vocabulary on the Slavic background], Studia z Filologii Polskiej i Słowiańskie j, 39, 157–78.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jędrzej Śniadecki (1840 [1830]) ‘Przedmowa do Dziennika Medycyny, Chirurgii i Farmacji przez Cesarskie Towarzystwo Lekarskie w Wilnie roku 1830 wydawanego’ [Introduction to the Journal of Medicine, Surgery and Pharmacy, published by the Imperial Medical Society in Wilno in 1830], in Michał Baliński (ed.) Dzieła Jędrzeja Śniadeckiego [Works of Jędrzej Śniadecki], vol. 3 (Warszawa: Emmanuel Glücksberg), 7–22, here 16.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cf. Letter to the editor by Jędrzej Śniadecki in (1817) Pamiętnik Warszawski, czyli Dziennik Nauk i Umieiętności , 7, 385–401.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Josef Jungmann (1873) ‘O jazyku českém’ [On the Czech Language], in Národní Bibliotéka (ed.) Josefa Jungmanna Sebrané drobné spisy: veršem i prosou [Josef Jungmann’s collected shorter works: in verse and prose], vol. I (Praha: I. L. Kober), 3–29.

    Google Scholar 

  35. For similarities and differences between Herder and Jungmann, see J.P. Stern (1989) ‘Language consciousness and nationalism in the age of Bernard Bolzano’, Journal of European Studies , 19, 169–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. See, for example, Alois Jedlička (1948) Josef Jungmann a obrozenská terminologie literárně vědná a linguistická [Josef Jungmann and Literary-Scientific and Linguistic Terminology of the National Revival] (Praha: Česká akademie věd a umění);

    Google Scholar 

  37. Teresa Wanda Orłoś (1980) Polsko-czeskie związki językowe [Polish-Czech Language Relations] (Wrocław: PAN, Ossolineum), esp. 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Similarly non-vernacular was the historically oriented biological terminology of Jan Svatopulk Presl. See Veli Kolari (1973) ‘Notes on Jan Svatopulk Presl as terminologist’, Scando-Slavica , 19/1, 187–95.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cf. Jaroslav Batušek (1968) ‘Zur Problematik der deutsch-tschechischen Beziehungen im Bereich der Geschichte der tschechischen physikalischen Terminologie’, in Bohuslav Havránek and Rudolf Fischer (eds.) Deutschtschechische Beziehungen im Bereich der Sprache und Kultur. Aufsätze und Studien II (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag), 85–95;

    Google Scholar 

  40. Jan Janko and Soňa Štrbáňová (2003) ‘Uplatnění nového českého přírodovědného názvosloví na českých vysokých školách v průběhu 19. století’ [Assertion of the new Czech scientific nomenclature at the Czech universities during the nineteenth century], in Binder, Křivohlavá and Velek (eds.) Místo národnich jazyku , 297–312.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Vladímir Macura (1998) ‘Problems and Paradoxes of National Revival’, in Mikuáš Teich (ed.) Bohemia in History (Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press), 182–96, goes so far as to state that the Czech literature of the time created its own semiosphere (Juri Lotman). For the broader context of this thesis see Vladímir Macura (1995) Znamení zrodu: česke národní obrození jako kulturní typ [Signs of the Birth. The Czech National Revival as a Cultural Type] (Praha: H&H), especially the criticism of the abundance of Czech word formations from the viewpoint of structuralism, 51–2.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Vladímir Macura (1998) ‘Problems and Paradoxes of National Revival’, in Mikuláš Teich (ed.) Bohemia in History (Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press), 182–96, goes so far as to state that the Czech literature of the time created its own semiosphere (Juri Lotman). For the broader context of this thesis see Vladímir Macura (1995) Znamení zrodu: česke národní obrození jako kulturní typ [Signs of the Birth. The Czech National Revival as a Cultural Type] (Praha: H&H), especially the criticism of the abundance of Czech word formations from the viewpoint of structuralism, 51–2.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Władysław Natanson to Ludwik Gumplowicz, 13 December 1888, Jagiellonian Library, division of manuscripts, signature 9007 III, vol. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  44. (Jan Svatopulk Presl and Karl Bořiwog Presl) Joanne Swatopluko Presl and Carolo Bořiwogo Presl (1819) Flora čechica: indicatis medicinalibus, oeconomicis techno-logicisque plantis/Kwětena česká: s poznamenánjm lékařských, hospodářských a řemeslnických rostlin (Prague: J. G. Calve).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Stanisław Bonifacy Jundziłł (1811) Opisanie roślin litewskich według układu Linneusza [Description of Lithuanian Plants according to the Linnaean System] (Wilno: Józef Zawadzki).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Alicja Zemanek, ‘Koleje życia Józefa Rostafińskiego’ [Life of Józef Rostafiński] in idem (ed.) Józef Rostafiński. Botanik i humanista (Kraków: PAU), 19–99.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See, for example, Emilian Czyrniański (1853) Polskie słownictwo chemiczne [Polish chemical vocabulary] (Kraków: Czas).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Orłoś, Polsko-czeskie związki językowe ; on Volian see Michael Moser (2005) ‘Some Viennese contributions to the development of Ukrainian terminologies’, in Giovanna Brogi-Bercoff and Giulia Lami (eds.) Ukraine’s Re-integration into Europe: A Historical, Historiographical and Politically Urgent Issue (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso), 139–80, here 154–75.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Teresa Ostrowska (1973) Polskie czasopiśmiennictwo lekarskie w XIX wieku (1800– 1900): Zarys historyczno-bibliograficzny [Polish medical journals market in the nineteenth century (1800–1900). Historical-bibliographical outline] (Wrocław: Zakład narodowy im. Ossolińskich), 177.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Jan Baudouin de Courtenay (1900) Głos członka Akademii J. Baudouina de Courtenay w sprawie słownictwa chemii [The opinion of Academy member J. Baudouin de Courtenay on chemical vocabulary] (Kraków: Akademia Umiejętności).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ibid., 12.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See Andrzej Grabowski (1900) Polskie słownictwo chemiczne [Polish chemical vocabulary] (Warsaw: Warszawskie Towarzystwo Akcyjne Artystyczno-Wydawnicze);

    Google Scholar 

  53. Emilian Czyrniański (1881) Słownictwo chemiczne (Kraków: Akademia Umiejętności).

    Google Scholar 

  54. See (1865) ‘Kritika: “Slovnik lékařské terminologie”’ [Review: Dictionary of medical terminology], Časopis lékařův českých , 6, 46–57; 7/4, 55, here 55. The anonymous author meant that the dictionary was still full of German words, and should be corrected even if such words were widely used in practice (46).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Emilian Czyrniański (1872) O słownictwie chemiczném polskiém: Odbitka z Bibljoteki umięjetności przyrodniczych [On Polish chemical vocabulary. Reprint from Biblioteka umięjetności przyrodniczych] (Kraków: A. Dygasiński, W. Tomaszewicz);

    Google Scholar 

  56. Józef Rostafiński (1887) ‘Kilka słów o naszéj nomenklaturze i terminologii botanicznej na tle historii botaniki w Polsce’ [A few remarks on our botanic nomenclature and terminology on the background of history of botany in Poland], Wszechświat , 9/6, 138–40.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mieczysław Bąk (1984) Powstanie i rozwój polskiej terminologii nauk ścisłych [The creation and development of Polish terminology of exact sciences] (Wrocław: Zakład narodowy im. Ossolińskich, PAN), 154.

    Google Scholar 

  58. F[rantišek] J[osef] Studnička (1876) ‘O rozvoji naši literatury fysikální za posledních padesáte let’ [On the development of our physical literature in the last fifty years], Časopis musea království českého , 50, 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  59. For the development of a Ruthenian/Ukrainian scientific language see, for example, Marina Höfinghoff (2008) ‘Entwicklung der chemischen Terminologie in Galizien (Mitte des XIX.–Anfang des XX. Jh.)’, Zeitschrift für Slawistik , 4/53, 403–37;

    Google Scholar 

  60. Iryna Romanivna Procyk (1999) Ukrajinska fizyčna terminolohija druhoji polovyny XIX – peršoji tretyny XX stolittja dyssertacya kand. filol. nauk [Ukrainian physical terminology of the second half of the nineteenth and the first third of the twentieth century. PhD Dissertation] (L’viv: Nacional’nyj Universytet imeni Ivana Franka).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Jürgen Schriewe (1998) Die Macht der Sprache (cit. note 14), esp. 86–97.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Derek Sayer (1996) ‘The language of nationality and the nationality of language: Prague, 1780–1920’, Past and Present , 153, 164–210, here 193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. The issue of cultural constriction was differently coded in national and imperial discourse. See Jan Surman (forthcoming) ‘Symbolizm, komunikacja i hierarchia kultur: Galicyjski dyskurs hegemonii językowej początku drugiej polowy XIX wieku’ [Symbolism, communication and cultural hierarchy: Galician discourse of language hegemony in the early second half of the nineteenth century], Historyka. Studia Metodologiczne

    Google Scholar 

  64. For Czech and Slovak languages see [Jan Kollár] (1846) Hlasowé o potřebě jednoty spisovného jazyka pro Čechy, Moravany a Slowáky [Voices on the necessity of a unified literary language for the Czech, Moravians and Slovaks] (W Praze: Nákladem Českého museum: V kommissí u Kronbergra i Řiwnáče);

    Google Scholar 

  65. For Moravian language separatism see Ondřej Bláha (2005) ‘Moravský jazykový separatismus: zdroje, cíle, slovanský kontext’ [Moravian linguistic separatism: Origins, aims, Slavic context], Studia Moravica. Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis Facultas Philosophica Moravica , 293–99;

    Google Scholar 

  66. For Ruthenian/Ukrainian in general see Alexei Miller and Oksana Ostapchuk (2009) ‘The Latin and Cyrillic alphabets in Ukrainian national discourse and in the language policy of empires’, in Georgiy Kasianov and Philip Ther (eds.) A Laboratory of Transnational History: Ukraine and Recent Ukrainian Historiography (Budapest, New York: Central European University Press), 167–210;

    Google Scholar 

  67. See also below for a description of the main currents. For Polish and the competition between two ideas of the Polish language, one based on central dialects and one on eastern dialects, unsuccessfully proposed by Piotr Semeńko (Semenko) to unite Poles and Ruthenians, see Włodzimierz Borodziej, Błażej Brzostek and Maciej Górny (2005) ‘Polnische Europa-Pläne des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts’, in Włodzimierz Borodziej and Heinz Duchhardt (eds.) Option Europa: deutsche, polnische und ungarische Europapläne des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts, Band 3 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 43–166, here 63;

    Google Scholar 

  68. Brian Porter (2000) When Nationalism Began to Hate: Imagining Modern Politics in Nineteenth-century Poland (New York: Oxford University Press), 19–21;

    Google Scholar 

  69. And in general Daniel Beauvois (1996) Histoire de la Pologne (Paris: Hatier), 169–91.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Kazimierz Opałek (1977) ‘Oświecenie’ [Enlightenment], in Bogdan Suchodolski (ed.) Historia nauki polskiej. T. 3, 1795–1862 [History of Polish Science. Vol. 3, 1795–1862] (Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, Polska Akademia Nauk, Zakład Historii Nauki, Oświaty i Techniki), 233–465, here 322–329.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Jan Evangelista Purkyně (1787–1869) had been the lead editor of the journal between 1821 and 1840; Krok means ‘step’ but is also a reference to the mythological figure of the ancient Czech ruler (sometimes magician or arbitrator) from Kosmas’ Chronica Boemorum (1119–1125).

    Google Scholar 

  72. The journal appeared at first as a dual publication: Časopis Společnosti wlastenského museum w Čechách and Monatsschrift der Gesellschaft des Vaterländischen Museums in Böhmen [Journal of the Society of Bohemian National Museum], the two parts aiming at different publics and including different articles. On account of low readership, the German-language journal was abandoned 1832; the Czech one was renamed Časopis Českeho Museum , and because of financial problems, was put under the patronage of The Czech Foundation (Matice česká), an autonomous branch of the Museum concerned with support for Czech literature and at the same time a printing house for a number of texts that played a significant role in the nation-building process.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Roughly, Russophiles were proposing a dialect based on Old Church Slavonic and close cooperation with Russia; Moskwophiles were opting for a nation dependent on the Russian Empire with a language close to Russian; Ukrainophiles were striving to establish an independent nation with a language based on the Poltava dialect of Taras Shevchenko, uniting Ukraine (that is, a part of the Russian Empire) and Eastern Galicia. This terminology also makes a distinction between Russophile and Moskwophile, which is not widely used in historical literature, where these are treated as synonyms; although these two groups are close to each other, their alliance dates only from the late nineteenth century. See John-Paul Himka (1999) ‘The construction of nationality in Galician Rus’: Icarian flights in almost all directions’, in Ronald Grigor Suny and Michael D. Kennedy (eds.) Intellectuals and the Articulation of the Nation (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press), 109–64.

    Google Scholar 

  74. And Zapysky of the Shevchenko Scientific Society, which was based on the structure of writing of ‘western’ academies.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Medical journals in Ruthenian/Ukrainian appeared, however, only at the end of the nineteenth century, after journals for other disciplines.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Karel Chodounský (1911) ‘K padesátiletí “Časopisu lékařův českých”’ [Fiftieth anniversary of the Journal of Czech Physicians], Časopis lékařův českých , 50/53, 1602–04.

    Google Scholar 

  77. K. (1880) ‘Časopis pro pěstování mathematiky a fysiky, kterýž se zvláštním zřetelem k studujícím rediguje Dr. F. Studnička a vydává Jednota českých mathematiků’ [Review: Journal for the Support of Mathematics and Physics, edited with special consideration for students by F. Studnička and published by the Union of Czech Mathematicians], Časopis musea království českého , 54, 367–68.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Ostrowska, Polskie czasopiśmiennictwo lekarskie , 21, 120.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Depictions of congresses were often rich in detail and included personal opinions on their organization, and thus can be seen as extended versions of contemporary conference reports. Reports from travels included in the first place descriptions of laboratories, manual procedures and styles of research at particular institutions, and were often supported by scholarship and grant organizations.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Waldemar Kozuschek (2003) Jan Mikulicz-Radecki 1850–1905. Współtwórca nowoczesnej chirurgii/Johann von Mikulicz-Radecki. Mitbegründer der modernen Chirurgie (Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Uljana Jedlins’ka (2006) Kyrylo Studyns’kyj, 1868–1941: žyttjepysno-bibliohrafičnyj narys [Kyrylo Studyns’kyj, 1868–1941: Biographical-bibliographical outline] (L’viv: Naukove tovarystvo im. Ševčenka).

    Google Scholar 

  82. This distinction was frequent not only in German ( Stamm vs. Nationalität ) but also in Polish ( szczep vs. naród/narodowość ).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Such arguments were raised in Cracow in 1853, when the replacement of Polish by German as the language of instruction was supported by the Academic Senate of Jagiellonian University. From the 1860s onwards this position was advanced against the idea of a Ruthenian university (by Poles) and against the idea of a Czech university. See for Galicia Jan Surman (2009) ‘Die Figurationen der Akademia. Galizische Universitäten zwischen Imperialismus und multiplen Nationalismus’, in DK Galizien (ed.) Galizien – Fragmente eines diskursiven Raums (Innsbruck, Wien, Bozen: StudienVerlag), 17–40; for Bohemia, for example, (1882) ‘Das Ende der deutschen Universität in Prag’, Wiener Medizinische Wochenschrift , 7, 197–98,

    Google Scholar 

  84. And documents reprinted in Jaroslav Goll (1908) Rozdělení Pražské university Karlo-Ferdinandovy roku 1882 a počátek samostatné University české [The division of the Prague Charles-Ferdinand University and the beginning of a separate Czech university] (Prague: Nakl. Klubu historického).

    Google Scholar 

  85. See the literature quoted in the previous note, and for the Ruthenian university especially the petition of intellectuals for the establishment of a Ruthenian university in L’viv: Ivan Bartoševskyj, Myhajlo Hruševskyj, Ivan Dobrjanskyj, Stanyslav Dnistrjanskyj, Oleksander Kolessa, Josyf Komarnyckyj, Tyt. Myškovs’kyj, Petro Stebel’kyj, Kyrylo Studyn’skyj (1907) ‘Zajava ruskyh profesoriv universytetu y L’vovi’ [Petition of Ruthenian professors of the University in Lviv], Ruslan , 6/19.

    Google Scholar 

  86. The most direct formulation is in Hrushevskyi’s long article on the relations between scholarship and nation: Myhajlo Hruševs’kyj (2002) ‘Sprava ukrajins’kyh katedr i naši naukovi potreby’ [The question of Ukrainian chairs and our scientific needs], in Jaroslav Daškevyč, Ihor Hyryč, Hennadij Borjak and Pavlo Sohan’ (eds.) Myhajlo Hruševs’kyj. Tvory v 50 tomah, serija ‘Suspil’no-polityčni tvory’, vol. 1. 1894–1907 (L’viv: Svit), 458–84, here 473–74; the article was originally published in 1907 in Literaturno-Naukovyj Vistnyk , 37, 52–57, 213–20 and 408–18.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ivan Holovac’kyj (ed.) (2005) Naukovi praci, dokumenty i materialy profesora Ivana Horbačevs’koho [Scientific works, documents and materials of professor Ivan Horbačevs’kyj] (L’viv: Naukove tovarystvo im. Ševčenka, Biohemična komisija).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Permission to present under a ‘national’ banner differed from discipline to discipline and country to country. Congresses held in France were the first to divide speakers from the Habsburg Monarchy into nationalities, not without protests from imperial scholars. In the Russian Empire this was an additional platform for Russian–Ukrainian national conflict; see Serhii Plokhy (2005) Unmaking Imperial Russia: Mykhailo Hrushevsky and the Writing of Ukrainian History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), 49–53.

    Google Scholar 

  89. By the end of the nineteenth century, Czech historians, for example, were asked to publish more in German, because readership of Czech historiography was becoming confined to Czech publics. Of course, history was an international battlefield, in which international reading publics could be drawn towards the patronization of national claims. Especially Jaroslav Goll strove to compete with German historians in their language, in order to lend support to the Czech viewpoint on history and thus strengthen the popularity of the Czech national narrative. This fact was mentioned by Antonín Kostlán in his unpublished presentation ‘To be a good son of one’s nation … Czech historians between national program and scientific style’ at the XXIII International Congress of History of Science and Technology, Ideas and Instruments in Social Context, 28 July–2 August 2009, Budapest, Hungary.

    Google Scholar 

  90. August Seydler (1890) ‘Akademie česká a Společnost nauk’ [Czech Academy and the Scientific Society], Athenaeum. Listy pro literaturu a kritiku vědeckou , 3/8, 65–69; excerpts from and an analysis of Purkyně’s most interesting publication in this regard, Akademia (1861), can be found in Milan Kratochvíl (ed.) Jan Evangelista Purkyně a jeho snahy o reformu české školy [Jan Evangelista Purkyně and his efforts for a reform of the Czech/Bohemian schools] (Prague: SBN).

    Google Scholar 

  91. The Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences continued to exist until 1952, when it was merged with the Czech Academy of Sciences and the Arts (Česká akademie věd a umění císaře Františka Josefa I.) to form the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences (Československá akademie věd). In addition to the Czech Academy (founded as a private institution in 1890), its counterpart, the Society for the Advancement of German Science, Art and Literature in Bohemia, was established in 1891 as the Gesellschaft zur Förderung deutscher Wissenschaft, Kunst und Literatur in Böhmen.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Maryjan Raciboski (1888) ‘Do naszych przyrodników’ [To our naturalists], Wszechświat , 42/7, 668–70.

    Google Scholar 

  93. The most condensed argumentation is in August Wrześniowski (1888) Wszechświat , 47/7, 748–49.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Raciboski, ‘Do naszych przyrodników’, 670.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Władysław Gosiewski (1888) Wszechświat , 47/7, 749.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Ryszard Błędowski (1912) Szkic dziejów zoologii w Polsce od początku wieku XIX (Odbitka z Wszechświata) [Outline of the history of zoology in Poland since the beginning of the nineteenth century (Reprint from Wszechświat)] (Warsaw: L. Bogusławski).

    Google Scholar 

  97. The question why the name of the Kraków Academy is abbreviated here is also a language issue, since the translation of the Polish world umiejętność could be either ‘sciences and arts’ or ‘sciences’; in the first case it refers to the Enlightenment concept of science being both a theoretical and a practical activity, in the second to modern science.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Ostrowska, Polskie czasopiśmiennictwo lekarskie , 120–21.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Ludmila Hlaváčková (2003) ‘Čeština v medicíně a na pražské lékařské fakultě (1784–1918)’ [The Czech language in medicine and at the Prague Medical Faculty (1784–1918)], in Binder, Křivohlavá, Velek (eds.) Místo národnich jazyku , 327–44.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Author’s calculation on the basis of annually published lists of professors of the University 1888–1913 in Chronicles of Jagiellonian University (Kroniki Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego).

    Google Scholar 

  101. Because of the inclusion of popular articles in this calculation, the actual proportion of foreign scientific publications should be regarded as higher.

    Google Scholar 

  102. See the discussions in Przegląd Powszechny 1908 (vol. 100, 1*–24*), with several scholars commenting on the issue; most speakers agreed that the boycott should not include scientific publications, instruments, participation in congresses and organizations, or studies at German universities.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Ibid., 24*.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Jan Surman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Vienna, Austria

    Mitchell G. Ash (Professor of Modern History) (Professor of Modern History)

  2. Department of History, University of Vienna, Austria

    Jan Surman

Copyright information

© 2012 Mitchell G. Ash and Jan Surman

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Surman, J. (2012). Science and Its Publics: Internationality and National Languages in Central Europe. In: Ash, M.G., Surman, J. (eds) The Nationalization of Scientific Knowledge in the Habsburg Empire, 1848–1918. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137264978_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137264978_2

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-33112-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-26497-8

  • eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation