SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal VOLUME 26 (2021/I) Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands SLAVICA TER 26 SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal VOLUME 26 (2021/I) Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands SLAVICA TER 26 SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal 1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online) www.slavica-ter.org editors@slavica-ter.org Università degli Studi di Trieste Dipartimento di Scienze Giuridiche, del Linguaggio, dell’Interpretazione e della Traduzione Universität Konstanz Fachbereich Literaturwissenschaft Univerza v Ljubljani Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za slavistiko Roman Bobryk (Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities) Margherita De Michiel (University of Trieste) Tomáš Glanc (University of Zurich) Vladimir Feshchenko (Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences) Kornelija Ičin (University of Belgrade) Miha Javornik (University of Ljubljana) Jurij Murašov (University of Konstanz) Blaž Podlesnik (University of Ljubljana, technical editor) Ivan Verč (University of Trieste, editor in chief) Marijan Dović and Luka Vidmar Antonella D’Amelia (University of Salerno) Patrizia Deotto (University of Trieste) Nikolaj Jež (University of Ljubljana) Alenka Koron (Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies) Đurđa Strsoglavec (University of Ljubljana) Nenad Veličković (University of Sarajevo) Tomo Virk (University of Ljubljana) Mateo Žagar (University of Zagreb) Ivana Živančević Sekeruš (University of Novi Sad) Aljaž Vesel & Anja Delbello / AA Copyright by Authors ISSN WEB EMAIL PUBLISHED BY EDITORIAL BOARD ISSUE CO-EDITED BY EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD DESIGN & LAYOUT Contents Foreword Predgovor ❦ Marijan Dović, Luka viDMar Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Habsburška cenzura in literatura v slovenskih deželah ❦ Marijan Dović, Luka viDMar From Paternalism to Authoritarianism: Censorship in the Habsburg Monarchy (1750–1848) Od paternalizma do avtoritarnosti: cenzura v Habsburški monarhiji (1751–1848) ❦ norbert bachLeitner Banned Books in the Libraries of the Styrian Monasteries in the Early Modern Period Prepovedane knjige v samostanskih knjižnicah na Štajerskem v zgodnjem novem veku ❦ nina DitMajer Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works Prepovedana Schönlebnova mariološka dela ❦ Monika DežeLak trojar Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa: Between Catholic Tradition and Moderate Enlightenment Sekularizacija knjižne cenzure pod Marijo Terezijo: med katoliško tradicijo in zmernim razsvetljenstvom ❦ Luka viDMar 8 20 54 90 116 144 7 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Censorship in Carniola under Joseph II Cenzura na Kranjskem pod Jožefom II. ❦ anDrej Pastar Slovenian Manuscripts of the Late Baroque: Literary Tradition Defying the Enlightenment Censorship Slovenski rokopisi poznega baroka: kljubovanje literarne tradicije razsvetljenski cenzuri ❦ Matija ogrin Banned French, English, and American Authors, and Their Works in the Ljubljana Lyceum Library up to 1848 Prepovedani francoski, angleški in ameriški avtorji in njihova dela v licejski knjižnici v Ljubljani do leta 1848 ❦ sonja svoLjšak Censorship and the Literary Field: Kopitar, Čop, and Krajnska čbelica Cenzura in literarno polje: Kopitar, Čop in Krajnska čbelica ❦ Marko juvan Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 Slovenska literatura in cesarska cenzura po letu 1848 ❦ Marijan Dović Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana (1891–1904) Literarna cenzura in Dramatično društvo v Ljubljani (1891–1904) ❦ urška Perenič 172 196 222 244 268 296 Foreword ❦ Marijan Dović, Luka viDMar 9 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands This thematic issue of Slavica Tergestina was written as part of the project Slovenian Writers and Imperial Censorship in the Long Nineteenth Century (J6-2583), financially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency. The three-year project (2020–2023), led by Marijan Dović, continues the long-term research on censorship conducted in recent years by the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies, and it fol- lows up on the previous project Forbidden Books in the Slovenian Lands in the Early Modern Age, the first systematic study of book censorship in Slovenia in this period, supervised by Luka Vidmar at the institute from 2016 to 2018. This research is motivated by two basic premises; namely, that the nature of censorship practices is both constitutive and concealed. Censorship fundamentally shapes the landscape of the printed (and publicly spoken) word, but its traces often remain faint or are even erased. We are delving into an area that has been unsystematically researched so far because scholars have mostly focused on prominent individual cases and, more often than not, they have narrowed their attention to Slovenian territory due to the prevailing nationalist ori- entation of Slovenian philological disciplines, even though the centers of censorship policies were far away, in Vienna and Rome. The new millennium has brought renewed interest in censorship in Slovenia (cf. the bilingual thematic issue of Primerjalna književnost titled Literature and Censorship, edited by Marijan Dović, 2008; the collection of essays Cenzurirano [Censored], edited by Mateja Režek, 2010; the bilingual volume and exhibition And Yet They Read Them: Banned Books in Slovenia in the Early Modern Age by Luka Vidmar and Sonja Svoljšak, 2018; and the collection Cenzura na Slovenskem od protireformacije do predmarčne dobe [Censorship in Slovenia from the Counter-Reformation to the Pre-March Period], edited by Luka Vidmar, 2020). In addition, new 10 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Foreword large-scale studies on censorship in the Habsburg Monarchy (by Nor- bert Bachleitner, Michael Wögerbauer, Thomas Olechowski, and others) appeared, which finally allow more comprehensive insight into what was happening in the individual provinces. This thematic issue, intended for scholars that do not read Slovenian, clearly presents a historical cross-section of events in Slovenia, taking advantage of the panorama of the longue durée—the period from the beginning of the early modern age, marked by the invention of mov- able type, to the First World War, when radicalized war censorship came into effect, and the subsequent collapse of the empire. The spatial framework is provided by the Slovenian lands under the Habsburg crown (mainly Carniola, but also Carinthia and Styria); however, the local events are observed in the context of broader ecclesiastical and imperial censorship as well as in connection to other literary cultures (Latin, German-Austrian, Italian, Czech, Croatian, and Hungarian) that often coexisted in the same space. In line with the project premises, the studies focus in particular on censorship in the strict, narrower sense; that is, institutionalized forms of control over the circulation of texts, the essential dimension of which is the capacity to sanction, exercised by the repressive apparatus of the state. Several articles in this thematic issue were already published in Slo- venian in the 2020 volume Cenzura na Slovenskem od protireformacije do predmarčne dobe [Censorship in Slovenia from the Counter-Reforma- tion to the Pre-March Period], and here we offer them in translation, only slightly abridged and adapted for non-Slovenian readers (Ditma- jer, Deželak Trojar, Pastar, Ogrin, Svoljšak, and Juvan). One article has been thoroughly revised (Dović), and some are completely new (Dović and Vidmar, Bachleitner, Vidmar, and Perenič). We want to thank the company DEKS, especially Simona Lapanja and Donald Reindl, for the 11 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands excellent translations produced in close collaboration with the authors. We also thank the editors of Slavica Tergestina for the invitation and the opportunity to see this first effort at an overview of censorship practices in the Slovenian lands published in a journal based in the city that was once the central commercial port of the Habsburg Monarchy. *** This thematic issue consists of eleven articles. Marijan Dović and Luka Vidmar discuss censorship in the Slovenian lands from the Reforma- tion to the collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy, and in the conclusion they indicate opportunities for further research. Norbert Bachleitner outlines the development of censorship throughout the monarchy, especially in the Austrian provinces, during the crucial period of its secularization and institutional consolidation—from 1751 to the par- tial abolition brought about by the 1848 March Revolution. The sub- sequent articles, arranged chronologically, deal in greater detail with developments in censorship in the Slovenian lands. The first two focus on ecclesiastical censorship and religiously controversial books in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Nina Ditmajer presents the banned, mostly Protestant books that were kept in the libraries of the Capuchin, Minorite, Dominican, and Franciscan monasteries in Lower Styria. Monika Deželak Trojar explains the circumstances of the origin and placement on the Index librorum prohibitorum of two (or three) Ma- riological works of the polymath Johann Ludwig Schönleben, one of the most important Carniolan intellectuals of the seventeenth century. The next four articles focus on the effects of secularized censor- ship on the book market, literature, and readers in the last decades of the eighteenth century and the first decades of the nineteenth 12 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Foreword century. Luka Vidmar describes the secularization of censorship in the Habsburg hereditary lands under Maria Theresa and, using examples from Carniola, draws attention not only to changes but also to the continuation of the tradition of the old imperial and ecclesias- tical censorship. By analyzing newspapers, bookselling catalogs, and some libraries, Andrej Pastar shows which intellectual and booksell- ing circles in Ljubljana benefited most from the censorship reforms of Emperor Joseph II. Matija Ogrin presents the darker side of the censorship of the time, which prevented or at least helped prevent the printing of a number of Slovenian manuscripts with traditional Catho- lic content, including translations and adaptations of works by Martin of Cochem. Based on an investigation of book collections and archival documents in the National and University Library in Ljubljana, Sonja Svoljšak determines the extent to which the banned works of French, English, and American philosophers were distributed in Carniola. The last three articles deal with censorship from the Pre-March period to the First World War. In his analysis of the well-known censor- ship of the Slovenian poetry almanac Krajnska čbelica, Marko Juvan uses the example of Jernej Kopitar to discuss the paradox of this Habsburg censor that functioned simultaneously as an instrument of imperial control and as a respected literary expert. Marijan Dović examines how Slovenian writers, poets, playwrights, journalists, and publishers coped with retroactive censorship after 1848, when censorship—by means of courtrooms—became primarily a repressive authoritarian mech- anism for suppressing opposition, especially nationalist tendencies. Finally, with the help of documentary material from the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana, kept by the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia, Urška Perenič demonstrates that the power of theater censorship did not diminish between 1891 and 1904, but possibly even grew stronger. ❦ 13 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Predgovor ❦ Marijan Dović, Luka viDMar 15 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Tematska številka revije Slavica Tergestina, ki je pred vami, je nastala kot del projekta Slovenski literati in cesarska cenzura v dolgem devetnajstem stoletju (J6-2583), ki ga sofinancira Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejav- nost Republike Slovenije. Triletni projekt (2020–2023) pod vodstvom Marijana Dovića nadaljuje niz raziskav cenzure, ki jih v zadnjih le- tih izvaja Inštitut za slovensko literaturo in literarne vede ZRC SAZU, in se neposredno navezuje na predhodni projekt Prepovedane knjige na Slovenskem v zgodnjem novem veku, prvo sistematično raziskavo knji- žne cenzure na Slovenskem v tem obdobju, ki jo je na inštitutu v letih 2016–2018 vodil Luka Vidmar. Omenjeni raziskavi sta motivirani z izhodiščnima premisama o kon- stitutivnosti in prikritosti cenzurnih praks: cenzura namreč temeljno zaznamuje pokrajino tiskane (in javno govorjene) besede, pri čemer njene sledi pogosto ostajajo blede ali celo izbrisane. Posegamo na po- dročje, ki je bilo doslej nesistematično raziskano, saj so se raziskovalci večinoma posvečali odmevnim partikularnim primerom, poleg tega pa je bila njihova pozornost zaradi prevladujoče nacionalistične usme- ritve slovenskih filoloških disciplin zožena na slovenski prostor – četudi so bila središča cenzurnih politik daleč stran, zlasti na Dunaju in v Rimu. Novo tisočletje je v tem pogledu v slovenskem prostoru prineslo sveže zanimanje za cenzuro (prim. dvojezično tematsko številko Primerjalne književnosti Literatura in cenzura, ur. Marijan Dović, 2008; zbornik Cen- zurirano, ur. Mateja Režek, 2010; dvojezično razstavo in knjigo In vendar so jih brali: prepovedane knjige v zgodnjem novem veku Luke Vidmarja in Sonje Svoljšak, 2018; zbornik Cenzura na Slovenskem od protireformacije do predmarčne dobe, ur. Luka Vidmar, 2020), še zlasti pa so se pojavile nove pregledne študije in zborniki o cenzuri v habsburški monarhiji (Norbert Bachleitner, Michael Wögerbauer, Thomas Olechowski idr.), 16 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Predgovor ki nam naposled omogočajo bolj celovit vpogled tudi v dogajanje v po- sameznih deželah. V tej tematski številki, namenjeni raziskovalcem, ki ne berejo slo- vensko, želimo pregledno predstaviti historični prerez dogajanja v slo- venskem prostoru, pri čemer si obetamo izkoristiti prednosti, ki jih prinaša panoramski pogled na t. i. dolgo obdobje (»longue durée«) – čas od začetka zgodnjega novega veka, ki ga je zaznamoval izum tiska s pre- mičnimi črkami, tja do razpada monarhije oziroma do prve svetovne vojne, med katero je v veljavo stopil radikalizirani cenzurni režim. Prostorski okvir predstavljajo slovenske dežele v habsburški monarhiji (zlasti Kranjska, a tudi Koroška in Štajerska), pri čemer je dogajanje ves čas vpeto v kontekst cerkvene in imperialne cenzure in v kontekste drugih literarnih kultur (latinske, nemškoavstrijske, italijanske, češke, hrvaške, madžarske), ki so pogosto sobivale v istem prostoru. Osredoto- čamo se zlasti na cenzuro v ožjem smislu, tj. institucionalizirane oblike nadzora nad cirkulacijo besedil, katerih bistvena razsežnost je zmožnost sankcioniranja, udejanjena z represivnim aparatom države. Nekatere razprave v tej številki so bile predhodno že objavljene v slo- venskem jeziku v zborniku Cenzura na Slovenskem od protireformacije do predmarčne dobe in jih tu prinašamo v prevodu le nekoliko skrajšane in prirejene neslovenskemu bralcu (Ditmajer, Deželak Trojar, Pastar, Ogrin, Svoljšak, Juvan), ena je bila temeljito predelana (Dović), nekatere pa so povsem nove (Dović in Vidmar, Bachleitner, Vidmar, Perenič). Za odlične prevode, ki so nastajali v živahnem sodelovanju z avtorji, se zahvaljujeva podjetju Deks, zlasti Simoni Lapanja in Donaldu Rein- dlu. Uredništvu revije Slavica Tergestina pa sva hvaležna za povabilo in priložnost, da ta prvi poskus pregleda cenzurnega dogajanja v slo- venskih deželah luč sveta zagleda v reviji, ki izhaja v nekdaj osrednjem trgovskem pristanišču habsburške monarhije. 17 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands *** Tematska številka obsega enajst razprav. Marijan Dović in Luka Vidmar pregledno obravnavata cenzuro v slovenskih deželah od reformacije do razpada habsburške monarhije, na koncu pa nakažeta možnosti na- daljnjih sintetičnih raziskav. Norbert Bachleitner oriše razvoj cenzure v celotni monarhiji, posebej v avstrijskih deželah, v ključnem obdobju njene sekularizacije in institucionalne konsolidacije – od leta 1751 vse do sprostitve, ki jo je prinesla marčna revolucija. Naslednje študije, ki so razvrščene kronološko, podrobneje obravnavajo dogajanje na po- dročju cenzure v slovenskem prostoru. Prvi dve se ukvarjata predvsem s cerkveno cenzuro in z versko spornimi knjigami v 17. in 18. stoletju. Nina Ditmajer predstavlja prepovedane, največkrat protestantske knji- ge, ki so jih hranile knjižnice kapucinskih, minoritskih, dominikanskih in frančiškanskih samostanov na Spodnjem Štajerskem. Monika Deže- lak Trojar pojasnjuje okoliščine nastanka in uvrstitve dveh oziroma treh marioloških del polihistorja Janeza Ludvika Schönlebna, enega glavnih kranjskih intelektualcev 17. stoletja, na Index librorum prohibitorum. Naslednje štiri razprave se ukvarjajo z vplivom sekularizirane cenzure na knjižni trg, književnost in bralce v zadnjih desetletjih 18. in prvih desetletjih 19. stoletja. Luka Vidmar opiše sekularizacijo cen- zure v habsburških dednih deželah pod Marijo Terezijo, pri čemer s pomočjo primerov iz Kranjske ne opozarja le na spremembe, temveč tudi na nadaljevanje tradicije stare habsburške in cerkvene cenzure. Andrej Pastar na podlagi analize časnikov, knjigotrških katalogov in po- datkov o knjižnicah ugotavlja, katerim intelektualnim in knjigotrškim krogom v Ljubljani so najbolj koristile cenzurne reforme cesarja Jožefa II. Matija Ogrin predstavlja drugo, temno plat tedanje cenzure, ki je pre- prečila ali vsaj pomagala preprečiti natis vrste slovenskih rokopisov 18 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Predgovor s tradicionalnimi katoliškimi vsebinami, med njimi prevodov in pre- delav del Martina Cochemskega. Sonja Svoljšak na podlagi raziskave knjižnih zbirk in arhivskih dokumentov v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani ugotavlja, v kolikšni meri so bila razširjena pre- povedana dela francoskih, angleških in ameriških filozofov. Zadnji trije prispevki se ukvarjajo s cenzuro od predmarčne dobe do prve svetovne vojne. Marko Juvan v novi obravnavi znamenite cen- zure slovenskega pesniškega almanaha Krajnska čbelica na primeru Jerneja Kopitarja obravnava paradoks habsburškega cenzorja, ki hkrati deluje kot instrument imperialnega nadzora in kot cenjen literarni stro- kovnjak. Marijan Dović raziskuje, kako so se slovenski pisatelji, pesniki, dramatiki, novinarji in založniki znašli po letu 1848, ko je retroaktivna cenzura postala predvsem represivni oblastni mehanizem za zatiranje opozicije, posebej nacionalističnih teženj. Urška Perenič pa s pomočjo dokumentarnega gradiva Dramatičnega društva v Ljubljani, ki ga hrani Arhiv Republike Slovenije, pokaže, da moč gledališke cenzure med letoma 1891 in 1904 še ni pojemala, ampak se je morda celo krepila. ❦ 19 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Habsburška cenzura in literatura v slovenskih deželah ❦ Marijan Dović ▶ marijan.dovic@zrc-sazu.si Luka viDMar ▶ luka.vidmar@zrc-sazu.si SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal ISSN 1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online) VOLUME 26 (2021/I), pp. 20–52 DOI 10.13137/2283-5482/32486 21 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands slovenske dežele, cenzura, literatura, rim, dunaj, cca. 1550–1918 Članek pregledno obravnava proble- matiko cenzure v slovenskih deželah v večstoletnem obdobju, ko so te spada- le v habsburško monarhijo. V zgodnjem novem veku, od reformacije do vlada- vine Marije Terezije, je bila cenzura večinoma povezana z vero in v rokah Katoliške cerkve (Indeks prepoveda- nih knjig), v drugi polovici 18. stoletja pa je bila postopoma sekularizirana, tako da je v dolgem 19. stoletju delovala kot osrednje orodje državnega nad- zora nad tiskom. V zaključku članka so obravnavane nekatere možnosti nadaljnjih sintetičnih raziskav. slovenian lands, censorship, literature, rome, vienna, ca. 1550–1918 This article surveys the censorship in the Slovenian lands during the long period when they were part of the Habsburg Monarchy. In the early mod- ern age, from the Reformation to the rule of Maria Theresa, censorship was primarily related to religion and was exerted by the Catholic Church (Index of Prohibited Books). However, in the second half of the eighteenth century, it was gradually secularized, coming to serve as a central tool of state con- trol over the printed word in the course of the long nineteenth century. At the end of the article, possibilities for fur- ther synthetic studies are discussed. 22 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature Censorship practices tend to intensively shape society and the com- munication processes in it: they influence the authors, mediators, and readers of texts, and they also develop special relationships with the economy, law, science, and other social systems. Thus, scholarly inter- est in censorship remains at least steady and, with new technological developments and their manifold challenges, even tends to grow. Im- portant new research is published every year: following early impuls- es of French theory and the rise in censorship studies after the fall of communist regimes, scholars have started to reexamine older periods as well, from early print cultures to the nineteenth century and beyond. General presentations have been supplemented by studies of individual periods, such as the Enlightenment, or empires and other geopolitical regions, as well as by comparative work. Like elsewhere in Europe, censorship in the Habsburg Monarchy (in its various institutional forms) played a fundamental historical role in the regulation of public access to printed publications, and thus to the flow of knowledge, theories, and ideas. In German-speaking academia, older studies of censorship (Wiesner; Fournier; Marx) have recently been built upon by new work on Habsburg censorship (Bachleitner; Eisendle; Judson). This new research has achieved important break- throughs, but it has yet to focus on individual cases such as that of the Slovenian lands. In supplementing this lack, one can build on those studies that have recently addressed Austrian literary censorship (Bachleitner) and censorship in the Czech lands (Wögerbauer et al). In Slovenian, apart from a few collective volumes (Dović 2008; Režek; Vidmar 2020), a number of individual studies on censorship have been published; however, we are still waiting for a more synthetic approach. This article briefly surveys the historical development of censor- ship practices in the Slovenian lands during the long period when 23 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands these lands were part of the Habsburg Monarchy, beginning with the Protestant period, which produced the first printed books in Slovenian in 1550. Following Darnton’s suggestion, we focus in particular on those practices connected with institutions (both state and Church), their power, and their capacity to sanction (Darnton: 230–235). At the end, we discuss possibilities for further research. 1550–1740: censorshiP in the hanDs of the cathoLic church In the Habsburg hereditary lands, censorship was initially most closely linked to religion. The development of censorship in the Holy Roman Empire was accelerated by a religious conflict: in 1521, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V prohibited Luther’s works, in 1524 the Imperial Diet of Nuremberg had all the authorities control the print shops in their areas, and 1529 saw the introduction of preventive censorship (Bachleit- ner, Eybl, Fischer: 26; Wilke: 28–30). Even though the Habsburgs as Holy Roman Emperors (except from 1742 to 1745) in principle regulated print- ing and bookselling in the entire empire, they were only able to effec- tively implement censorship as princes in their own hereditary (i.e., Austrian and Bohemian) lands (cf. Wolf: 309). Because of the pressing religious issues and the lack of suitably qualified clerks, just like other European rulers and governments, they relied heavily on domestic ecclesiastical authorities. These functioned as intermediaries between the secular authorities and the central censorship offices in Rome, especially the Congregation of the Inquisition and the Congregation of the Index, which produced the Index librorum prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books) under papal supervision. Hence, censorship in the Habsburg hereditary lands became a power mechanism of provincial princes, which, with their permission, was largely operated by the 24 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature Catholic Church. When Ferdinand, King of Bohemia and Hungary, and Archduke of Austria, established a censorship office in Vienna in 1528, he appointed the bishop of Vienna as its head. The censorship office reviewed manuscripts before they were printed, supervised the import of books, and carried out visitations, and it primarily targeted non-Catholic or anti-Catholic printed works (Papenheim: 90). However, in the following decades, the establishment of Habsburg censorship in Inner Austria, which included a great majority of the ter- ritories inhabited by Slovenians, was hindered by Lutheranism, which was adopted by most of the nobility and burghers, who, in addition to priests, were almost the only potential authors and readers in the society of that time. The 1555 Peace of Augsburg gave princes in the Holy Roman Empire the right to define the faith of their subjects and hence their own censorship policy. However, Ferdinand’s son, Charles II, Archduke of Austria and the ruler of Inner Austria from 1564 to 1590, needed the (mostly Protestant) provincial estates’ money to fight the Ottoman Empire, and so he granted them freedom of religion and consequently more or less open access to Protestant books (Vidmar 2018: 15) and even the possibility of financing them. These were the circumstances in which Slovenian (Protestant) literature emerged and flourished: from 1550 to 1595, around fifty Slovenian books—primarily catechisms, abecedaria, translations and interpretations of the gos- pels, postils, and hymnals—were printed in German Protestant towns and Ljubljana. Even though the ruler was unable to fully control the situation, whenever he could, especially when his rights were threat- ened, he would strike at the Protestants with censorship. When the leading Slovenian reformer Primož Trubar had his Cerkovna ordninga (Church Order)—through which he sought to legally, organizationally, and spiritually regulate the Slovenian Lutheran community—printed 25 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands in Tübingen in 1564, the work was immediately banned due to its inad- missible interference with the provincial prince’s authority; all the cop- ies that could be found were confiscated, and the author was banished from Inner Austria (Žnidaršič Golec: 230–231, 234). The ruler responded in a similar way in 1581, after learning from Ljubljana Bishop Janez Tavčar that the Ljubljana Protestant printer Janž Mandelc planned to print Jurij Dalmatin’s full Slovenian translation of the Bible: its print- ing in Ljubljana was strictly forbidden, the printer was banished, and copies of the translation that was then printed in Wittenberg by the end of 1583 had to be smuggled into Inner Austrian towns through various routes and intermediaries until 1585 (Kidrič: 149–161). Full censorship in Inner Austria only began to be implemented by Archduke Ferdinand (later Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor), who began a re-Catholicization campaign in 1598. He entrusted the task to religious committees, which, under the leadership of the local bishops (e.g., Seckau Bishop Martin Brenner in Styria), traveled from one place to another and also performed retroactive censorship. Espe- cially in 1600 and 1601, they confiscated and publicly burned Protestant books in major towns, such as Maribor, Kranj, and Škofja Loka—usually (symbolically) at the site where offenders were punished (next to a pil- lory). Thus, under the leadership of Ljubljana Bishop Tomaž Hren, the committee for Carniola had several carts of Protestant books (mostly German and Latin) burned at the pillory before the Ljubljana town hall on December 29th, 1600 and January 9th, 1601. Trubar’s books must have predominated among Slovenian books destroyed because he was listed among the most dangerous authors (auctores primae classis) on the Roman index (Vidmar 2013). After re-Catholicization, Protestant books were not necessarily burned any more, but more often, especially if they proved useful (e.g., translations of the Bible and philological 26 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature works), they were included in Church libraries. When the authorities confiscated the Protestant library of the Carniolan provincial estates in 1604 and 1617, they handed it over to the Jesuits and Bishop Hren. These most likely destroyed the most problematic books and kept others (locked away) at the Ljubljana Jesuit College’s library and the Gornji Grad episcopal library (Simoniti: 28). Seventeenth-century Habsburg domestic and foreign policy was determined by the Pietas Austriaca, with religious works dominating the book market in the hereditary lands, and the ruler and Catholic Church continued their concerted efforts to preserve the true faith among the population, including through censorship. In 1623, Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II entrusted censorship to the University FIG. 1 → Title page of Trubar’s Hišna postila (House Postil), a Slovenian translation of Luther’s Hauspos- tille (House Postil) printed in Tübingen in 1595. Ljubljana Seminary Library. Photo: Luka Vidmar. 27 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands of Vienna, which, at that time, had been taken over by the Jesuit Order. From then onward, the Jesuits censored theological and philosophical works and took a strong stance against Protestant works (Wilke: 33, 34; Bachleitner: 43). Censorship in individual provinces was in the hands of local bishops (Papenheim: 88–89) and Jesuit colleges, which could call on the secular authorities to take action against the violations detected. The secular authorities were also in charge of preventing imports of banned books. Preventive censorship was very effective because the authors usu- ally knew where to expect problems and so they self-censored them- selves, most publishers and printers were afraid to publish works without the required permits, and no underground press developed. ← FIG. 2 Frontispiece of Index librorum prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books) issued by Pope Benedict XIV in 1758: Ephesians burning superstitious books in public during Saint Paul’s time. Ljubljana National and University Library. Photo: Luka Vidmar. 28 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature Some authors took advantage of the complex religious and political structure of the Holy Roman Empire and published their works outside the Habsburg hereditary lands. The Carniolan officer Baron Franz von Wützenstein was aware that he would not obtain permission in Inner Austria to print his German translation of Pallavicino’s erotic, mytho- logical, and satirical novel La rete di Vulcano (Vulcan’s Net), which was on the Roman index. In 1669, he published it under the title Vulcani Liebes-Garn (Vulcan’s Love-Net) in the Free Imperial (and Protestant) City of Nuremberg, without providing the names of the author, pub- lisher, printer, and the place of publication on the title page because that could have negatively affected the sale of the book in the Catholic lands and provoked a reaction from the Habsburg censorship (Vidmar 2019: 275–276). However, after the Thirty Years’ War, retroactive censorship re- laxed: members of the social and intellectual elite purchased banned books abroad and brought them into the safe shelter of their homes without any great fear of being punished (Vidmar 2018: 16; cf. Bachleit- ner, Eybl, Fischer: 56). Janez Krstnik Prešeren, the cathedral provost and president of the Academy of the Industrious in Ljubljana, was an expert in Church history and international law, who, during his youthful travels and diplomatic missions to Italy, France, and Germany systematically purchased the works of the main protagonists of the Reformation, including Luther and Melanchthon, problematic Catholic works that, for instance, advocated Gallicanism and attacked the Jesuit Order, as well as political works critical of the pope and Catholic mon- archs, such as those authored by Boccalini and Leti. He even indulged in erotic novels by Pallavicino and French authors. He furnished all his books, including the banned ones, with an ex libris without reservation, inventoried them in 1701 (and handed over the list to the episcopal FIG. 3 ↑ Title page of Vulcani Liebes-Garn (Vul- can’s Love-Net), Wützenstein’s German translation of Pallavici- no’s novel La rete di Vulca- no (Vulcan’s Net), print- ed in 1669 in Nuremberg. Zürich Central Library. Photo: Zürich Central Library. 29 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands archives), and donated them to the Ljubljana Public Library, which also had no reservations about accepting them after his death in 1704 (Vidmar 2018: 30, 33, 36, 49, 50; Vidmar 2019: 268–269). This type of reception was of course limited to the private life of a privileged individual: if it trickled out into the surroundings and threatened the political and religious order, the censorship authori- ties reacted immediately. However, even then, the sanctions were not necessarily all that strict. In 1686 and then again in 1696, the Ljubljana bishop, Count Sigismund Christoph von Herberstein, reported Baron Ferdinand Ernst Apfaltrer, the owner of the castle at Brdo pri Luk- ovici, to the provincial authorities because he refused to turn over his Protestant books to him despite being reminded to do so several times. The bishop, who also owned quite a few banned books himself (Vidmar 2018: 36; Vidmar 2019: 271), did not decide to report him for having banned books, but because the baron sometimes read them to his family and servants instead of Sunday mass, and thus his domain was threatened by the spread of Lutheranism. In 1697, the authorities threatened Apfaltrer with a fine of 1,000 ducats, a hearing before the provincial government, and a report to the emperor should he obstruct the proceedings. However, because the baron turned over the books on both occasions, he received no sanctions at all (Vrhovnik: 40–42). With the growing production of politically critical works, which were also read in the Habsburg hereditary lands (Vidmar 2018: 34), the early eighteenth century saw the first signs of separation between secular and Church bodies. During that time, Baron Franz Albrecht Pelzhoffer was developing his own political theory in Carniola. His works Lacon politicus (The Political Laconian; first edition published in 1706) and Arcanorum status (The State of Secret Matters; first edition published from 1709 to 1713) no longer upset the Church authorities, FIG. 4 ↑ Janez Krstnik Prešeren’s ex libris on the title page of the banned work A gl’ inquisitori che sono per l’Italia (To the Inquis- itors in Italy), a 1559 polemic by Pier Paolo Vergerio against the inquisition. Ljubljana Seminary Library. Photo: Luka Vidmar. 30 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature but they did alarm the secular ones. The Inner Austrian government first responded to them in 1711, when new volumes of Arcanorum sta- tus were not published in Ljubljana, but in Frankfurt without a prior review and permission (Polec). In the following years, the secular authorities slowly reduced the competence of the University of Vienna. In 1725, Charles VI decreed that university censors must send their opinions on political works to the FIG. 5 → Portrait of Baron Franz Albrecht Pelzhoffer in his work Arcanorum status (The State of Secret Matters) published from 1709 to 1713. Ljubljana National and University Library. Photo: Luka Vidmar. 31 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands court, which reserved the power to make the final decision on whether to ban or permit a specific work. Book censorship committees were established with the provincial governments; the one for Inner Aus- tria was founded in Graz in 1732 (Olechowski: 59–61; Bachleitner: 47). Censorship was also performed by the Bohemian and Austrian Court Chancellery and the government of Lower Austria, so that, due to a lack of organization, loose guidelines, and unstandardized procedures, the system was inefficient (Hadamowsky: 289; Wolf: 309–310) and not pre- pared for the growing and thematically and linguistically increasingly diverse book market. 1740–1790: censorshiP secuLarization unDer Maria theresa anD josePh ii It was only Maria Theresa (1740–1780) that finally began to institution- alize, centralize, and bureaucratize censorship. She incorporated it into the state administrative apparatus and gradually drove the Church from it. Censorship partly preserved the Catholic ideology (it primarily supported its Enlightenment version: Reform Catholicism), but from then on it was also based on moderate Enlightenment principles, taking into account especially the interests of the emerging modern state. The year 1751 saw the establishment of the Court Book Censorship Committee in Vienna, which assumed the powers of previous institu- tions. Subordinate to it were the committees in the provincial capitals, which carried out local censorship. Initially, the Jesuit professors at the University of Vienna were still included in the central committee, but they were completely driven out by 1764 and replaced by episcopal priests, who formed a minority in the committee. In 1772, the committee was conceived as a purely administrative (secular) body, which meant 32 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature 1 For more on this peri- od, see Vidmar’s article in this issue. that the last remaining authority—that is, the censorship of theological and religious texts—was taken away from the Church (Klingenstein: 158, 161, 172; Bachleitner: 41, 49, 50, 54, 55). In the Slovenian lands, the secularization of the censorship took place more slowly and more mildly in relation to the Church, but under the same principles and with the same persistence. Priests held a majority in the Ljubljana book censorship committee even as late as 1771; it even included two Jesuits, and imprimaturs (printing permissions) for religious works were issued by the vicar general of the Ljubljana Diocese (who signed papers under this function and not as a member of the committee). After 1772, both Jesuits were excluded from the committee and permis- sions for printing everything, including religious works, were signed by its secular chair.1 The influence of Theresian censorship on literature in the Slovenian lands was multilayered. An affinity for science, especially natural sci- ence, promoted the printing and reprinting of works such as Gründliche Nachricht von dem in dem Inner-Crain gelegenen Czirknitzer-See (A Thor- ough Account of Lake Cerknica in Inner Carniola; Ljubljana, 1758) by Franz Anton von Steinberg and Flora Carniolica (Flora of Carniola; Vienna, 1760) by the Idrija physician Giovanni Antonio Scopoli. Due to their obvious non-problematic character, such books initially did not even mention the imprimaturs. On the other hand, the strict con- trol of political works and plays persisted or even grew stronger: even in 1776, the Theresian index Catalogus librorum a commissione aulica prohibitorum (Catalog of Books Prohibited by the Court Committee) prohibited several editions of Pelzhoffer’s works (Catalogus librorum: 19, 237; Vidmar 2018: 37–38), and the Carniolan man of letters Anton Tomaž Linhart had his Sturm und Drang tragedy Miss Jenny Love print- ed in Augsburg in 1780, most likely to avoid preventive censorship. 33 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands The influence on Slovenian literature, largely composed of religious works for priests and the common folk, was ambivalent. Even though censorship restricted traditional Catholic genres that it considered outdated or even harmful (e.g., descriptions of the miracles of the saints), and thus at least made publication difficult for some authors (cf. Ogrin in this issue), religious books gained new impetus with other Theresian reforms, especially the school reform. Very successful during that time was the Ljubljana Discalced Augustinian Marko Pohlin, the pioneer of the Slovenian revival, who skillfully connected Catholicism with folk education (cf. Vidmar in this issue). Likewise, censorship did not hinder the publication of the first volumes of the poetry alma- nac Pisanice od lepeh umetnost (Belletristic Writings, 1779–1781) edited by Pohlin’s colleague Anton Feliks Dev—the first Slovenian publica- tion primarily intended for the aesthetic pleasure of the social and intellectual elite. Theresian retroactive censorship did not significantly change peo- ple’s reading habits in the Slovenian lands. On the one hand, it was successful at maintaining an unfavorable or at least reserved attitude in society toward ideas that openly attacked or posed a direct or indi- rect threat to the dynasty, monarchy, feudalism, Catholicism, and the Church. Thus, it prohibited a series of philosophical, political, and literary works by English, French, and German Enlightenment fig- ures, and not only radical authors, such as advocates of atheism and materialism, but often also moderate ones. On the other hand, just like in the past, privileged readers were able to obtain controversial books if they wanted to—for example, during their youthful and study travels across Italy and Germany, or through personal and business connec- tions. The main Slovenian representative of the Enlightenment, Baron Žiga Zois, a wealthy merchant, industrialist, and landlord, had many 34 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature works that were prohibited under Maria Theresa in his private library in Ljubljana, including those authored by Bayle, Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau (Vidmar 2018: 39, 41; Svoljšak: 106). It is true, however, that there were not yet many intellectuals in the Slovenian lands at that time that would be interested in the most controversial works of the Enlightenment. Such an interest was certainly not shown by Church libraries—and this was not because of the pressure from censorship. Great changes in the literature, printing industry, and book trade of the Slovenian lands were ushered in by the censorship and other re- forms introduced by Emperor Joseph II (1780–1790), who discontinued what he believed was an overly restrictive policy in this area. Hence, after the 1781 Patent of Toleration, the Protestant Wilhelm Heinrich Korn, a native of Maastricht, was able to settle down in Ljubljana, where he became one of the main publishers and booksellers in Carniola; among other things, he supplied books to Zois and published works produced by his circle (Dular: 194–199). Soon the effects of censorship relaxation after 1781 also became evident: Ljubljana obtained two new newspapers, the number of printers increased, and booksellers could sell most works that had been banned under Maria Theresa (cf. Pastar in this issue). Despite the liberalization, the primary aim of censor- ship was to cultivate good citizens, just like before 1780, and Joseph II disfavored any works that he believed failed to serve this purpose even more adamantly than his mother had (Sashegyi: 4–5, 12–13). Therefore, censorship hindered the printing of books with traditional Catholic topics even more than before. Thus in 1781, Ljubljana Bishop Johann Karl von Herberstein, one of the most important supporters of the emperor in the monarchy and the Church, refused to give the imprimatur to Pohlin’s Slovenian translation of the Pentateuch and instead entrusted the translation of the Bible to the circle of priests 35 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands loyal to Josephinism and Jansenism, especially Jurij Japelj (cf. Vidmar in this issue). In the printing industry, publishing, and book trade, too, particularly those were successful that were good at adapting to the new ideological situation. In 1782, the Klagenfurt printer Ignaz Alois Kleinmayr, who was an adherent of the emperor’s policy, also opened a printshop and bookstore in Ljubljana, in 1784 he became the exclusive printer of official princely regulations in Inner Austria, and in 1787 he was ennobled by the emperor (Dular: 174, 175). Reformed censorship not only had the expected beneficial economic and cultural impacts, but it also stimulated the development of public opinion, which was not always in favor of the emperor. Therefore, in the last years of his rule, which were marked by ever greater domestic and foreign-policy problems, Joseph II again began to step up censorship. 1790–1848: PreLiMinary censorshiP between the two revoLutions After Joseph’s death, censorship in the Habsburg Monarchy gradually established itself as a central instrument of secular state control over public communication processes. Against the threatening backdrop of the French Revolution, pressure increased further under Leopold II and Francis II. In 1792, the Book Censorship Office (Bücher-Revisions Amt) took over the censorship authority within the Court Office (Hof- stelle), which supervised the work of the censors in the subordinate provincial offices. The uniform order in the monarchy was established on February 22nd, 1795 by a renewed general censorship ordinance (Erneuerte Zensur-Ordnung, also known as the general censorship or- dinance, General-Zensur-Verordnung), and in 1801 censorship formally passed into the domain of the police. By the mid-nineteenth century, 36 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature the 1795 decree had been supplemented by a series of additions that tightened censorship in the pre-March era (cf. Olechowski; Bachleit- ner; Cvirn; Pastar). In broad terms, the censorship after Joseph II can be divided into two types: preventive (pre-publication) censorship, which was dominant before the 1848 March Revolution, and retroactive (post-publication) censorship after that. This is somewhat simplified because there were significant regulation and implementation differences in the three rel- atively autonomous areas (i.e., periodicals, book market, and theater), and even within each of these the practice was not completely uniform. Nonetheless, 1848 is an important dividing line: if nothing less, it swept away the two infamous but iconic figures of the oppressive pre-March censorship regime: the autocratic Chancellor Klemens von Metternich and Josef von Sedlnitzky, the supreme chief of the Vienna Police and Censorship Office (Polizei- und Zensur-Hofstelle). The censorship regime in the Habsburg Monarchy from 1790 to 1848 was primarily characterized by centralized and comprehensive pre-publication censorship, which was further enhanced by restric- tiveness (a system of granting concessions), economic constraints (i.e., taxes and deposits), and severe penalties (fines, imprisonment, and withdrawal of printing licenses were envisaged for printing pub- lications without the imprimatur or for disseminating banned books categorized as erga schedam ‘with special permission’ or damnatur ‘pro- hibited’). All of the above is characteristic of repressive state control, in which the institution of censorship primarily serves as the guardian of the regime and its social and moral cohesion. Despite the shift from Enlightenment to repression that was characteristic of the period after French Revolution (cf. Bachleitner in this issue), censorship retained another function: it sought to ensure scientific and aesthetic quality. FIG. 6 ↑ Count Josef von Sedlnitzky, head of the Police and Censorship Office (1817–1848). 37 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Hence there was a proactive dimension of censorial work (improv- ing texts) as well as greater tolerance towards scholarly works. From this perspective, the work of the pre-March censors, who as a rule were professional authorities in their fields, should not be understood in Manichean terms. This is well exemplified by the experience of the historian and play- wright Anton Tomaž Linhart, one of the first Slovenian authors to run up against the imperial censors. Linhart, himself involved in book censorship at the local level, came up against the Vienna offices with the second volume of his work Versuch einer Geschichte von Krain und den übrigen Ländern der südlichen Slaven Oesterreichs (An Essay on the History of Carniola and the Other South Slavic Lands of Austria, 1788, 1791): he was only allowed to print it after correcting the sections that the authorities thought were too pro-Slavic and anticlerical. During that same period, censorship also significantly affected the printing and performance of two plays by Linhart that mark the beginning of Slo- venian secular drama: Županova Micka (Micka, the Mayor’s Daughter, 1790) and Matiček se ženi (Matiček’s Wedding, 1790). Little is known about the relations of the first notable Slovenian poet, Valentin Vodnik, with censorship. Between 1795 and 1809, Vodnik pub- lished important works of poetry and journalism, in which he adapted to the pressure of censorship to a varying degree: his translation of the patriotic Pesmi za brambovce (Poems for Militiamen, 1809) was commis- sioned by the authorities, the content of his almanacs was not a problem, but he was compelled to make extensive adaptations for the newspaper Lublanske novice (Ljubljana News, 1797–1800), for which he had to base his articles on the censored Wiener Zeitung (Vienna News). Nonethe- less, a comparison of the Ljubljana and Vienna newspapers shows that Vodnik retained a certain degree of freedom, especially when reporting FIG. 7 ↑ Title page of Lin- hart’s Versuch einer Geschichte von Krain und den übrigen Ländern der südlichen Slaven Oesterre- ichs, vol. 1. 38 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature 2 On forbidden books in this period, cf. the article by Sonja Svol- jšak in this volume. local news. It is interesting to note, however, that within the Zois circle (which both Linhart and Vodnik belonged to) censorship was not only perceived as a repressive threat—quite the contrary, it was also seen as a potential means of aesthetic and linguistic corrective. When thinking of censorship in this period, one is accustomed to recalling a stern red pen demanding an omissis deletis ‘to be omitted’ or an ominous damnatur ‘prohibited’ written beside a (foreign) book strictly forbidding its distribution.2 Far less visible remains another manifestation of the omnipotence of state censorship—namely, the administrative prevention of publication. Indeed, the obstruction of the (periodical) press through a system of concessions was one of the re- gime’s most powerful instruments of control. Alongside the pre-pub- lication censorship of books in the first half of the nineteenth century, the power of imperial censorship was also manifested in a form that largely remains in the shadows. This can be illustrated by the unsuc- cessful attempt to launch the Slovenian cultural weekly Slavinja during the 1820s. Slavinja, as designed by Janez Cigler, Ignac Holzapfel, and Franc Ksaver Andrioli, was planned to be published as a supplement to the German-language Laibacher Zeitung (Ljubljana News), and the proposed name was intended to emphasize its Slavic identity. The censorship system in Austria, developed under Metternich and Sedlnitzky after the Carlsbad Decrees of 1819, has traditionally been considered one of the most conservative in Europe—surpassed only by the one in the Russian Empire. The most emblematic pre-March clash of Slovenian literature with the preventive censorship is the one around Krajnska čbelica (The Carniolan Bee). It involves Matija Čop, the poet France Prešeren, and the linguist Jernej Kopitar, the Vien- nese censor for Slavic books. Krajnska čbelica (1830−1833) is rightfully considered the central Slovenian literary almanac of the period. Upon 39 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands its establishment, the main figures behind it demonstrated successful tactics, but they later had great problems with censorship. Confronta- tions with censorship and in particular with Kopitar, in which Čop and Prešeren showed great ingenuity (skillfully bending censorship rules between Ljubljana and Vienna), were only partly successful.3 ← FIG. 8 The unsuccessful application for the publication of the weekly Slavinja to the provincial government by Cigler, Andrio- li, and Holzapfel, September 9th, 1824. Archives of the Republic of Slovenia. 3 Cf. the article by Marko Juvan in this issue. 40 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature Like this episode, the infamous censoring of “Zdravljica” (A Toast; Prešeren’s poem that today serves as the Slovenian anthem) by Kopi- tar’s successor Franc Miklosič, has been well researched. However, other interesting cases still await due attention. Among them, one can mention Carniolia (1838−1842 and 1844) with its editor Leopold Kordesch (and, more generally, other German-language newspapers in Carniola), Janez Bleiweis’s Kmetijske in rokodelske novice (Farmers’ and Craftsmen’s News, 1843–1902), the leading newspaper of this early FIG. 9 → The 1846 manuscript of France Prešer- en’s “Zdravljica” (A Toast) with Franc Miklošič’s marking requesting the expur- gation of the third strophe. Prešeren re- moved the entire poem from his collection Poezije (Poetry) and only published it— uncensored—in 1848. 41 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 4 For many cases men- tioned above, cf. Dović (2020: 247–262). period, and a number of cases outside Carniola, such as Anton Krem- pl’s historiographical work Dogodivščine Štajerske zemle (Notable Events in Styria, 1844/45). Certainly, the ramified apparatus of pre-March censorship re- mained, until its abolition in 1848, a mighty obstacle for Slovenian authors: it kept them on thin ice at all times, forcing them to maneu- ver creatively on the sharp edge that separates imprimatur from prohibition.4 1848–1918: retroactive censorshiP froM the March revoLution to the first worLD war The liberally and democratically charged March Revolution did away with preventive censorship in book publishing in principle; however, censorship was still in place. Like before, censorship legislation and practices continued to change. In the 1850s, newspapers were subjected to pre-publication censorship again. However, even after the liberaliza- tion in the constitutional period (after 1862) and later under dualism, the effectiveness of control was ensured by fear of severe sanctions and uncertain judicial interpretation of concepts such as “libel and slander” and “breach of the peace.” Surprisingly, in several respects such a regime was even more effective than preventive censorship. Post-1848 censorship increasingly focused on political newspapers in an attempt to prevent the monarchy from disintegrating. As is known from the wider context (especially Bohemia, where confiscations and imprisonment had already become routine by the end of the century), oppression of national(ist) media remained a priority up until the mon- archy’s dissolution. Thus, censorship was losing its qualitative func- tions and only retained the repressive ones (trials and confiscations). 42 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature The severe fines intensified fear and facilitated meticulous self-cen- sorship. In literature, the abolition of preventive censorship made the situation more relaxed, whereas in theater, which the authorities clearly perceived as potentially subversive, pre-censorship remained in force up until the collapse of the empire. Because a more detailed analysis of certain cases is carried out later (cf. Dović in this issue), let us only point here to some exem- plary clashes from Slovenian lands in this period. Among the first cases to be mentioned is certainly that by the Carinthian editor Andrej Einspieler with his Stimmen aus Innerösterreich (Voices from Inner Austria, 1861–1863) and Slovenec (The Slovenian, 1865–1867). In both cases, the power of the court was used to dampen his enterprises. In Carniola, however, one of the first notable censorship scandals was that of Fran Levstik, Miroslav Vilhar, and the nationalist newspaper Naprej (Forward, 1863). Under the hand of its fervent editor Levstik, Naprej became entangled in two lengthy lawsuits: the first one was connected with the radical demand for new language-based borders between provinces, and the second with the demand to use Slovenian in official correspondence. Levstik avoided the penalty, but Vilhar ended up in prison. Printing-related lawsuits became a commonplace: mainly editors (e.g., Einspieler, Vilhar, Tomšič, Grasselli, Alešovec, and Beg) ended up behind bars, but heavy fines and penalties also threatened others. Obviously, the focus in this period shifted away from literature: rare cases like Janez Trdina’s Bajke in povesti o Gorjancih (Tales and Stories of the Gorjanci Hills, 1882–1888) and even the burning of Ivan Cankar’s Erotika (1899) by the Ljubljana bishop in fact do not involve censorship in the strict sense: they do, however, have at least the character of implicit censoring. Similar could be said for the harsh FIG. 10 ↑ Jakob Alešovec, a Slovenian writer and journalist, often prosecuted for texts and caricatures in his satirical magazine Brencelj (The Gadfly). 43 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands criticism of Misterij žene (The Mystery of a Woman, 1900), the first truly feminist Slovenian short story collection by Zofka Kveder: certainly, it had nothing to do with the imperial administration. Quite different, however, was the situation in theatre, which was still a sensitive area for the authorities. Based on Bach’s Theater Order of 1850, it thoroughly steered the development of Slovenian drama in the second half of the nineteenth century and charted theatri- cal programs well into the twentieth century. Its practice was based on outdated legislation, which significantly restricted the development of Slovenian drama from the mid-nineteenth century (reading rooms and the Dramatic Society) to its gradual professionalization at the end of the century. As an emblematic case of this period, the banning of Ivan Cankar’s play Hlapci (Servants, 1910) definitely stands out—re- vealing, among other things, the growing vigilance of the authorities to the threat of socialist ideas.5 Finally, the First World War (1914–1918) brought about a major shift, if only for a few years: censorship and censors became omnipresent, and even postcards received attention (cf. Svoljšak). After the war and the subsequent collapse of the long-lived empire, the rigid war censorship was abolished, only to be substituted by the censorship of the new Slavic state—which was, conveniently, able to lean upon the well-established Habsburg structures (cf. Gabrič). concLusion We have provided very rough outlines above. At least, they confirm that censorship was a factor of utmost importance throughout the entire period discussed—a factor whose role could hardly be underestimat- ed. Much work, however, remains to be done. First, many censorship 5 The Archives of the Republic of Slovenia (AS 16: Provincial Presidency of Car- niola; units 165, 166, 167, 168, 168a, 168b, 169) contain less well-known material documenting theater censorship in Carniola, circa 1891–1918 (cf. Ugrinović and Perenič in this volume). On Cankar’s play, cf. Dović in this volume. 44 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature cases from the Slovenian lands have not yet been researched in depth, although there are primary sources that would make such an undertak- ing possible. In the early modern period, for example, it would be very useful to systematically analyze the wording of printing permissions in published books. Furthermore, the period of preventive censorship could be illuminated using the sources on centrally directed Habsburg censorship available at the Austrian National Library and in the Austri- an State Archives, especially at the General Administration Archive and in the Family, Court and State Archive (materials on Kopitar, Miklošič, etc.). Other cases could be elaborated with the help of material from the Provincial Assembly at the Carinthian Regional Archives in Klagenfurt. Some of the less well-known sources in Ljubljana also require re-ex- amination, especially those in the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia FIG. 11 → A postcard sent to a Slovenian soldier during the World War I with the characteristic stamp zensuriert ‘censored’. 45 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands (for theater censorship), in the Manuscript Collection of the National and University Library (for Prešeren, Blaznik, Slavinja, Krajnska čbelica, etc.), and in the Historical Archives of Ljubljana (for Grasselli). From a more general perspective—apart from the juridical aspects that have recently received due attention—further questions remain at the level of the practical functioning of the censorship apparatus: from the top of the Church to the top of the state to the local censors and revision offices, we lack analytical insight into the daily routines of the Habsburg censors. Such insight would finally help overcome the shortcomings of partial studies focusing on a single censorship segment (original/imported periodicals, original/imported books, li- braries, and theatrical or opera performances) and allow us to advance toward a comparative and synthetic view of the role of censorship in this long period. ❦ 46 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature References Bachleitner, norBert, 2017: Die literarische Zensur in Österreich von 1751 bis 1848. Vienna: Böhlau. Bachleitner, norBert, Franz m. eYBl, ernst Fischer, 2000: Geschichte des Buchhandels in Österreich. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Catalogus librorum a commissione aulica prohibitorum. Vienna: typis Geroldianis, 1776. cvirn, janez, 2010: “Naj se vrne cenzura, ljubša bi nam bila.” Avstrijsko tiskovno pravo in slovensko časopisje (1848–1914). Cenzurirano: Zgodovina cenzure na Slovenskem od 19. stoletja do danes. Ed. Mateja Režek. Ljubljana: Nova revija. 13–44. darnton, roBert, 2014: Censors at Work: How States Shaped Literature. London: British Library. doviĆ, marijan (ed.), 2008: Literature and Censorship: Who Is Afraid of the Truth of Literature? Primerjalna književnost 31 (special issue). doviĆ, marijan, 2020: Slovenski literati in cesarska cenzura: izbrani primeri iz dolgega 19. stoletja. Cenzura na Slovenskem od protireformacije do predmarčne dobe. Ed. Luka Vidmar. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. 243–286. eisendle, reinhard, 2020: Der einsame Zensor: Zur staatlichen Kontrolle des Theaters unter Maria Theresia und Joseph II. Vienna: Hollitzer Wissenschaftsverlag. Fournier, auGust, 1877: Gerhard van Swieten als Censor: Nach archivalischen Quellen. Vienna: Gerolds Sohn. 47 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands GaBriČ, aleŠ, 2010: Cenzura gledališkega repertoarja v prvi in drugi Jugoslaviji. Cenzurirano: Zgodovina cenzure na Slovenskem od 19. stoletja do danes. Ed. Mateja Režek. Ljubljana: Nova revija. 171–188. hadamoWskY, Franz, 1979: Ein Jahrhundert Literatur- und Theaterzensur in Österreich (1751–1848). Die österreichische Literatur: Ihr Profil an der Wende vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert (1750–1830). Ed. Herbert Zeman. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. 289–305. judson, pieter m., 2016: The Habsburg Empire: A New History. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard UP. kidriČ, France, 1978: Izbrani spisi 1. Ed. Darko Dolinar. Ljubljana: SAZU. klinGenstein, Grete, 1970: Staatsverwaltung und kirchliche Autorität im 18. Jahrhundert: Das Problem der Zensur in der theresianischen Reform. Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik. marX, julius, 1959: Die österreichische Zensur im Vormärz. Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik. olechoWski, thomas, 2004: Die Entwicklung des Preßrechts in Österreich bis 1918: Ein Beitrag zur österreichischen Medienrechtsgeschichte. Vienna: Manz. papenheim, martin, 2007: Die katholische kirchliche Zensur im Reich im 18. Jahrhundert. Zensur im Jahrhundert der Aufklärung: Geschichte – Theorie – Praxis. Ed. Wilhelm Haefs, York- Gothart Mix. Göttingen: Wallstein. 79–98. pastar, andrej, 2020: Časopisna cenzura na Kranjskem od časa Jožefa II. do marčne revolucije. [Dissertation.] Ljubljana: Author. 48 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature polec, janko, 1935: Pelzhoffer Franc Albert. Slovenski biografski leksikon 6. Ed. Franc Ksaver Lukman. Ljubljana: Zadružna gospodarska banka. 293–295. režek, mateja (ed.), 2010: Cenzurirano: Zgodovina cenzure na Slovenskem od 19. stoletja do danes. Ljubljana: Nova revija. sasheGYi, oskar, 1958: Zensur und Geistesfreiheit unter Joseph II.: Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte der habsburgischen Länder. Budapest: Akadémíai Kiadó. simoniti, primož, 1974: Med knjigami iz stare gornjegrajske knjižnice. Zbornik Narodne in univerzitetne knjižnice 1. Ed. Jaro Dolar. Ljubljana: NUK. 17–48. svoljŠak, petra, 2010: “Zapleni vse, česar ne razumeš, utegnilo bi škoditi vojevanju.” Delovanje avstrijske cenzure med Veliko vojno. Cenzurirano: Zgodovina cenzure na Slovenskem od 19. stoletja do danes. Ed. Mateja Režek. Ljubljana: Nova revija. 55–66. svoljŠak, sonja, 2018: A Selection of Banned Authors and Works from the National and University Library Collection. And Yet They Read Them: Banned Books in Slovenia in the Early Modern Age from the National and University Library Collection. Ed. Urša Kocjan. Ljubljana: NUK. 61–157. uGrinoviĆ, ana, 2001: Cenzura in prepoved gledališča. Diplomska naloga. Ljubljana: AGRFT. vidmar, luka, 2013: Požiga protestantskih knjig v Ljubljani leta 1600 in 1601: med zgodovino in mitom. Kronika 61, 2. 189–216. vidmar, luka, 2018: Authors and Readers of Banned Books in Slovenian Lands in the Early Modern Age: Libri Prohibiti from the National and University Library Collection. And Yet They Read Them: Banned Books in Slovenia in the Early Modern Age from 49 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands the National and University Library Collection. Ed. Urša Kocjan. Ljubljana: NUK. 9–59. vidmar, luka, 2019: Ferrante Pallavicino in Carniola. Les Régions slovènes entre XVIIIe et XIXe siècles: Plurilinguisme et transferts culturels à la frontière entre empire des Habsbourg et Venise. Ed. François Bouchard, Patrizia Farinelli. Paris: Le Manuscrit. 263–286. vidmar, luka (ed.), 2020: Cenzura na Slovenskem od protireformacije do predmarčne dobe. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. Wiesner, adolph, 1847: Denkwürdigkeiten der Oesterreichischen Zensur vom Zeitalter der Reformazion bis auf die Gegenwart. Stuttgart: Adolph Krabbe. Wilke, jÜrGen, 2007: Pressezensur im Alten Reich. Zensur im Jahrhundert der Aufklärung: Geschichte – Theorie – Praxis. Ed. Wilhelm Haefs, York-Gothart Mix. Göttingen: Wallstein. 27–44. WÖGerBauer, michael, et al. (eds.), 2015: V obecném zájmu. Cenzura a sociální regulace literatury v moderní české kultuře 1749–2014. 2 vols. Prague: Ústav pro českou literaturu AV ČR. WolF, norBert christian, 2007: Von “eingeschränkt und erzbigott” bis “ziemlich inquisitionsmäßig”: Die Rolle der Zensur im Wiener literarischen Feld des 18. Jahrhunderts. Zensur im Jahrhundert der Aufklärung: Geschichte – Theorie – Praxis. Ed. Wilhelm Haefs, York-Gothart Mix. Göttingen: Wallstein. 305–330. žnidarŠiČ Golec, lilijana, 2009: Trubarjeva Cerkovna ordninga med želenim in živetim. Vera in hotenja: Študije o Primožu Trubarju in njegovem času. Ed. Sašo Jerše. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. 224–242. 50 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature Povzetek V 16. stoletju je bila cenzura v habsburških deželah vzpostavljena kot oblastni mehanizem vladarja, ker pa je bila najtesneje povezana z vero, jo je večinoma upravljala Katoliška cerkev. V Notranji Avstriji je sicer njeno uveljavitev upočasnil protestantizem. Vladar je bil prisiljen plemstvu dati versko svobodo, s tem pa tudi dostop do protestantskih knjig in celo možnost njihovega financiranja, npr. del P. Trubarja. Cenzuro je po letu 1598 dokončno uveljavila rekatolizacija. Naznanile so jo verske komisije, ki so v večjih krajih zasegale in sežigale prote- stantske knjige. V 17. stoletju je delovala učinkovita preventivna cen- zura, zaradi katere so nekateri avtorji kot baron F. Wützenstein svoja dela objavili v nemških protestantskih mestih. Retroaktivna cenzura je po tridesetletni vojni popuščala, tako da so intelektualci brez strahu kupovali prepovedane knjige v tujini. Na začetku 18. stoletja je reak- cija na politične spise barona F. A. Pelzhofferja nakazala ločevanje posvetnih in cerkvenih cenzurnih instanc. Sredi 18. stoletja je Marija Terezija cenzuro vključila v državni administrativni aparat, iz nje pa postopoma izrinila Cerkev. Nekoliko počasneje je sekularizacija potekala v slovenskih deželah. Cenzura je sicer delno ohranila kato- liško ideologijo, vendar je bila po novem utemeljena tudi v zmernem razsvetljenstvu. Kljub temu je ostala precej restriktivna in včasih celo strožja, npr. do političnih in dramskih del. A. T. Linhart je dal žalo- igro Miss Jenny Love, za katero najbrž ne bi dobil dovoljenja, leta 1780 natisniti v Augsburgu. Cenzura je prav tako otežila objavo nekaterim slovenskim delom s tradicionalnimi katoliškimi vsebinami. Čeprav je prepovedovala vrsto del evropskega razsvetljenstva, so privilegirani bralci kot baron Ž. Zois lahko prišli do njih, če so si tega želeli. Omi- litev cenzure pod cesarjem Jožefom II. po letu 1781 se je med drugim 51 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands pokazala v rasti števila časopisov in tiskarjev in zmanjšanju števila prepovedanih del. Cenzura se je znova zaostrila v zadnjih letih vladavine Jožefa II., še bolj pa pod njegovima naslednikoma. Do leta 1848 so jo zaznamovali predvsem predhodna cenzura, centraliziranost, restriktivnost in stroge kazni. Oblikovana je bila kot represiven organ, ki je ščitil oblast, elite, družbeni red in javno moralo, vendar skrbel tudi za strokovno in estet- sko kvaliteto publikacij. Nekateri intelektualci so se v kolesju cenzure znašli v dvojni vlogi: tako je bil Linhart lokalni cenzor, ki pa je moral leta 1791 na zahtevo centralnega urada na Dunaju v drugem zvezku svojega poskusa zgodovine Kranjske popraviti preveč proticerkvena in proslovanska mesta. V predmarčni dobi je bilo eno najmočnejših nadzornih orodij oblasti oviranje (periodičnega) tiska s sistemom koncesij. Tako je oblast leta 1825 zavrnila prošnjo za izdajanje tednika Slavinja. Tudi izid sporov okrog četrte številke pesniškega almanaha Krajnska čbelica (1833) je pokazal, da je cenzura ostajala mogočna ovira za avtorje. Z marčno revolucijo je bila za tisk ukinjena preventivna cenzura, ki pa jo je nadomestila retroaktivna: vlogo cenzurnih uradov je prevzel sodni aparat, na mesto prepovedi pa so stopile zaplembe. Oblast je z namenom ohranitve monarhije nadzirala predvsem naci- onalistične časopise. Cenzura je izgubljala funkcijo nadzora kakovosti in ostajala le še mehanizem represije. Leta 1863 je bil A. Einspieler prisiljen ustaviti izdajanje časopisa Stimmen aus Innerösterreich, ker ga je celovško sodišče ostro kaznovalo zaradi spodbujanja nacionalnega sovraštva. Tožbe in zaporne kazni so doletele tudi druge izdajatelje, urednike in avtorje, npr. M. Vilharja in J. Alešovca. Medtem ko je pritisk na leposlovje popustil, se je stroga preventivna cenzura gledaliških del ohranila vse do razpada monarhije, o čemer zgovorno priča prepoved uprizoritve Cankarjevih Hlapcev leta 1910. 52 MARIJAN DOVIĆ, LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature Marijan Dović Marijan Dović is an associate professor and senior research fellow at the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies (Ljublja- na). In addition to writing four books in Slovenian, he recently published National Poets, Cultural Saints: Canonization and Commemorative Cults of Writers in Europe (Brill, 2017, with Jón Karl Helgason). He has coedited thematic volumes on literature and censorship, publishing, book history, the spatial turn in literary studies, and literature and music. His major publications in English address Romanticism, European cultural na- tionalism, national poets and “cultural saints,” the literary canon, systems theory, the interwar avant-garde in the Balkans, and the theory of au- thorship. He is the editor-in-chief of the comparative literature journal Primerjalna književnost (2016–) and a coeditor of the book series Studia litteraria (2018–). Luka Vidmar Luka Vidmar is an assistant professor and research fellow at the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies (Ljubljana). He works on literature, art, and culture in Slovenia from the Baroque and Enlighten- ment, especially on the Academia Operosorum, the Zois circle, cultural na- tionalism, and forbidden books. In 2013, he published the volume Ljubljana kot novi Rim: Akademija operozov in baročna Italija (Ljubljana as the New Rome: The Academy of the Industrious and Baroque Italy). In 2016, he published A Slavic Republic of Letters: The Correspondence between Jernej Kopitar and Baron Žiga Zois (Peter Lang). In 2019, he received the Izidor Cankar Award and the Prometheus of Science for Excellence in Com- munication Award. 53 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands From Paternalism to Authoritarianism: Censorship in the Habsburg Monarchy (1751–1848) Od paternalizma do avtoritarnosti: cenzura v Habsburški monarhiji (1751–1848) ❦ norbert bachLeitner ▶ norbert.bachleitner@univie.ac.at SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal ISSN 1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online) VOLUME 26 (2021/I), pp. 54–88 DOI 10.13137/2283-5482/32489 55 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands censorship, Book Bans, haBsBurG monarchY, enliGhtenment, pre-march, puBlishinG Business, literature, sciences, theoloGY, politics cenzura, prepovedi knjiG, haBsBurŠka monarhija, razsvetljenstvo, predmarČna doBa, knjižno založniŠtvo, literatura, znanost, teoloGija, politika This article provides an overview of censorship and book bans in Austria between 1751 and 1848. It is based on the catalogues and lists of banned manuscripts and books and the available censorship regulations and censors’ protocols; moreover, the most important persons involved in cen- sorship such as Gerard van Swieten, Count Sedlnitzky, and Metternich are introduced, and their impact on the book trade is shown. From an instru- ment encouraging Enlightenment and defending morality during the reign of Maria Teresa and Joseph II, censor- ship became a major factor of political repression after the French Revolution. The focus moved from the protection of Catholicism against Protestant “her- esy” and superstition to the defense of monarchy against liberalism and na- tionalism. The aim of enlightening the citizens and promoting their happiness pursued during the second half of the eighteenth century was replaced by the will to maintain the “peace” of the state and suppress any ideas that confound- ed its interests. Razprava preučuje cenzuro in prepo- vedi knjig v Avstriji med letoma 1751 in 1848. Temelji na katalogih in sezna- mih prepovedanih rokopisov in knjig ter razpoložljivih predpisih o cenzuri in cenzorskih protokolih; poleg tega so predstavljene najpomembnejše osebe, vpletene v cenzuro, kot so Ge- rard van Swieten, grof Sedlnitzky in Metternich, in prikazan njihov vpliv na knjižni trg. Od instrumenta, ki je spodbujal razsvetljenske ideje in branil moralo, kar je bilo značilno za vladavino Marije Terezije in Jo- žefa II., je cenzura po francoski revo- luciji postala glavni dejavnik politične represije. Težišče se je premaknilo z zaščite katolištva pred protestantsko »herezijo« in vraževerjem k obrambi monarhije pred liberalizmom in naci- onalizmom. Cilj razsvetljenja držav- ljanov in spodbujanje njihove sreče, ki ga je zasledovala cenzura v drugi polovici 18. stoletja, sta nadomestila vo- lja po ohranjanju »miru« države in za- tiranje vseh idej, ki so bile v navzkrižju z njenimi interesi. 56 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism 1 On the early history of censorship, cf. Eisenhardt. 2 Cf. mandate relating to “Sectischer Bücher-Verbott” issued by Archduke Ferdinand I of Austria on 3/12/1523, cited in Wiesner: 22–24. 1. what caMe before: censorshiP in the earLy MoDern PerioD The first proscription of a book in the German-speaking area appears to have been declared by the Bishop of Würzburg in 1482, i.e. soon after Gutenberg’s invention of printing with movable type. The first known banning of a book by an emperor occurred three decades later and applied to a work by Johannes Reuchlin.1 Archduke Ferdinand is- sued a prohibition on the reproduction and trafficking of the treatises of Luther and his followers for the Austrian lands in 1523; this decree is considered the first genuinely Austrian censorship measure.2 The foundation of the imperial authority in matters of books and the press was the so-called Bücherregal (regalian right regarding books), a mo- nopoly the emperor later shared with the territorial rulers. Estab- lished around 1500, it included the right to grant printing privileges (Privilegia impressoria) protecting authors and/or publishers against unauthorized reproductions. The Sanctio pragmatica of 1623 delegated censorship in (Lower) Austria to the University of Vienna. Since the Jesuits occupied most of the chairs of religion and philosophy in the Catholic lands, they handled the censorship of manuscripts and books in these disciplines, which translated into extreme rigor regarding Protestant writings. The Church and the secular governments thus began to share the task of censorship; religious treatises dominated the book market until well into the eighteenth century anyway, and the most important political concern was maintaining the religious peace. In Austria, this primarily meant the prevention or obstruction of “sec- tarian”—meaning Protestant—writings. At least in Bohemia, with its original share of 80 to 90 percent Protestants among the population and accordingly radical forced reconfessionalization following Ferdinand II’s victory in the Battle of White Mountain in 1620, trade in forbidden 57 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands books was punishable by death until the issuance of Joseph’s Patent of Toleration in 1781. The death penalty was likely not applied often, however (cf. Ducreux). Since systematic surveillance of the distribution of books could be assured neither in the religious nor in the political segment, the state’s measures were limited to the symbolic burning of a single copy of banned writs, destroyed as a proxy for the author respectively the spirit of his work.3 The pathos implied in the destruction by fire and the notion of a direct connection to higher powers manifest therein are visualized in the frontispiece of the 1711 edition of the Roman Index: In it, the Holy Spirit sends Saints Peter and Paul serving as censors energy, which reflects off them to ignite the fire that destroys the books carrying evil (see Figure 1). ← FIG. 1 Frontispiece of the papal Index librorum prohibitorum of 1711. 3 On book burning cf. Rafetseder. 58 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism It is only in an imperial edict of 1715 that political writings and pas- quinades attacking the government and the laws of the Holy Roman Empire or individual persons are mentioned for the first time. The fact that theology was beginning to lose ground on the book market and secular authority was being discussed more and more frequently entailed a shift in censorship competencies in favor of the state. In ad- dition, the worldly rulers increasingly felt competent regarding the salvation of their subjects. Since the spiritual authorities—primarily the pope, the bishops, and the Jesuits at the universities—had no in- tention of giving up this responsibility voluntarily, however, a dispute about the power of censorship ensued that would last the entirety of the eighteenth century. The examination of manuscripts associ- ated with the bestowal of printing privileges was still in the hands of the university, while the monitoring of the book trade in the shape of visitations of stationary bookstores and the markets as well as the inspection of book imports at the borders were shared between the university and the state. The state governments established book audit- ing committees for this purpose, beginning with the ones for Bohemia in Prague in 1723 and for Inner Austria in Graz in 1732. A treatise causing some commotion appeared in Prague in 1748: the Historische und Geographische Beschreibung des Königreiches Böheim (Historical and Geographical Description of the Kingdom of Bohe- mia, Freiburg 1742; 2nd edition Frankfurt and Leipzig 1746) published under the pseudonym Rochezang von Isecern. It included a critical examination of the awarding of the Bohemian vote for the election of Emperor Charles VII to Maria Theresa, whose franchise was a point of much contention, as well as reports on the ongoing war activities. Since the atmosphere in Bohemia was already heated and the gov- ernment feared an eruption of peasant revolts, the book was burned 59 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands in Vienna in November 1749 and its author’s name displayed on the gal- lows. Shortly thereafter, a book entitled Lettres d’un Seigneur Hollandois à un de ses amis (Letters from a Dutch Lord to One of His Friends) and challenging Maria Theresa’s right of succession turned up in Vienna (cf. Fournier: 403–404). Each of these cases had to be treated individually and the respective verdict proclaimed by way of a decree, which meant a very cumbersome process; the need to introduce an efficient system of censorship increased. Furthermore, the establishment of modern administrative structures was observable in all the European absolute monarchies during the mid-eighteenth century, for example in France and the German states. Such modern bureaucracies commonly in- cluded a censorial surveillance apparatus characterized by profes- sionality and division of labor as well as by regulations codifying the censorship process and a system of record documentation. The ousting of the ecclesiastical institutions from the censorship procedure as seen in Austria was an integral part of these bureaucratic reforms and the path to development of modern statehood. 2. the censorshiP coMMittee unDer Maria theresa A new central agency for the political administration of the monarchy was created in 1749: the Directorium in Publicis et Cameralibus, which also assumed responsibility for organizing censorship. The Directo- rium’s recommendation was to establish a new Bücher-Censurs-Hof- commission (Court Book Censorship Committee), which would leave the power of censorship concerning theological and philosophical books with the university while assigning the remaining disciplines to secular censors. This suggestion reflected the fact that theology still dominated the book market and the production of political, historical, 60 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism and juridical literature was marginal in Austria in contemporary as- sessments: According to the printers, there existed “no other writers besides five or six clerical and roughly a few secular ones” in Vienna in 1751 (qtd. in Klingenstein 1970: 144). Gerard van Swieten, who coordinated and implemented these recommendations, can be considered the originator of Maria There- sa’s censorship reform. He represents the archetype of the Austrian censor belonging to the old genus of polyhistors that was dying out at the end of the eighteenth century. The first president of the Censor- ship Committee was Count Franz Josef Saurau, who was soon succeeded by Count Johann Chotek. The fields of theology and philosophy were handled by the Jesuits as designated; two professors of the Faculty of Law, Ignaz Aigner and Johann Adam Penz, were assigned to juris- prudence; van Swieten himself, who also assumed the Committee pres- idency in 1759, censored in the discipline of medicine; and the historical and political writings as well as public law were covered by professors of the Savoyan and Theresian Academies (Christian August Beck, Paul Joseph Riegger, and Johann Heinrich Gottlob Justi; cf. Klingenstein 1970: 161). Van Swieten was able to wrest the areas of philosophy and the materies mixtae (roughly: belles-lettres) from the competency of the Jesuits. In addition, he successfully derided the Jesuit practice of ob- jecting to “nudity” in books on anatomy (qtd. in Klingenstein 1970: 172) and subsequently also took over the censorship of natural science treatises. The last remaining Jesuit was eliminated from the Committee in 1764. Although the Jesuit members were replaced by subordinates of the Archbishop of Vienna, the secular state faction had won an im- portant victory in the fight for censorial dominance. As Van Swieten emphasized, the Archbishop could suggest the clerical members of the Committee, but the Empress had to confirm them (cf. Fournier: 462). 61 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands In keeping with Enlightenment ideals, censorship was primarily intended to counter ignorance and superstition. Moreover, “[t]he old forms of mores and customs, which appeared profane and coarse in the eyes of the proponents of the Enlightenment, could also be altered with the help of censorship.” Censorship thus served for “the diffusion of modern, more rigorous morals and the refinement of manners.” (Klingenstein 1973: 104) What may sound like pure idealism in the sense of improvement of humanity also promoted more concrete interests, however: The modern state required responsible, independent, and above all well-informed citizens and economic subjects. A moderate reform Catholicism (that is, Jansenism) was therefore tolerated or even facilitated while Jesuit writings were forbidden beginning in 1759—es- pecially as they were said to condone regicide (cf. Klingenstein 1970: 106–115). The reorganization of censorship also put an end to official book burnings. Nevertheless, books were occasionally burned on im- perial orders, for example in Frankfurt in 1766 in the case of a blas- phemous book by Henri-Joseph Laurens entitled Chandelle d’Arras (cf. Rafetseder: 229, 238). The times of ritual public incineration by the executioner, however, were brought to a close by the advancing En- lightenment and the associated rationalization of all areas of life. In his memorandum Quelques remarques sur la censure des livres (Some Remarks on the Censorship of Books) of 1772, van Swieten listed the most important motives for censorship. His point of departure was the diagnosis that “pernicious books” had proliferated quickly. In the area of religion, deism had gained ground, the Protestants challenged the pope’s authority, indulgence was being preached, superstition abound- ed, and the Jesuits were proclaiming the absolute power of the pope over all the faithful and their property, including that of the secular rulers. Scientific books written by Protestants, on the other hand, could 62 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism be of great use and should be tolerated despite occasional anti-Catholic invectives. A staunchly faithful Catholic audience could not be made to waver by such contumeliousness, and in any case, the appropriate answers were delivered promptly by controversial theology. “Immoral books” and images naturally had to be suppressed categorically, how- ever—one of van Swieten’s primary concerns was the protection of the youth. His statements are an expression of the contradictions between apology and condemnation as well as of the associated self-contrariety that proponents of the Enlightenment entangled themselves in when they spoke about censorship; they are encountered in similar fash- ion in the works of Enlightenment figureheads like Leibniz, Wolff, Gottsched, and Kant. Van Swieten remained president of the Committee until his death in June 1772. Besides publications from the fields of natural science and history, he also censored all fiction. Works by famous authors like Ariosto, Machiavelli, Lessing, Wieland, Fielding, Crébillon, Rousseau, and Voltaire did not meet with his approval. He is even said to have called Rousseau a “nasty individual” with reference to the novel Émile in a conversation with Friedrich Nicolai (Nicolai: 854). Van Swieten de- spised creative writing, finding aesthetic literature useless, often even “evil, scandalous and godless” (qtd. in Fournier: 464), a phrasing that may have been aimed directly at Voltaire. He therefore bemoaned the effort he had to put into reading such works, especially since he thought there was no lasting benefit to be reaped from doing so. His censor- ship reports, which formed the foundation for the appraisals of the Committee, are collected in a codex written in a difficult-to-decipher shorthand. Thanks to the efforts of E. C. van Leersum, they have been at least partially accessible since the early twentieth century. At Joseph von Sonnenfels’ instigation, the censoring of theater plays was included 63 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands in the Committee’s agenda in 1770. For some months performed by Son- nenfels himself, this field was soon taken over by the Lower Austrian government councilor Franz Karl Hägelin, who also drafted detailed guidelines for the censorship of drama in 1795.4 The Committee met once a month, or more frequently if necessary, in van Swieten’s office (cf. Figure 2). The members reported on the as yet unknown books that had been sent to them for review after having been delivered to the Bücherrevisionsamt (Book Review Office) via the customs authorities. Occasionally, certain relevant passages from individual works were read aloud before a vote was taken on the verdict. If the vote was unanimous, the case was closed and a decision in favor of prohibition forwarded to the Empress (effectively, to the court chancellery) for confirmation. In the case of a divided vote, the ← FIG. 2 A session with Gottfried van Swie- ten in the Camera praefecti. Drawing by Adam Bartsch. 4 Memorandum by Franz Karl Hägelin, intended as a guideline for the censorship of theater in Hungary (1795), qtd. in Glossy: 298–340. 64 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism 5 From a report to the Styrian government entitled “Kurze Nach- richt von Einrichtung der hiesigen Hof- büchercommission”, cited in Fournier: 419. 6 The source is the database “Verdrängt, verpönt – verges- sen?” (http://univie. ac.at/zensur). respective case was deferred so that all censors could read the work in question and make up their minds. If the subsequent vote was still not unanimous, the individual opinions were documented and passed on to the Empress for her final decision. Lists of banned titles were compiled roughly every month and sent to the provinces; at the end of the year, they were collectively amended to the Catalogus librorum prohibitorum. The Committee sessions also included a strange ritual in which the banned books seized from private individuals were “im- mediately torn to pieces and destroyed by all of the censors and himself [the Committee Secretary].”5 Only theological and political literature was incorporated into the imperial respectively archiepiscopal library if it was not already included in the holdings. Until the founding of the Censorship Committee, information about the prohibition of individual writings had been propagated in the shape of a separate decree for each title. This process was protracted and in- evitably led to errors and information gaps; it had been adequate only while the book market remained small and manageable. To eliminate its weaknesses, the continuously amended and updated Catalogus li- brorum prohibitorum was introduced in 1754. A total number of 4,701 prohibitions have been determined for the period from 1751 to 1780, equivalent to an average of 157 titles banned each year.6 There are six Frenchmen among the top eight names of prohibited authors along with three Germans—one of whom (Frederick II) likewise often wrote in French. Voltaire takes the top spot, the Marquis d’Argens is in second place. Their part-time “employer,” the Prussian philosopher king, comes in a close third—tied with Georg Friedrich Meier, a further philosopher focused on aesthetics and criticizing religion. Claude Joseph Dorat with his plays and works of prose stands out in the ranking as a con- servative and anti-Enlightenment figure. Rousseau and the author 65 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 7 “Kurze Nachricht von Einrichtung der hiesigen Hof- büchercommission” (February 1762), cited in Fournier: 418–420. of satirical and frivolous-libertine prose and epics Rétif de La Bretonne and Wieland round off the group of the most frequently prohibited Enlightenment notables. The practice of distinguishing between the upper or educated class- es and the mass audience goes back to the 1760s. Special permissions or Scheden are first mentioned in van Swieten’s remarks on the or- ganization of the Censorship Committee in 1762.7 On October 4, 1766, a court decree stated that books containing only a few objectionable sentences should henceforth be allowed for use by educated readers (cf. Lavandier: 90). Members of the highest social circles generally did not even need to apply for Scheden; they used informal channels instead. Count Karl Zinzendorf, for example, noted in his diary how he had boxes full of forbidden books delivered from Frankfurt, Leipzig, and by ship from Marseille during his time as Governor of Trieste, that is between 1777 and 1780 (cf. Wagner). 3. censorshiP in the josePhine-LeoPoLDine era Josephinism has been defined as the Austrian variant of enlightened absolutism. The young and ambitious monarch continued the reforms begun by his mother, but his measures for restricting the influence of the Church and the religious orders were far more radical: Whereas Maria Theresa had carefully facilitated Jansenist reform Catholicism, her son attempted to completely secularize the state. One of the prob- lems encountered by the reform plans was the antagonism between the impeding forces among the nobility and the estates on the one hand and the emerging middle classes on the other, who demanded the liberalization of the administration and economy, asserting freedom and equality as inherent rights. 66 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism Feudalism along with old institutions such as guilds designed to pro- tect certain industries or trades against overpopulation and paternalism by the Church had no place in this concept. New publishing houses, printer’s shops, and booksellers, on the other hand, were welcomed as promoters of the Enlightenment and enhancers of the state’s income. Joseph viewed the book industry as a branch of commerce like any other, notoriously comparing it to trade in cheese (cf. Plachta: 70). The school reform initiated by Maria Theresa began to bear fruit, causing literacy to increase and the audience and demand for books to grow. Neverthe- less, the reform package remained an instructional and disciplinary measure that upheld the principle of absolutism despite its endorsement of liberalism in certain details. The Josephine practice of censorship was Janus-faced: Liberality and surprising strictness were equally present in its repertoire. Joseph initially wanted to centralize censorship as much as possible, and the corresponding measures were one of many attempts to modernize the monarchy and restrict the autonomy of the individual lands (cf. Wö- gerbauer). The censorship committees in the lands had decided on the prohibition or approval of manuscripts and books at their own discretion and subsequently often come to disparate results. Already practiced since the 1760s, the transmission of the Viennese prohibition decisions to the lands represented a first step towards standardization. In January 1780, monthly notification of the lands about the censorship decisions in Vien- na (the lists of forbidden and allowed books) had been decreed anew (cf. Sashegyi: 17). Upon assuming power, Joseph went significantly beyond these measures by simply abolishing the committees in the lands entirely. The decree of June 11, 1781—frequently known as Joseph’s “Censorship Patent”—established a central Büchercensurshofkommission in Vienna that was responsible for manuscripts and books within the entire monarchy. 67 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Joseph’s abovementioned decree of June 11, 1781 (see Zensurverord- nung Josephs II.) stated that popular literature—especially “non-rhym- ing ribaldry”—was to be treated more strictly than scientific works, which only reached a small, educated readership anyway. In keeping with the Patent of Toleration issued in the same year, Protestant books were to be allowed for professed Protestants—as were writings critical of religion in general as long as they did not systematically challenge the Catholic faith. The same applied to criticism of objects and persons, “from the sovereign to the lowest subject,” provided the author was identified by name. Furthermore, neither self-contained works nor periodicals should be banned due to individual questionable passages. The special privileges (Scheden) were done away with; any book was to be either forbidden or accessible to everyone. In practice, however, they appear to have still been granted. Moreover, Joseph had the Catalogus librorum prohibitorum, which had grown considerably since the 1750s, revised and titles for whose prohibition there was no longer any reason deregulated. The revised catalog entitled Verzeichniß aller bis 1-ten Jäner 1784 verbottenen Bücher contained only 1029 works, of which 184 were new writings that had never been banned before. This means that the catalogs accumulated under Maria Theresa, which had included 4,701 works as mentioned above, were reduced to only 845 titles. The total of new editions prohib- ited in the Josephine decade amounted to 641. On top of the list of most frequently prohibited authors we find the prolific writer of popular Enlightenment texts, Karl Friedrich Bahrdt. The former Augustine father Karl von Güntherode was a like-minded author who increas- ingly devoted himself to religious satire. Friedrich von der Trenck was presumably targeted by censorship as a thorny case in the diplomacy between Prussia and Austria, while Joseph Großinger was a historian 68 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism and brochure author with a propensity for sensationalism—titles like Babylon, oder das große Geheimnis der europäischen Mächte (Babylon, or the great secret of the European powers, 1784) were characteristic for his work. The writings of Johann Friedel took a similar tack; among his banned works was Galanterien Wiens auf einer Reise gesammelt, und in Briefen geschildert von einem Berliner (Gallantries of Vienna collect- ed on a journey and described in letters by a Berliner, 1784), whereas Christian Gottlieb Berger was dedicated to philosophy and pseudo-re- ligious speculation. On February 8, 1781, the new Censorship Committee headed by Count Chotek was appointed. The political and philosophical writ- ings were henceforth censored by Baron Aloysius von Locella, the eco- nomic and military titles by court councilor Johann von Birkenstock, and the juridical and historical ones by Konstantin von Kauz. After lengthy discussions, the censorship reform entered into force on June 8, 1781 (cf. Sashegyi: 23, 27). The Censorship Committee, now officially called Studien- und Zensurhofkommission (Study and Censorship Court Committee) to emphasize the educational mandate of censorship, was directed by Gottfried van Swieten. Besides the office, Gerard van Swieten’s son had also taken over the court library from his father; he dedicated himself entirely to the Enlightenment as interpreted by the Emperor and maintained close contacts to the Viennese liter- ary scene. It therefore comes as no surprise that authors like Aloys Blumauer or Joseph von Retzer were likewise employed as censors, at least intermittently. On April 8, 1782, the Censorship Committee was suspended, mean- ing that the censors could henceforth decide independently and simply send a report with a brief justification of their verdict on each reviewed work to the president of the Study and Censorship Committee; the 69 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 8 The mentioned events have been portrayed by numerous authors; cf. e.g. Wangermann 2004: 72–82. committee had to convene only in difficult cases. In 1784, the verdict of “typum non meretur” (not deserving of being printed) was intro- duced, which was aimed at light fiction and indicated meaninglessness in terms of content rather than style. Publications by Jansenists, Jesuits, and Freemasons as well as works about them were permitted; as men- tioned above, the Church was excluded from the censorship process. What was more, the secular censorship occasionally banned writings by the Vatican, including papal bulls, breviaries, missals, and regulation books for Catholic orders, thereby perpetuating the conflict with the Archbishop of Vienna. That this conflict was in fact a power struggle for control over the state is evidenced by the fact that a decree issued in 1774 had ordered “the instruction by Gregory VII about the power of the pope to depose monarchs ‘to be pasted over with a paper’” in the breviaries (qtd. in Sashegyi: 33). Such prescriptions to cover up passag- es in ecclesiastical writings became quite frequent during the 1780s. Pius VI’s visit to Vienna in 1782 in reaction to Joseph’s church reforms represented the culmination of the power struggle between the Holy See and the Holy Roman Emperor. It ended in a stalemate of sorts.8 Changing to political agitation, tolerance was not experienced by the bookseller Georg Philipp Wucherer, who had been printing radical op- positional literature by authors from Vienna (like Johann Jakob Fezer, Franz Kratter, and Joseph Richter) as well as from elsewhere (Karl Frie- drich Bahrdt) since 1784 and was also convicted of selling banned books (cf. Sashegyi: 123–124). Wucherer sometimes had books printed on his behalf sent to Viennese booksellers by other foreign traders in order to cover his tracks and prevent the censors from taking action. When he was eventually also identified by the bookseller, author, and Free- mason Johann Joachim Christoph Bode from Weimar as the Viennese executive member (“Diözesan”) of the radical Deutsche Union founded 70 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism 9 The list of seized items is printed in Frimmel: 211–214; cf. also Winter. 10 According to Sashegyi: 125, based on State Council documents. by Karl Friedrich Bahrdt—a secret society in the spirit of the Illumi- nati whose primary goal was to facilitate correspondence between radical authors—the police decided to use an agent provocateur posing as a “Hungarian cavalier” to end the bothersome publisher’s activities. The covert agent persuaded Wucherer to sell him a book prohibited by censorship, namely the anonymous pamphlet Die Gesunde Vernun- ft, oder die übernatürlichen Begriffe im Widerspruch mit den natürlichen (Healthy Reason, or the Supernatural Concepts in Contradiction to the Natural Ones, London 1788). Wucherer thus committed an offense, even though it was only a minor infraction punishable with a fine of 50 guil- ders; the printing and possession of banned books alone did not rep- resent a violation since it was permissible, for example, to sell them abroad. The police were merely tasked with monitoring and preventing the circulation of prohibited writings. Wucherer was subsequently arrested, and the police searched his business premises, discovering a large number of forbidden and uncensored books including works by Bahrdt, Joseph Richter, and Aloys Blumauer.9 Although possession of these books did not constitute an offense in itself as mentioned above, Wucherer was sentenced to a blanket fine of 1000 ducats at the Emperor’s behest. In addition, his stores of books were destroyed and his company dissolved, and he and his family were expelled from the country (cf. Wangermann 1966: 53–55). In fact, Wucherer’s case indirectly caused the reintroduction of pre- censorship. After it had been possible since a decree issued on February 24, 1787 to print manuscripts in Vienna without permission from the Censorship Committee (although the resulting books did have to be cen- sorially approved after their printing), preventive censorship came into force again on November 24, 1789.10 Joseph II was by no means prepared to give up his control over the population and its reading, and even his 71 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands more enlightened advisors and allies were not consistently liberal. As decrees forbidding the printing of manuscripts without censorial permission under threat of punishment are preserved even for the phase of putative “freedom of the press” under Joseph II frequently asserted in research, this terminology cannot be upheld. The veritable flood of pamphlets inundating Vienna as a conse- quence of the “freedom of the press” according to various commen- tators, including Aloys Blumauer in Beobachtungen über Österreichs Aufklärung und Litteratur (Observations on Austria’s Enlightenment and Literature) and Johann Pezzl in his Skizze von Wien (Sketch of Vienna), was more myth than fact. Although Wernigg’s thorough Bibliographie österreichischer Drucke zwischen 1781 und 1795 (Bibliography of Austrian Prints between 1781 and 1795) comprises roughly 6,300 entries, it should be noted that the author extends the phase of “freedom of the press” to 1795—thereby making it at least three years longer than it actually was, since the reaction already began during the reign of Leopold II. In addition, Wernigg found it sensible to include the entire oeuvre of the most important authors, including many works published before or after the period stipulated in the title. Ultimately, this means that the “flood of pamphlets” amounts to between 2,000 and 3,000 titles at most, distributed across an entire decade. Leopold II initially continued Joseph’s ostensibly liberal course, for example by allowing anti-aristocratic writings that challenged the nobility’s claims with reference to the French Revolution and were characterized by “a satirical, sometimes caustic tone” to be published under circumvention of censorship (Reinalter: 97). He also defended the citizens’ right to form corporate bodies as well as the peasants’ demands for liberation from feudal burdens. On the other hand, he re- turned to stricter censorship principles of the kind that had been 72 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism in place under Maria Theresa. Leopold’s court decree of September 1, 1790 stipulated the maintenance of general calm within the state and prohibited anything that diminished obedience to the sovereign or caused “skepticism in spiritual matters” (qtd. in Giese: 385). For- eigners suspected of revolutionary agitation were monitored by the police. In this sense, Leopold paved the way for the reaction under his successor Francis II. 4. censorshiP as an instruMent of rePression: between the french revoLution anD stuDent unrest (1792 to 1820) The first five years of the period discussed in this section form the transition phase between the instructionally oriented and Enlight- enment-focused censorship regime to the strictly prohibitive system instituted by Emperor Francis II in the post-revolutionary era. 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 monarchy under Joseph II, turned out to be an illusion. 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 (qtd. in Heindl: 42). Following a court decree issued on February 10, 1792, the Bohemi- an-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 sub- mitted their individually compiled reports, based on which an official at the Court Chancellery made the final decision regarding permission 73 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands or prohibition. 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. A General Censorship Ordinance subsuming the previous partial enactments was issued on 22 February 1795 (see Hofdekret). Manuscripts could not be printed nor books produced abroad be sold without prior ap- proval. Reprints and translations had to be submitted for censorship like manuscripts, and the same applied to catalogs of books offered for sale or auction. Sending manuscripts forbidden 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. 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. The increase in the num- ber of prohibitions of printed works is most significant in 1795 (779) to around three-and-a-half times the value for 1793 (226). The high rate of prohibitions reached in 1795 was maintained until 1802 before the numbers of banned titles quickly dropped to less than a tenth of the value for 1802 until 1815, the year of the Congress of Vienna (1802: 741, 1815: 57). Prohibition activity stagnated between 1815 and 1818, after which a marked increase can be observed. The reason is clear: Fol- lowing the Wartburg Festival, the start of the student uprisings, and especially the murder of Kotzebue, the political climate became tense once again. The increase in prohibitions marks the beginning of the pre-March period in Austria. Austrian writers were forced to adapt their activity to the situation by effectively practicing self-censorship, and literature published outside the Monarchy had to be treated equally strictly. On the top on the list of prohibited writers we find mainly 74 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism German authors of popular novels and plays such as Johann Friedrich Ernst Albrecht, Christian August Vulpius, Carl Gottlob Cramer, Johann Ernst Daniel Bornschein, and August von Kotzebue. In 1801, responsibility for censorship was transferred to the Polizei- hofstelle (Court Police Section) established in 1792. It was presided over until 1804 by Count Johann Anton Pergen, who had been urging for cen- sorship to be included in the Section’s duties for a long time since he was of the opinion that the surveillance of literature represented a facet of national security. From 1816 to 1848 the Court Police Section was sub- sequently headed by Count Joseph Sedlnitzky, who was infamous for being a narrow-minded fanatic (cf. Hadamowsky: 301). The censors had to report to the Court Police Section, they were to combine the abilities of a good official accustomed to following regulations with the qualities of a scholar. In addition, they were expected to be proficient in as many languages as possible and possess political intuition. Thus, they were recruited from among scholars and higher clerks who kept abreast of one or more fields of knowledge, many of them even actively published their own writings. The number of permanently employed “genuine” censors fluctuated between eight and thirteen in the period covered here; addi- tional temporary censors were employed in times of heavy work loads. 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. The French administration abrogated censorship altogether, as a re- sult several publishers promptly began marketing books that had previ- ously been prohibited, e.g. uncensored editions of the works of Schiller, Voltaire, and Wieland. A considerable number of books traditionally frowned upon in Austria were immediately banned again following the withdrawal of the French forces. 75 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 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 Cen- sors) was issued (reptd. in Marx 1959: 73–76). It was meant to increase Austria’s international prestige by promulgating comparatively mild censorship rules but, nevertheless, it established a paternalistic reg- imen. The motives for censorship were defined as protection of the monarch and his dynasty, of foreign governments, of religion and mo- rality as well as the honor of individuals against defamation. Tolerance was promised to serious and innovative scientific contributions, while worthless light fiction such as novels of chivalry or ghost stories would be met with the full severity of censorship. The most important politi- cal reason for prohibitions 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 Neu- stadt, 1810), a family saga set in the fourteenth century and revolving around Rudolf the Founder, was considered insulting because it por- trayed “some [members of the Habsburg dynasty] as so unnaturally depraved and despicable as [it does] others, the repressed, as virtu- ous and likable.” (Censorship reports). Not even Heinrich von Kleist was immune to accusations of immorality. His tale “The Earthquake in Chile” was rated “damnatur” in January 1811 by the censor because of a scene of seduction in a convent and the “most dreadful” outcome (ibid.). 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. The Bücherrevisionsämter (Book Review Offices) respectively the local censors were allowed to admit shorter, obviously unproblematic—and 76 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism in particular non-political—manuscripts and books of their own ac- cord, thereby clearing them for printing, and to request minor changes or omissions in the case of manuscripts. 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. Exceptions to these limited competencies of the Book Review Offices in the capitals of the crown lands were the offices in Lemberg, Milano, and Venice, where all manuscripts for works to be published as well as books in Pol- ish respectively Italian arriving from abroad were assessed. The lists of forbidden respectively permitted books reveal that this approach suggested itself due to the sheer quantity of writings published in these languages. The Book Review Offices also formed relay stations within the censorial process, they accepted the submitted manuscripts along with books slated for reprinting and passed them on to suitable censors in case of concerns. All books arriving from abroad and as yet unknown and therefore neither allowed nor banned in Austria, had to be submit- ted to the censorship process. The censorial reports on foreign books had to be forwarded to the Court Police Section for the final decision on their verdict. In addition, the reviewers maintained handwritten cumulative thesauruses of prohibited publications. Last but not least, the Book Review Offices also accepted and processed the applications for Scheden, the special permits for purchase of prohibited works. 5. 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 77 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands advanced liberal political ideas. The first conflicts concerning Austrian rule arose in Lombardy and Venetia, with Galicia respectively Poland likewise becoming centers of nationalist independence efforts not long thereafter. The monitoring of communication by way of printed texts was now accompanied by the observation of suspicious persons. 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 (cf. Noe). Lord Byron was observed during his sojourn in the Italian states. It is hardly necessary to note that numerous of his works were to be found on the lists of forbidden books. He never made a secret of his disdain for the Austrian “Huns” and “barbarians” who were preventing liberal progress. It was no wonder that Metternich could easily be 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 rev- olution 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. (Brunner: 32) A second restoration campaign followed after the July Revolution of 1830 in France with the overthrow of Charles X. The Hambach Fes- tival in May 1832 further stoked the fear of revolution, and the concerns regarding a Europe-wide conspiracy against the continent’s monarchs 78 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism increased. In order to sharpen the tools of censorship, the verdict “damnatur nec erga schedam” 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 cirulation”, 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 Aus- trian 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” in the prohibition lists. The focus was on radical liberal writings assessed as revolutionary, and such seizures were ap- plied to works published by Hoffmann und Campe in Hamburg, Hoff in Mannheim, the Literarisches Institut in Herisau/Switzerland, and several other printers. Mitigations of prohibition verdicts were rare but did occasionally occur—for example in the case of extolments of Napoleon, which were tolerated from 1832. Evidence on the number of Scheden applications is lacking. 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 illus- trated 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 with dishonest means to gain control of the gigantic inheritance of a family. 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). As preserved 79 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands applications from Prague show, permission to obtain Le Juif errant was granted to a number of illustrious persons including Count Auersperg, Count Joseph Matthias Thun-Hohenstein, Count Johann zu Salm, Coun- tess von Salm, Countess Johanna von Thun, Count Oktavian Kinsky, and Prince Karl zu Liechtenstein (see Applications for Scheden). For members of the middle class, the prospects of receiving a Sche- da 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 consid- ered to be in the best possible repute, yet the authorities feared that he might “render information” 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 (cf. Marx 1963: 462). Booksellers were able to obtain prohibited goods despite the efforts of the police. Raids regularly discovered forbidden writings, even the renowned bookstore owned by Karl Gerold in Vienna attracted the authorities’ attention repeatedly. 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. The secret storeroom was discovered without issue, the agents found numerous prohibited works hidden behind books published by Gerold on the shelves. The volume of seized goods was so large—1,000 books and booklets—that “three persons had to be used to transport it to the local official building in covered tubs and wheel- barrows.” (Visitation Karl Gerold) Among the confiscated items were several copies of the particularly detested—and thus censorially des- ignated for seizure—titles Oesterreich im Jahre 1843 (Austria in the Year 80 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism 1843) and Oesterreich und dessen Zukunft (Austria and Its Future) by Bar- on Victor von Andrian-Werburg as well as Spaziergänge eines zweiten Wiener Poeten (Promenades by a Second Viennese Poet) by Ferdinand Avist. 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 af- ter having been read. The particularly objectionable titles mentioned above had been given to him for forwarding by the Brussels bookseller Cans, who had been passing through. Anyway, the Viennese magistrate in person of Mayor Ignaz Czapka showed no eagerness whatsoever to punish Gerold, and the police and state government thus lost out to a book trader once again. Taking printed publications and manuscripts together, the num- ber of prohibitions grew by 150 % between 1819 (445) and 1822 (1140). 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 mirrored in the censorship activity. Thus, we may assume that the production of books effectively outran the censorship efforts, meaning that the developments on the book market increasingly eluded the administra- tion’s grasp—representing a symbolic parallel to the political events culminating in the revolution of 1848. The only German author near the top of the list of the most fre- quently prohibited authors in this period is philosopher and state the- orist Wilhelm Traugott Krug, followed with a considerable margin 81 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands by popular novelists Alexander Bronikowski, one of the many Scott epigones, and Amalie Schoppe. The roster is led by French writers: Paul de Kock, known for his frivolous stories; Eugène Sue, author of adven- ture 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. To end this essay, the above 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 ← DIAGRAM 1 The seven most important plac- es of publication of books prohibited in Austria (1754–1848). 82 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism 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), Frank- furt (1591), Stuttgart (1173), and London (854). ❦ 83 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands References Applications for Scheden (Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Polizeihofstelle, shelf mark H 146/1845). Brunner, karl, 1925: Byron und die österreichische Polizei. Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 80, vol. 148. 28–41. Censorship reports (Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Polizeihofstelle, shelf mark 97k/1811). ducreuX, marie-elisaBeth, 1989: Reading unto Death. Books and Readers in Eighteenth-Century Bohemia. The Culture of Print. Power and the Uses of Print in Early Modern Europe. Ed. Roger Chartier. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press. 191–229. eisenhardt, ulrich, 1970: Die kaiserliche Aufsicht über Buchdruck, Buchhandel und Presse im Heiligen Römischen Reich Deutscher Nation (1496–1806). Karlsruhe: Müller. Fournier, auGust, 1876: Gerhard van Swieten als Censor. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften: Philosophisch-historische Klasse 84, vol. 3. Vienna: Gerold. 387–466. Frimmel, johannes, 2011: Geheimliteratur im josephinischen Wien: Akteure und Programm. Geheimliteratur und Geheimbuchhandel in Europa im 18. Jahrhundert. Ed. Christine Haug, Franziska Mayer, and Winfried Schröder. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 203–216. Giese, ursula, 1966: Studie zur Geschichte der Pressegesetzgebung, der Zensur und des Zeitungswesens im frühen Vormärz. Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 6, cols. 341–546. 84 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism GlossY, carl, 1897: Zur Geschichte der Wiener Theatercensur. Jahrbuch der Grillparzer-Gesellschaft 7. 238–340. hadamoWskY, Franz, 1979: Ein Jahrhundert Literatur- und Theaterzensur in Österreich (1751–1848). Die Österreichische Literatur: Ihr Profil an der Wende vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert (1750– 1830). Part 1. Ed. Herbert Zeman. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. 289–305. heindl, Waltraud, 1994: Der “Mitautor”: Überlegungen zur literarischen Zensur und staatsbürgerlichen Mentalität im habsburgischen Biedermeier und Vormärz. Kultur und Politik in Österreich und Ungarn. Ed. Péter Hanák, Waltraud Heindl, Stefan Malfèr, and Éva Somogyi. Vienna: Böhlau. 38–60. Hofdekret an sämmtliche Länderstellen vom 22. Februar 1795. 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. klinGenstein, Grete, 1970: Staatsverwaltung und kirchliche Autorität im 18. Jahrhundert: Das Problem der Zensur in der theresianischen Reform. Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik. klinGenstein, Grete, 1973: Van Swieten und die Zensur.: Gerard van Swieten und seine Zeit. Ed. Erna Lesky and Adam Wandruszka. Vienna: Böhlau. 93–106. lavandier, jean-pierre, 1993: Le livre au temps de Marie-Thérèse: Code des lois de censure du livre pour les pays austro-bohémiens (1740–1780). Bern: Peter Lang. marX, julius, 1959: Die österreichische Zensur im Vormärz. Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik. 85 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands marX, julius, 1963: Vormärzliches Schedenwesen. Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 16. 453–468. nicolai, Friedrich, 1784: Beschreibung einer Reise durch Deutschland und die Schweiz im Jahre 1781. Vol. 4. Berlin: Nicolai. noe, alFred, 1994, ed.: Der Philhellenismus in der westeuropäischen Literatur 1780–1830. Amsterdam: Rodopi. plachta, Bodo, 1994: Damnatur – Toleratur – Admittitur: Studien und Dokumente zur literarischen Zensur im 18. Jahrhundert. Tübingen: Niemeyer. raFetseder, hermann, 1988: Bücherverbrennungen. Die öffentliche Hinrichtung von Schriften im historischen Wandel. Vienna: Böhlau. reinalter, helmut, 1988: Die Französische Revolution und Mitteleuropa: Erscheinungsformen und Wirkungen des Jakobinismus. Seine Gesellschaftstheorien und politischen Vorstellungen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. sasheGYi, oskar, 1958: Zensur und Geistesfreiheit unter Joseph II.: Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte der habsburgischen Länder. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. van leersum, e. c., 1906: Gérard van Swieten en qualité de censeur. Janus. Archives internationales pour l’Histoire de la Médecine et la Géographie Médicale 11. 381–398, 446–469, 501–522, and 588–606. Visitation Karl Gerold (Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Polizeihofstelle, shelf mark 5588/1843). WaGner, hans, 1963: Historische Lektüre vor der Französischen Revolution – aus den Tagebüchern des Grafen Karl von Zinzendorf. Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung 71. 140–156. 86 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism WanGermann, ernst, 1966: Von Joseph II. zu den Jakobinerprozessen. Vienna: Europaverlag. WanGermann, ernst, 2004: Die Waffen der Publizität. Zum Funktionswandel der politischen Literatur unter Joseph II. Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik, Munich: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag. WerniGG, Ferdinand, 1973/1977: Bibliographie österreichischer Drucke während der “erweiterten Preßfreiheit” (1781–1795). 2 vols. Vienna: Jugend und Volk. Wiesner, adolph, 1847: Denkwürdigkeiten der Oesterreichischen Zensur vom Zeitalter der Reformazion bis auf die Gegenwart. Stuttgart: Krabbe. Winter, michael, 1992: Georg Philipp Wucherer (1734– 1805). Großhändler und Verleger. Archiv für Geschichte des Buchwesens 37. 1–98. WÖGerBauer, michael, 2013: Welche Grenzen braucht das Buch? Die Regulierung des Buchwesens als Mittel der Selbstkonstruktion der Habsburgermonarchie (1750–1790). Cornova 3, 2. 11–29. Zensurverordnung Josephs II., ausgegeben am 1. Juni 1781. Handbuch aller unter der Regierung des Kaisers Joseph II. für die K. K. Erbländer ergangenen Verordnungen und Gesetze in einer Sistematischen Verbindung. Enthält die Verordnungen und Gesetze vom Jahre 1780 bis 1784. Vol 1. Vienna: Mösle, 1785. 517–524. 87 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Zusammenfassung Die österreichische Zensur unter Maria Theresia widmete sich der För- derung der Aufklärung, die katholische Religion wurde gegen Angriffe durch den Protestantismus geschützt, vor allem aber wurde der Aber- glauben bekämpft; auch die Verteidigung der Sittlichkeit spielte eine wichtige Rolle. Das Josephinische Jahrzehnt brachte den Übergang von einem paternalistischen zu einem liberalen Zensursystem mit deutlich geringeren Verbotszahlen. Die Erfahrung der Französischen Revo- lution bewirkte hingegen eine drastische Verschärfung der Zensur, zugleich verlagerte sich ihr Augenmerk zunehmend auf den Bereich der Politik, d.h. die Verteidigung der Monarchie gegen Liberalismus und Nationalismus. Auch als wertlos erachtete Unterhaltungsliteratur verfiel nun häufig dem Verdikt der Zensoren. Die politisch unruhigen 1820er Jahre brachten eine erneute Verschärfung der Zensur mit sich, die Kontrolle des Buchwesens wurde der Polizei übertragen, die als Behüterin des autoritären Staates fungierte. Diese Entwicklung setzte sich im Vormärz fort, gegen die Revolution von 1848 hin scheint die Zensur aber gewissermaßen vor der drastisch ansteigenden Buchpro- duktion zu kapitulieren. Der Beitrag stützt sich auf die verfügbaren Kataloge und Listen verbotener Bücher, Manuskripte und Periodika, auf die die Zensur regulierenden Verordnungen und Richtlinien sowie auf die wenigen erhaltenen Zensurprotokolle, die Urteile über einzelne Texte beinhalten. Ferner werden die wichtigsten Protagonisten wie der Vorsitzende der maria-theresianischen Zensurkommission Gerard van Swieten, der Präsident der Polizeihofstelle Graf Sedlnitzky und Staatskanzler Metternich eingeführt und die Auswirkungen auf den Buchhandel sowie die Praxis der Vergabe von Genehmigungen zur Lektüre verbotener Werke für die gesellschaftliche Elite angesprochen. 88 NORBERT BACHLEITNER ▶ From Paternalism to Authoritarianism Norbert Bachleitner Norbert Bachleitner is professor of Comparative Literature at the University of Vienna. His fields of interest include reception studies, especially the reception of nineteenth century English and French literature in the German- speaking area; translation studies, especially the role of translation in the international literary transfer; social history of literature, censorship; literature in periodicals; intertextuality, and the study of digital literature, i.e. new forms of literature distributed via the internet. His recent publications include Die literarische Zensur in Österreich 1750–1848 (Vienna: Böhlau, 2017); Taking Stock – Twenty-Five Years of Comparative Literary Research (ed., with Achim Hölter and John A. McCarthy; Leiden: Brill, 2020); and Literary Translation, Reception, and Transfer (ed.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020). 89 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Banned Books in the Libraries of the Styrian Monasteries in the Early Modern Period Prepovedane knjige v samostanskih knjižnicah na Štajerskem v zgodnjem novem veku ❦ nina DitMajer ▶ nina.ditmajer@zrc-sazu.si SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal ISSN 1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online) VOLUME 26 (2021/I), pp. 90–114 DOI 10.13137/2283-5482/32490 91 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands indeX oF ForBidden Books, church censorship, monastic liBraries, monastic orders, stYria indeks prepovedanih knjiG, cerkvena cenzura, samostanske knjižnice, meniŠki redovi, Štajerska This article discusses Protestant and other forbidden books included on the Index librorum prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) from Pope Paul IV (1559) to Benedict XIV (1758), which, according to book catalogs, were locat- ed in the former or still-functioning Minorite, Franciscan, Capuchin, and Dominican monasteries in Lower Sty- ria. Works by Class I authors (I. Cl. Ind. Trid.), where the reformers are mainly found (Luther, Hus, Melanchthon, and Trubar), were completely banned. This was followed by individual prohibited works (e.g., by Johann Ludwig Schön- leben) and works with problematic passages, forbidden until corrected (donec corrigantur; e.g., Johannes Schneidewein). Razprava opozarja na prisotnost protestantskih in nekaterih drugih knjig, vključenih v cerkvene indekse prepovedanih knjig (Index librorum prohibitorum) od papeža Pavla IV. (1559) do Benedikta XIV. (1758), ki so se glede na knjižne kataloge nahajale v nekda- njih ali danes še delujočih minoritskih, frančiškanskih, kapucinskih in domi- nikanskih samostanih na Spodnjem Štajerskem. Dela avtorjev prvega ra- zreda (I. Cl. Ind. Trid.), kjer so se znašli predvsem reformatorji (Luther, Hus, Melanchthon, Trubar), so bila v celoti prepovedana. Sledila so prepovedana posamezna dela (npr. Janez Lud- vik Schönleben) in dela s spornimi odlomki, prepovedana do prečiščenja (donec corrigantur) (npr. Johannes Schneidewein). 92 NINA DITMAJER ▶ Banned Books in the Libraries of the Styrian Monasteries introDuction To date, the presence of Protestant books in Lower Styria during the early modern period has been confirmed by various researchers spe- cializing in Slovenian history, linguistics, and literature, based on the examination and review of archival sources. As early as 1528, Archduke Ferdinand sent a special religious committee to Styria to determine the spread of Reformation ideas. Hans Singer of Innsbruck was believed to be selling Lutheran books in Maribor. His books were seized and burned, but the Limbuš priest Matthäus Erenberger and two Maribor prebendaries, Valentin Tolant and Christoph Händl, who exchanged works among themselves, also got hold of them (Richter: 90; Albrecher: 250, 325, 327). A visitation in Bad Radkersburg also established the pres- ence of Lutheran books, who were said to be owned by the prebendary Wolfgang Kriechperger and burgher Sigmund Waitzlär (Albrecher: 328–332). Protestant printed material primarily came to Styria from the Protestant provinces of the Holy Roman Empire. Slovenian books predominantly came from Carniola, and from the late sixteenth cen- tury onward also from Hungary; it is known that in 1583 two Slovenian postils came to Styria from what is now Güssing (Hung. Németújvár, Cr. Novi Grad) in Burgenland (Oman 2015: 218). Namely, after being banished in 1582, the printer Johann Manlius—who established the first print shop in Ljubljana, where he printed the work Jezus Sirah (Wisdom of Sirach) by the Protestant preacher Jurij Dalmatin—op- erated in Güssing (1582–1584) and other towns, where he continued to print books (Logar). Dalmatin’s translation of the Bible was especially widespread, with as many as 330 copies sent to Styria alone; they were sold at Schwarzenstein Castle near Velenje by Georg Seifried, Baron Triebenegg, who was also the Styrian provincial councilor and deputy 93 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands of the sovereign prince, Archduke Charles II (Kovačič: 276). During that time, certain Styrian priests obtained special permission for read- ing banned books. According to the 1582 visitation by the nuncio Ger- manicus Malaspina, in 1582 the Maribor vicar Georg Siechel obtained permission to read heretical books in Vienna from the nuncio, as well as the Gurk bishop Urban Sagstetter. Anyone violating the Council of Trent’s rules provided in the Index librorum prohibitorum (List of Pro- hibited Books) was threatened with high fines and even excommuni- cation, and the books in question could be destroyed. On January 6th, 1600, during the most intense Recatholicization under the provincial sovereign, Ferdinand of Inner Austria, a sovereign princely committee led by the Seckau bishop and Salzburg vicar general Martin Brenner also came to Maribor. The residents were forced to hand over any Lu- theran books, which the committee ordered burned in front of the town hall; two days later, the Protestant prayer house (church), school, and preacher’s house at Betnava Castle were destroyed, and the cemetery there was leveled. The situation was similar in Bad Radkersburg, Celje, and Ptuj (Richter: 92, 102–104; Kovačič: 277–278). During the Counter-Reformation and Catholic restoration in the first half of the seventeenth century, the Capuchins arrived in Lower Styria, followed by the Franciscans, Augustinians, and Pauline Fathers; the Minorites and Dominicans had already been present in the area since the thirteenth century. These orders, who were not contempla- tive in nature (except for the Carthusians and Benedictines, who had already arrived in Styria in the twelfth century) and predominantly served the public, must have held religiously, morally, or politically controversial works not intended for public use in their libraries. The Jesuits, who were largely charged with implementing church cen- sorship, only established their college in Maribor in 1757. When the 94 NINA DITMAJER ▶ Banned Books in the Libraries of the Styrian Monasteries 1 In contrast, the Jesuit College in Graz had already been estab- lished in 1578. order was dissolved in 1773, its book catalog was unfortunately not preserved (Hartman 1992: 191).1 Monastic libraries kept these books in separate cabinets or on separate shelves, which is evident from some of the book catalogs preserved; the books could also be locked and the priests that wanted to read them had to obtain permission in advance from the Holy Office or the local ordinary (Vidmar 2012: 234). Books in convents were controlled by confessors (Mlinarič: 226). caPuchin Libraries In Lower Styria, the Capuchins were active in Maribor, Ptuj, Celje, and (Bad) Radkersburg. Of these, only the Maribor and Celje mon- asteries remain today. The Capuchins arrived in Celje in 1609. The monastery’s original book catalog has not been preserved, which made the search for problematic books at today’s library difficult. Of the 1,983 books recorded in the only preserved catalog from the early twentieth century, the majority can be categorized under hom- iletic literature (531), spiritual literature (298), moral and pastoral theology (142), philosophy and scholastics (134), and Church history (104). In addition to books with the most common bookplate “Loci capucinorum Cillia,” one can also find books from the Maribor and Vipavski Križ Capuchin monasteries. Some were also donated to the Celje Capuchins from private family libraries (e.g., “ex libris Balth. Tautscheri,” and “ex libris Mich. Schega”). According to my selective review, the Celje monastic library holds works by at least three Protestant writers. First, there is the Domi- nican Martin Bucer, who converted after meeting Martin Luther, but later decided to adopt the eucharist theology of Huldrych Zwing- li. He is known as an ecumenist, who acted as a mediator between 95 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 2 According to Father Mirko Kemiveš, the Varaždin Capuchin library has no book catalog today (p.c., May 13th, 2018). the Catholics and Protestants, seeking to create a German national church. The Capuchins hold his Enarrationes Martini Lutheri in Epis- tolas D. Petri duas et Judae unam (1525). There is also the Protestant poet Georg Fabricius (Elegantiarum puerilium), whose work can be found in section K (philosophy and scholastics) together with the unproblematic works by Bernard of Bologna. The first book category, featuring Bibles and concordances, also includes a 1573 postil by the converted Protestant Martin Eisengrein, who ended up on the list of prohibited books because of his De certitudine Gratiae. Some of the books from the catalog are no longer in the library today, including Jurij Dalmatin’s translation of the Bible (Benedik: 121–123). Dalma- tin’s works were very common in Capuchin and Franciscan monaster- ies in Slovenia because the use of his Bible only required permission from the local bishop (Vidmar 2013: 203–204); the Varaždin Capuchin monastery holds a copy of his Bible from the Bad Radkersburg mon- astery (Škafar 2003: 46).2 Minorite Libraries In Lower Styria, the Minorites were active in Maribor, Ptuj, Celje, and Slovenska Bistrica. Of the four monasteries, only the one in Ptuj remains today. The Minorites already arrived in Ptuj in 1239 and they established Saints Peter and Paul Parish there in 1785. The oldest cat- alog preserved, Librorum catalogus integer (c. 1774), contains 858 units, predominantly Bibles and theological works (195), miscellaneous works (191), and sermons and catechismal works (177); in comparison, today’s typed catalog already includes 4,881 works. The library still holds a copy of the 1733 Index librorum prohibitorum and works by six religiously problematic Class I authors (auctores primae classis). 96 NINA DITMAJER ▶ Banned Books in the Libraries of the Styrian Monasteries The works of the most important Slovenian Protestant writer, Pri- mož Trubar, are very rare today because the majority were most likely destroyed in 1600 and 1601, when banned (mostly Protestant) books were burned. The largest collections of his works were later compiled (often through copies from abroad) by Sigmund Zois and Jernej Kopitar (Vidmar 2018: 33). The Ptuj Minorites hold three of Trubar’s Slovenian translations of texts from the New Testament: Ta prvi dejl tiga noviga testamenta (The First Part of the New Testament, 1557), Ta drugi dejl tiga noviga testamenta (The Second Part of the New Testament, 1560), and Svetiga Pavla ta dva listy htim Corintariem inu ta htim Galateriem (Saint Paul’s Two Epistles to the Corinthians and Epistle to the Gala- tians, 1561; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 248). The librarian Andrej Kovač only found these works in 1952, while organizing the Minorite FIG. 1 → Primož Trubar, Svetiga Pavla ta dva listy htim Corintariem inu ta htim Galatariem. Saints Pe- ter and Paul Minorite Monastery in Ptuj. 97 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands library material (Koltak: 19). Trubar’s 1557 translation of the first part of the New Testament is missing the title page and the introduction, his Epistle to the Romans lacks the title page, and his volume of the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians is missing the last few pages (Emeršič 1989: 374–375). Title pages and introductions were often torn out of Protestant works to conceal their heretical origins. During that time, the Gnesio-Lutherans, who defended the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, were opposed by the Philippists. These were the followers of Philipp Melanchthon, largely comprising the theologians of the universities of Wittenberg and Leipzig. For ex- ample, the Ptuj Minorites read the work In Erotemata dialecticae Philip. Melanchthonis Ypomnemata (1566) by the Philipist Viktorin Strigel, who was listed among the Class I authors (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: ← FIG. 2 Caspar Huberinus, Spiegel der Hauszucht. Saints Peter and Paul Minorite Monastery in Ptuj. 98 NINA DITMAJER ▶ Banned Books in the Libraries of the Styrian Monasteries 236). A known opponent of the Zwinglians at that time was the Luther- an theologian Caspar Huberinus, the author of Spiegel der Hauszucht (1561; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 117). This book was used by the Bad Radkersburg burgher and surgeon Balthaser Kholler.3 Just like with the Celje Capuchins, the works of the Protestant poet, epigraphist, and historian Georg Fabricius (cf. Index librorum pro- hibitorum: 89) can also be found with the Minorites. His De re poetica libri VII (1574) discusses seven works by Roman poets, even though he tended to avoid pagan gods in his religious poems. The pseudonym Rheticus was used by the mathematics, arithmetic, and geometry pro- fessor at the University of Wittenberg and pupil of Copernicus, Georg Joachim de Porris. At the monastery, his book Conversio Ioannis Georgii FIG. 3 → Johannes Sleidanus, Historische Beschrei- bung der fürnemsten Geschichten und Händel. Saints Peter and Paul Minorite Monastery in Ptuj. 3 “Dises Buech hab ich im 1669. jahr von Jacob Schanfferw- erger [?] umb ain schenes pedtbuech eintautscht. Balthaser Kholler, burger unnd wundtarzt alhie im Radtkherspurg.” (I exchanged this book in 1669 with Jacob Schanfferwerger for a nice prayer book. Balthaser Kholler, burgher and surgeon in Bad Radkersburg). Thanks to Matjaž Grahornik for his assistance in reading the bookplates in the Minorite monastery’s books. 99 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Rhaeti triginta sex rationibus etiam ex ipsismet reformatae Ecclesiae min- istrorum doctrinis explicita ad asserendam tum vetustatem, tum veritatem doctrinae Ecclesiae Romanae in primis inserviens (1666; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 207) was used by Father Caspar Dietl from Graz. Rheti- cus significantly contributed to the publication of Copernicus’s work De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, which the Church found problem- atic at that time. In turn, in his own works Rheticus sought to combine Copernicus’s ideas with the Bible by applying Augustine’s principle of accommodation. Authors listed in Class I also included the histori- an and Protestantism analyst Johannes Sleidanus, who authored the political and historical work Historische Beschreibung der fürnemsten Geschichten und Händel (1612; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 228). I continue by presenting authors that only had individual works prohibited; first and foremost, these included works that were mor- ally and politically problematic, including religious ones. Thus, the Minorite monastery holds Johann Ludwig Schönleben’s Mariology work Palma virginea (1671; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 221), in which the author became entangled in a polemic with the Do- minicans. The work ended up on the Index primarily because of the author’s insults leveled at his opponents (Deželak Trojar: 226). The same fate befell various exorcism-related works intended for a se- lect readership, such as Armamentarium ecclesiasticum (1725) by the Franciscan Ubald Stoiber (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 235). The Minorite library holds several editions of the biography of Pope Sixtus V written by the Italian historian and satirist Gregorio Leti (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 136). Leti initially studied at the Jesuit college, but he later converted to Protestantism. He used the pseudonym Gualdi for his attacks on the Church and papacy, and his works were criticized for containing inaccurate and unreliable 100 NINA DITMAJER ▶ Banned Books in the Libraries of the Styrian Monasteries information. In composing their sermons, priests liked to use the then very popular but prohibited anthology Manipulus florum by the Irish author Thomas of Ireland. This work, which contains as many as six thousand Latin quotes, was initially conceived as a learning aid for university students. The copy kept at the Minorite library bears the title Flores doctorum penè omnium (two copies: 1699, 1746; cf. In- dex librorum prohibitorum: 112) and contains two other bookplates. Included on the list of prohibited books was also the political work Politicorum libri septem (1642; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 221) by the jurist Georg Schönborner. FIG. 4 → Georg Schönborn- er, Politicorum libri septem. Saints Peter and Paul Minorite Monastery in Ptuj. 101 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands The statesman at Emperor Leopold I’s court and Italian writer Gio- vanni Battista Comazzi emphasized, among other things, the political principles of Christ’s activity in his works. The library holds his prohib- ited work La morale dei principi (1700; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 55). The 1758 Index also included the work Circulus aureus (two copies: 1650, 1686) by Francesco Maria Capelli. Worthy of mention is also the work Tomus primus orationum ac elegiarum in funere illustrissimorum Principum Germaniae (1566; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 176–177, 219) by the German jurist Simon Schard, a son of a Lutheran chap- lain, which contains eulogies to the German princes from the death ← FIG. 5 Bookplate in the work Tomus primus orationum ac elegiarum in funere illustrissi- morum Principum Germaniae. Saints Peter and Paul Minorite Monastery in Ptuj. 102 NINA DITMAJER ▶ Banned Books in the Libraries of the Styrian Monasteries of Emperor Maximilian I in 1519 until the author’s own time. The book was previously kept at the Maribor Minorite monastery, which is evident from the following bookplate: “Ex libris Conventus Marpurgensis O. M. S. F. C.” In addition, the book contains a series of other bookplates that indicate that it was also used by senior students; for example, “Ex Libris Joannis Ignatÿ â Liechtenhaimb Logici Anno 1661” and “Ex libris Joannis Maximiliani Liechtstock Rheties Philosophiae studiosi Anno 1665/6/7.” The third group includes works that contained problematic passages and were forbidden until corrected. Richard Archdekin’s Theologia tri- partita universa (two copies: 1679, 1687) was used by both the Minorites and Capuchins. In addition, the Ptuj Minorite library also holds the legal work In quatuor Institutionum imperialium D. Iustiniani libros commentarii FIG. 6 → Johannes Schnei- dewein, In quatuor Institutionum imperia- lium D. Iustiniani libros commentarii. Saints Pe- ter and Paul Minorite Monastery in Ptuj. 103 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands (1575), which the professor Johannes Schneidewein at the University of Wittenberg wrote for students (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 221). His ideas were not welcome in the official Church because he con- sidered the Donation of Constantine (Constitutum Constantini) a forgery, he rejected the claim about the power of the Roman curia, and he was against granting church sanctuary for serious crimes; his opponents also criticized his comments on holy matrimony, which did not agree with canon law because he allowed divorce in certain cases. DoMinican Libraries From the time that their order was established, the Dominicans primar- ily engaged in preaching, pastoral care, missionary activity, and battle against heresy, but they were also involved in research (e.g., Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus). The Dominican order arrived in Ptuj as early as 1230, but between 1782 and 1787 Emperor Joseph II dissolved all Dominican monasteries in what is now Slovenia. In addition to the Novi klošter Dominican monastery in Založe and Sveta Trojica Do- minican monastery in Gorca, Lower Styria also had two Dominican convents: one in Studenice and one in Marenberg (since 1952 Radlje ob Dravi). The book catalog of the Ptuj Dominicans (Catalogus Librorum Bibliothecae Conventus Pettoviensis Ordinis F. F. Praedicatorum) is kept at the Styrian Provincial Archives in Graz and provides an inventory of 854 works in 931 volumes divided into eighteen groups. Theolog- ical works (175) and sermons (175) predominate, followed by works on philosophy (seventy-five), law (seventy-four), history (sixty-four), scholastics (fifty-two), and asceticism (fifty; StLA, Stadt K.32 H.91, Schu. 36 H. 81). The current whereabouts of the former Dominican monas- tery’s books remain unknown (cf. Emeršič 1978: 58). 104 NINA DITMAJER ▶ Banned Books in the Libraries of the Styrian Monasteries Among the translators of the Bible and its commentators (exposi- tores), the catalog of the former Dominican library lists three religiously problematic authors in Class I. The Dominicans thus used Martin Lu- ther’s Bible (Die Heilige Schrifft, 1604) translated from the source lan- guages and a postil by the Czech reformer Jan Hus (Kleine Postille, 1572; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 118), in which selected passages from the gospels are interpreted in the form of a sermon. In addition, the lex- icographic work by Valentin Schindler, a Lutheran professor of Hebrew at the University of Wittenberg, entitled Lexicon Pentaglotton: Hebraicum, Chaldicum, Syriacum, Talmudico-Rabbinicum, et Arabicum (1612; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 220), proved useful for study purposes. Four Class I writers should be highlighted among the authors of phil- osophical works. Wilhelm Xylander in Heidelberg was a follower of Zwingli—the opponent of the Philippists and Lutherans at that time. The Dominicans kept a copy of his 1619 translation of Plutarch’s phil- osophical works (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 266). Philipp Mel- anchthon was also known as a translator and author of philosophical works, and the Dominicans had a copy of his Erotemata dialectices (1561; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 159). The catalog also lists the 1647 commentary to Aristotle’s Physics (Commentarii in universam Physicam Aristotelis) by Joannes Velcurio (a.k.a. Johannes Bernhardi), a rhetoric and physics professor at the University of Wittenberg, who took a stand against the Franciscan Augustin von Alveldt, who labeled a heretic any- one not accepting the divine authority of the papacy (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 252). Moreover, the catalog also includes the work Totius philosophiae humanae digestio (1571) on the philosophy of all of humanity in three parts (reason, nature, and morals) by Hieronymus Wildenberg, a physician, teacher, and author of school textbooks (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 262). 105 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands The catalog includes two Class I authors among historians. Sebas- tian Münster was a German cartographer, cosmographer, and Hebraist that left the Franciscan order and converted to Protestantism in order to be appointed a professor at the University of Basel. The Dominicans used his work Beschreibung der Länder (cf. Index librorum prohibito- rum: 169), as well as Johannes Sleidanus’s Beschreibung geistlichen und veltlichen Sachen. In this thematic group, mention should also be made of the Protestant professor of classical languages and mathematics at the University of Freiburg, Joseph Lang, who converted to Ca- tholicism. His Polyanthea nova (1645) was based on Polyanthea (1503) by Dominicus (Nanus Mirabellius), which presents citations, defini- tions, and etymologies from the Bible, classical authors, the Church Fathers, and Italian poets and humanists (e.g., Dante and Petrarch) in alphabetical order (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 133). The first author observed among jurists is Ulrich Zasius, a Ger- man lawyer, whom the scholastic Johann Eck criticized for agreeing with Luther’s doctrine. As it turns out, Zasius was a fervent opponent of Martin Luther after 1521, but the 1558/1559 Index listed him under Class I authors. The 1589/1590 Index by Pope Sixtus V prohibited all his works until they were corrected. The Church’s disapproval most likely originated in Zasius’s friendship with students and men of letters that later sided with Luther (e.g., Urbanus Rhegius), and his correspondence with Erasmus (Becker: 96). The Dominicans kept a copy of his 1537 legal work In tit. Institutionum de actionibus enarratio (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 267). The book inventory also includes the works of the Protestant jurist Matthias Wesenbeck, who succeeded Schneidewein at the University of Wittenberg. The inquisition primarily criticized his teachings on marriage, which followed those of Schneidewein, especially possible annulment in the event of adultery; in addition 106 NINA DITMAJER ▶ Banned Books in the Libraries of the Styrian Monasteries 4 The method of conceal- ing a message within another message, image, and so on. to that, he also allowed for remarriage. The Dominicans used three of his works: Paratitla in Pandectarum iuris civilis (1572), In Pandectas iuris civilis et codicis commentarii (1595), and Consilia juris (1619; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 261). Also worthy of mention among the jurists whose works were found at the library are the French Calvinist Jean Crespin and his Imp. Caes. Iustiniani institutionum libri 4 (1591; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 63), and Hieronymus Schurff, a well-known professor at the University of Wittenberg at the time and later in Frank- furt. Schurff supported Protestantism from the very beginning, even though he did not agree with Luther in every aspect, having advocated the retention of the existing legal system. For example, in his banned work Consiliorum seu responsorum iuris centuriae Schurff wrote that the Church per se had no right to dictate how the Eucharist should be celebrated (Consilium 51); in contrast to Luther and the two jurists mentioned above, Schurff advocated the indissolubility of marriage (Consilium 57; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 220; Becker: 122–124). Also highlighted here is the disputed book Thaumatographia naturalis (1632) by Jan Jonston (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 125), a Polish teacher and Calvinist. The Miscellaneous (Miscellanei) category includes morally prob- lematic works, which, in terms of topic, comprise books on exorcism, magic, and pseudoscience. First, there is the interesting book on oc- cult studies entitled Joannis Trithemii Steganographia vindicata (1721), in which the author Wolfgang Heidel (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 109) claims that Trithemius, who used the method of steganography4 in his 1499 work, “knew and performed all the things that he ever pro- fessed to know in obedience to God and without injury to our Christian faith” (Brann: 211). Just like the Minorites, the Dominicans also kept and used Ubald Stoiber’s work on exorcism, Armamentarium ecclesiasticum 107 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands (1744). In addition, the Flemish mathematician and astrologist Joachim Sterck van Ringelberg can be found under the label “De variis” (Vari- ous, 1556); he ended up on the Index due to his work Astrologia. Theological works include the “forbidden until corrected” book Can- delabrum aureum (1620) by the Dominican professor of theology in Sa- vona, Martin Alfonso Vivaldo (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 256). The category of controversial works (Controversistae) included two books by the aforementioned Jesuit Richard Archdekin: Theologia tripartita universa (1687) and Theologia tripartita universa: Controversi- ae heterodoxae ac scholasticae (1688); his books were also held by Mi- norite and Capuchin libraries. Also problematic for the Church was the Italian Dominican Xantes Mariales, who was exiled twice by the Venetian Senate (Consiglio dei Pregadi) for showing excessive support for the Holy See in his works. It seems that the Dominicans found his Controversiae ad universam Summam theolog. (1624; cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 154) useful. franciscan Libraries The Franciscans came to Lower Styria during the Catholic restoration, just like the Capuchins, and their main activities were holding con- fessions and preaching. They first settled down at the Nazarje monas- tery in 1632. The monastery has an extensive library, which contains approximately five thousand items created between 1497 and 1831. The partially preserved book catalog Bibliotheca Conventus Nazarethani lists ten thematic book categories. In 1658, the Franciscans also settled down in Brežice, but during the 1941 annexation the Germans seized the building and banished the monks. Somewhat later, in 1854, the Franciscans also took over the former Augustinian monastery at Sveta 108 NINA DITMAJER ▶ Banned Books in the Libraries of the Styrian Monasteries Trojica v Slovenskih Goricah, where books from the Brežice monastery were moved after the Second World War. This is where 1,555 books printed between 1474 and 1830 are now held with no catalog available (Pevec: 210–220). The Nazarje monastery holds four Protestant translations of bibli- cal texts: Luther’s translation of the Bible (1535), Trubar’s translation of the gospels (1557), Dalmatin’s translation of the Bible (1584), and Erasmus’s translation of the gospels. Before the Second World War, the Franciscan library in Brežice also held a copy of Dalmatin’s Bible. Among the philological and lexicographical works, one can find Sylva vocabulorum by the Protestant theologian Heinrich Decimator (cf. In- dex librorum prohibitorum: 66), which was forbidden until corrected, and the work Nomenclator trilinguis by Philipp Nicodemus Frischlin (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 96), the rector of the Protestant Es- tates’ Latin school in Ljubljana (all his works were already listed on the index as early as 1603). Just like other orders mentioned above, the Franciscans also kept works on exorcism, such as Flagellum daemonum (1630) by the Franciscan writer Girolamo Menghi (Vidmar 2014), who ended up on the Index for describing rituals that did not agree with the official liturgy (Svoljšak: 129). The monastery library’s collection also includes the 1718 posthumous edition of the forbidden work Epigram- mata by the well-known English Protestant poet John Owen (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 180). The work ended up on the Index in 1654 for making fun of the Catholic Church, and due to its epigrams Owen was disinherited by his rich Catholic uncle, Sir William Morris. The Brežice Franciscans also read the works of the Croatian Franciscan Ivan Ančić (cf. Index librorum prohibitorum: 9), including his disputed Thesaurus perpetuus indulgentiarum seraphici ordinis sancti patris nostri Francisci (1662). In 1662, the provincial of Bosna Srebrena sent Ančić to Rome 109 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands to collect information on indulgences and privileges of the Franciscans in Bosnia. To this end, Ančić printed his Thesaurus in Venice; the first part of the work contains a list of indulgences and privileges, and the second includes various blessings (Mihanović: 106). concLusion This article was able to present only part of the reading culture con- nected with prohibited books in the Styrian monasteries of what is now Slovenia during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and the first half of the eighteenth century. Most monasteries dissolved under Jo- seph II did not keep book catalogs at that time or they are considered lost today, and the inventories of their estates, especially libraries, do not provide much information and are incomplete. The libraries of the monasteries that were converted into parishes during that time and thus survived have been preserved until today, even though they suffered substantial damage during the German annexation in 1941. When they were forced to leave, the Capuchins tried to save their books by taking them with them to other monasteries. This is why books with various bookplates and stamps can still be found today at various Capuchin monasteries, and it would be very time-consuming to study and record their ownership. The Ptuj and Bad Radkersburg monasteries had to be omitted from this research because they are no longer active today and their book catalogs have not been preserved or found any- where (cf. Škafar 2004: 283; Škafar 2003: 46). Unfortunately, the book inventories from the Maribor and Celje Minorite monasteries kept at the Styrian Provincial Archives in Graz are incomplete and provide very little information. In addition, the article also does not cover the Carthusian, Augustinian, and Benedictine monasteries in Styria. ❦ 110 NINA DITMAJER ▶ Banned Books in the Libraries of the Styrian Monasteries References alBrecher, anton, 1997: Die landesfürstliche Visitation und Inquisition von 1528 in der Steiermark: Edition der Texte und Darstellung der Aussagen über die kirchlichen Zustände. Graz: Historische Landeskommission für Steiermark. Becker, Gisela, 1970: Deutsche Juristen und ihre Schriften auf den römischen Indices des 16. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Benedik, metod, 2015: Kapucinski samostan s cerkvijo sv. Cecilije v Celju: ob 400-letnici posvetitve cerkve. Celje: Celjska Mohorjeva družba. Brann, noel l., 1999: Trithemius and Magical Theology: A Chapter in the Controversy over Occult Studies in Early Modern Europe. Albany: State University of New York Press. Catalogus librorum Bibliothecae Conventus Pettoviensis Ordinis F. F. Praedicatorum Pettau: Stadt K.32 H.91, Schu. 36 H. 81. Steiermärkisches Landesarchiv. deželak trojar, monika, 2017: Janez Ludvik Schönleben (1618– 1681): Oris življenja in dela. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. emerŠiČ, jakoB, 1978: Kratek pregled zgodovine knjižnic Ptuja in okolice. 30 let Študijske knjižnice v Ptuju: Nastanek in delovanje knjižnic na ptujskem in ormoškem področju. Ed. Drago Šuligoj. Ptuj: Ljudska in študijska knjižnica. 55–87. emerŠiČ, jakoB, 1989: Minoritska knjižnica. Minoritski samostan na Ptuju: 1239–1989. Ed. Jože Mlinarič, Marjan Vogrin. Celje: Mohorjeva družba. 365–383. hartman, Bruno, 1992: Knjige in knjižnice v Mariboru do marčne revolucije 1848. leta. Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 63, 1. 188–198. 111 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Index librorum prohibitorum Sanctissimi Domini nostri Benedicti XIV. Pontificis Maximi jussu recognitus, atque editus. Rome: Typographia Rev. Camerae Apostolicae, 1758. koltak, lidija, 1978: Študijska knjižnica. 30 let Študijske knjižnice v Ptuju: Nastanek in delovanje knjižnic na ptujskem in ormoškem področju. Ed. Drago Šuligoj. Ptuj: Ljudska in študijska knjižnica. 16–21. kovaČiČ, Franc, 1926: Slovenska Štajerska in Prekmurje: Zgodovinski opis. Ljubljana: Matica Slovenska. loGar, janez, 2013: Mandelc, Janez (?–po 1605). Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: SAZU, ZRC SAZU. [https://www.slovenska-biografija. si/oseba/sbi345933/]. mihanoviĆ salopek, hrvojka, 2006: Ivan Ančić kao promicatelj europskoga humanističkog civilizacijskog kruga na prostorima osmanlijske vlasti u BIH. Dani Hvarskoga kazališta: Građa i rasprave o hrvatskoj književnosti i kazalištu 32, 1. 105–121. mlinariČ, jože, 1997: Marenberški dominikanski samostan 1251–1782. Celje: Mohorjeva družba. oman, žiGa, 2015: Slovenci, slovenski jezik in reformacija na Dravskem polju: nekaj paberkov. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 10. 213–221. pevec, Felicijan, 2013: Samostanska knjižnica v Brežicah. S patri smo si bili dobri: Tri stoletja brežiških frančiškanov. Ed. Jože Škofljanec. Krško: Zavod Neviodunum, Brat Frančišek. 205–223. richter, jakoB, 1974: Maribor v reformacijski dobi. Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 45, 1. 89–105. ŠkaFar, vinko, 2004: Nekdanji kapucinski samostan na Ptuju (1615–1786). Časopis za zgodovino in narodopisje 75, 2–3. 267–286. 112 NINA DITMAJER ▶ Banned Books in the Libraries of the Styrian Monasteries ŠkaFar, vinko, 2003: Prispevek radgonskih kapucinov k ohranjanju slovenščine v 17. in 18. stoletju. Zbornik soboškega muzeja 7. Murska Sobota: Pokrajinski muzej. 17–51. svoljŠak, sonja, 2018: A Selection of Banned Authors and Works from the National and University Library Collection. And Yet They Read Them: Banned Books in Slovenia in the Early Modern Age from the National and University Library Collection. Ed. Urša Kocjan. Ljubljana: NUK. 61–158. vidmar, luka, 2012: Prepovedane knjige na Kranjskem od indeksa Pavla IV. (1559) do indeksa Pija VI. (1786): Libri prohibiti v Semeniški knjižnici. Svetovne književnosti in obrobja. Ed. Marko Juvan. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. 233–262. vidmar, luka, 2013: Požiga protestantskih knjig v Ljubljani leta 1600 in 1601: Med zgodovino in mitom. Kronika 61, 2. 189–216. vidmar, luka, 2014: Prepovedane knjige v frančiškanskih samostanih na Slovenskem: Predavanje na Znanstvenem simpoziju ob 500-letnici Slovenske frančiškanske province sv. Križa. Ljubljana [typescript]. vidmar, luka, 2018: Authors and Readers of Banned Books in Slovenian Lands in the Early Modern Age: Libri Prohibiti from the National and University Library Collection. And Yet They Read Them: Banned Books in Slovenia in the Early Modern Age from the National and University Library Collection. Ed. Urša Kocjan. Ljubljana: NUK. 9–59. 113 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Povzetek Članek obravnava knjižnice izbranih kapucinskih, minoritskih, do- minikanskih in frančiškanskih samostanov na Štajerskem do sredine osemnajstega stoletja. Poudarek je na knjigah, ki so se znašle v cerkve- nih indeksih prepovedanih knjig od papeža Pavla IV. (1559) do papeža Benedikta XIV. (1758). Med »avtorji prvega razreda«, ki ga sestavljajo predvsem verski reformatorji, najdemo slovenskega reformatorja Pri- moža Trubarja, ustanovitelja protestantizma Martina Lutherja, filipista Viktorina Strigla, češkega reformatorja Jana Husa, luteranskega teologa Casparja Huberina, protestantskega reformatorja Martina Bucerja, protestantskega pesnika in zgodovinarja Georga Fabricia in učenca Nikolaja Kopernika Georga Joachima de Porrisa. Med prepovedana filo- zofska dela so spadala dela Wilhelma Xylanderja, Philippa Melanchtho- na, Joannesa Velcuria in Hieronymusa Wildenberga. V samostanih so uporabljali slovar luteranskega profesorja hebrejščine Valentina Schindlerja in zgodovinska dela Sebastiana Münstra in Johannesa Sleidana. Med kontroverznimi pravniki najdemo Ulricha Zasia, Ma- tthiasa Wesenbecka, kalvinista Jeana Crespina in Hieronyma Schurffa. Moralno vprašljiva dela v štajerskih samostanih so vključevala knjige o izganjanju hudiča, čarovništvu in okultizmu, te pa so napisali Wolf- gang Heidel, Ubald Stoiber, Joachim Sterck van Ringelberg in Girolamo Menghi. Samostani so pogosto posedovali dela Erazma Rotterdamskega in slovenski prevod Biblije Jurija Dalmatina. 114 NINA DITMAJER ▶ Banned Books in the Libraries of the Styrian Monasteries Nina Ditmajer Nina Ditmajer is an assistant researcher at the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slo- venian Literature and Literary Studies (Ljubljana). In 2019, she obtained her doctorate with a dissertation on the reception of eastern Styrian literary norms in the manuscript sermons of Jožef Muršec, which was supervised by Marko Jesenšek at the University of Maribor. In 2020, she received a sec- ond doctorate, with a dissertation on poetry in Slovenian Styria from the mid-eighteenth to mid-nineteenth century, which was supervised by Luka Vidmar at the ZRC SAZU Postgraduate School. 115 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works Prepovedana Schönlebnova mariološka dela ❦ Monika DežeLak trojar ▶ monika.dezelak@zrc-sazu.si SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal ISSN 1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online) VOLUME 26 (2021/I), pp. 116–142 DOI 10.13137/2283-5482/32498 117 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands janez ludvik schÖnleBen, teoloGija, marioloGija, cenzura, index librorum prohibitorum, orbis universi votorum, vera ac sincera sententia, palma virginea, de officio immaculatae conceptionis deiparae johann ludWiG schÖnleBen, theoloGY, marioloGY, censorship, index librorum prohibitorum, orbis universi votorum, vera ac sincera sententia, palma virginea, de officio immaculatae conceptionis deiparae Schönleben se je z mariologijo in vne- tim zagovarjanjem resnice o Marijinem brezmadežnem spočetju začel ukvarja- ti že kot jezuit, dejavneje pa se ji je po- svetil po izstopu iz reda. Leta 1659 sta v Celovcu izšli dve knjigi spisa Orbis universi votorum. Njegovi najpomemb- nejši mariološki deli, Vera ac sincera sententia (katerega prvo izdajo je leta 1668 izdal pod psevdonimom Balduinus Helenocceus, drugo leta 1670 pa s svo- jim pravim imenom) in Palma virginea (1671), sta bili natisnjeni v Salzburgu. Kljub siceršnji teološki neoporečno- sti sta bili zaradi polemičnega tona pisanja uvrščeni na Indeks prepovedanih knjig. Enaka usoda je pozneje doletela dve izdaji spisa De officio immaculatae conceptionis Deiparae antiquissimo et de- votissimo (1680, 1681), ki sta izšli ano- nimno, na možnost Schönlebnovega avtorstva pa je prvi opozoril Valvasor. Johann Ludwig Schönleben began fervently defending the truth about the Immaculate Conception of Mary during his Jesuit period. He became more involved in Mariology after leaving the order. In 1659 he published two books of his Orbis universi votorum (Vows of the Entire World). His most important Mariological works, Vera ac sincera sententia (A True and Honest Opinion, 1668/1670) and Palma virginea (The Virgin Palm, 1671), were printed in Salzburg. Due to their polemical tone, and in spite of their otherwise impeccable theological integrity, both works were included on the Index librorum prohibitorum. The same fate befell the two editions (1680, 1681) of De officio immaculatae conceptionis Deiparae antiquissimo et devotissimo (The Oldest and Most Devout Service of the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God), which were also prohibited. They came out anonymously, and the possibility of Schönleben’s authorship was first pointed out by Valvasor. 118 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works 1 ARS, AS 1073, II/51r, p. 47; II/52r, pp. 33, 49–50, 63, 65, 68–69, 73, 77, 79, 83, 89, 93, 95, 99, 102. Cf. Lavrič: 262–263. introDuction Johann Ludwig Schönleben is known as a polymath, historiographer, genealogist, preacher, philosopher, and playwright. In addition, his preserved and unpreserved theological writings show that he was personally especially interested in Mariology and, first and foremost, in proving the truth about the Immaculate Conception. Because some editions of his Mariological books were included on the Index librorum prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books), the groundbreaking character and impact of his works were limited to a narrow circle of readers for two full centuries—that is, up until the 1854 promulgation of the Im- maculate Conception dogma. He achieved partial rehabilitation in 1900, when his works were removed from the Index, but his full rehabilitation was not achieved until the congress held in Rome on the hundredth anniversary of the promulgation of the Immaculate Conception dog- ma (Virgo immaculata, Acta congressus mariologici-mariani Romae anno MCMLIV celebrati). Thanks to Maks Miklavčič’s article, which relied on Anton Strle’s theological findings, it was then that Schönleben was finally granted an equal position among other European Mariologists. schönLeben’s earLy contacts with MarioLogy Schönleben was already familiar with the practice of venerating the Immaculate Virgin at home (Schönleben 1659a: 87), where his parents set the first example. His father had been a member of the Latin Jesuit Congregation of the Assumption since July 2nd, 1623, and a year later he joined the German Congregation of the Immaculate Virgin and became an active member.1 Between 1629 and 1635, Schönleben re- ceived further motivation to venerate the Immaculate Virgin from his 119 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 2 ARS, AS 1073, II/51r, p. 122. teachers at the Jesuit college in Ljubljana, where he joined the Student Congregation of the Assumption on February 8th, 1632 .2 He published his first work related to venerating the Virgin Mary and the Immac- ulate Conception at the age of thirty-one, when, after completing his theology studies, he taught rhetoric in Vienna and simultaneously served as the Faculty of Arts’ notary. In 1649, he anonymously pub- lished his collection of Mariological hymns Campus liliorum (A Field of Lilies), which concluded with Panegyricus Magnae Matri Virgini sine macula originali conceptae Mariae (A Panegyric to the Great Vir- gin Mother Mary, Immaculately Conceived). The same year he also published his speech Corona gemmea, adgratulatio sex neo-doctoribus theologis ex Ord. Cisterciensi (The Jeweled Crown, Congratulations to the Six New Doctors of Theology from the Cistercian Order), which, how- ever, has not been preserved (Valvasor: vol. 2, book 6, 355). Schönleben wrote this panegyric to Mary in honor of the Univer- sity of Vienna’s consecration to the Immaculate Virgin, but he ac- tually performed (or perhaps only printed) it in late August 1649, when the first six doctors of theology (all from the Cistercian order) after this consecration vowed to strive to spread the truth about the Immaculate Virgin (Schönleben 1649: unnumbered page before the start of the panegyric). In several places in this speech, he expressed his belief that people had already been aware of Mary’s exemption from the original sin for a long time. He dedicated his collection of hymns together with the panegyric to the initiator of the univer- sity’s consecration to the Immaculate Virgin, Emperor Ferdinand III (Deželak Trojar: 65, 67, 68). The years that Schönleben spent in Vienna (1648–1649, 1652–1653) seemed to be crucial for his later engagement in Mariology. He himself revealed which professors were his role models in venerating the Immaculate Virgin (Schönleben 1659a: 120 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works 3 As a source Schön- leben often cited his personal notes (“Ms. Acad.,” “Ms. Sched. Acad.”) created at the Vienna Jesuit college and university libraries during his studies (Schönleben 1659a: 17, 23–24, 26, 38, 47–49, etc.). 4 “Alii tres antecedentes cum quinto adhuc praelo sunt, quos pro- pediem expecta.” 5 “Lib. 3. cap. 1., 2. et 3” (Zani: 182v). 6 “Maria Mater Dei et Virgo sine macula originali concepta ag- noscitur a sacro ordine RR. PP. Praedicatorum, et ex eodem ordine D. Thomas de Aquino, theologorum princeps cum sua schola immac- ulatae conceptionis assertor ostenditur.” 7 “Maria Mater Dei et Virgo sine macula originali concepta docetur ab antiquis- simi archigymnasii Viennensis doctoribus. Sive Sexagena doc- torum Viennensium Deiparae sine macula conceptae assertorum et vindicum e tenebris vetustatis educta.” 85–87); in addition, his stay in Vienna was also important because he had libraries there where he could study and collect material for his later Mariological works.3 Orbis universi vOtOrum (1659) Schönleben’s first extensive Mariological work was Orbis universi votorum pro definitione piae et verae sententiae de immaculata con- ceptione Deiparae (Vows of the Entire World to Adopt a Pious and True Decision on the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God). Even though he had five books ready for printing (Schönleben 1659a: “Ad lectorem”),4 only two were published: the third and fourth ones. Both were printed in 1659 by the Kramer printshop in Klagenfurt. The fourth book was published first, followed by the third one—which, however, was not published in full (only three chapters of the nine initially planned; Schönleben 1659a: “Ad lectorem”; Schönleben 1659b: “Proemium”, 3).5 In the third book, Schönleben presented evidence of the Immaculate Conception gathered from the writings and de- crees of the Dominican order, which generally opposed this truth the most (Schönleben 1659b: title page).6 In the third chapter of the book, he provided evidence for his thesis that Thomas Aquinas did not really oppose the Immaculate Conception. In this way, he sought to disqualify the main line of argument from the Dominicans, who based their opposition on Aquinas’s writings (Strle 1955a: 171–173). In the fourth book, he discussed the thoughts of sixty professors at the University of Vienna and other prominent individuals (bishops and canons) from the university’s inception until his time that sup- ported the truth of the Immaculate Conception (Schönleben 1659a: title page).7 121 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 8 NŠAL, NŠAL 100, KAL fasc. 138/10. With his Orbis universi votorum, Schönleben sought to demon- strate that the pious opinion about Mary’s immaculateness itself was sufficient for it to be declared a dogma. He presented his belief thoroughly, equably, and soberly, describing it as highly likely rather than certain (Strle 1955a: 181–182). Even though on May 4th, 1664, the estates granted him six hundred guldens for printing his books on the Immaculate Virgin (Lubej: 55), they were never published. The reason remains unknown. He may have had problems finding a printer, which he mentioned in a letter to Bishop Buchheim.8 It is also possible that he perceived Pope Alexander VII’s 1661 bull Sollicitudo omnium, which spoke in favor of the truth of the Immaculate Conception (Strle 1954a: 3), as an imminent victory of its advocates and hence he no longer found it necessary to continue his quest for a printer. His two later lists of works prepared for publication (from 1669 and 1672) include two volumes of Orbis universi votorum, but it is unclear whether they refer to the first and second books or perhaps two vol- umes of the fifth book (Schönleben 1669: “Syllabus operum”; Zani: 183r). Among Schönleben’s manuscripts, Valvasor only mentions the unpublished fifth book in two volumes and does not say a word about the first two books (Valvasor: vol. 2, book 6, 356). The content of the unpreserved books can be inferred from Schönleben’s later testimo- nies (Ušeničnik: 418–419). In his later work Palma virginea, he makes several references to the first two books of Orbis universi votorum (Schönleben 1671: 143, 148–149) without ever mentioning the fifth book. Because he described Palma virginea as a fragment of a major work (fragmen maioris operis), it can be assumed that in it he sum- marized the content of the first two books of Orbis universi votorum, which he often cited, and thus, after it was published, only made efforts to publish the fifth book (Deželak Trojar: 241–242). 122 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works schönLeben’s MarioLogicaL works incLuDeD on the index librOrum prOhibitOrum A turn in Schönleben’s style of writing was caused by two key moments. His more decisive advocacy of the truth of the Immaculate Conception was, first and foremost, stimulated by the 1661 bull of Pope Alexander VII (Schönleben 1668: “Dedicatio”, 5, 7, 29, etc.; Schönleben 1671: e.g., 131). However, his wrath was aroused by the 1663 work Synopsis historica de conceptione Deiparae (Historical Synopsis of the Conception of the Mother of God) by a Dominican writer with the pseudonym Marcellus Sidereus Cyriacus. The fact that the author dared to reject the truth of the Immaculate Conception despite the papal bull made Schönle- ben so angry that he began vigorously defending the truth. Personal resentment and an unbending belief in his own rightness can be felt in the background of his works. He did not change his views and line of argument in favor of the Immaculate Conception, but he began po- lemizing with his opponents; he looked down on them and insulted them on several occasions. In places, his tone of writing was ironic and condescending (Ušeničnik: 419, 423; Strle 1954b: 202–205). Espe- cially because in essence his line of argument and Mariological views remained the same as in Orbis universi votorum, it is this very change of tone that was most likely the main reason for his two major works being later included on the Index librorum prohibitorum. vera ac sincera sententia (1668, 1670) Schönleben published the first edition of his Vera ac sincera sententia de immaculata conceptione Deiparae Virginis (A True and Sincere Opinion on the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mother of God) under 123 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands the pseudonym Balduinus Helenocceus. It was printed by the Haan printshop in Salzburg in 1668. He printed the second edition under his real name two years later at the same printshop. He dedicated the book to Pope Clement IX (Schönleben 1668: “Dedicatio”)9 himself, asking him to be the judge between him and the Immaculate Virgin’s opponents (Schönleben 1668: “Dedicatio”, 8; Strle 1954b: 204–205). Except for the title page, the second edition is identical to the first one. He did not even change the dedication: he signed it with his pseudonym and, ← FIG. 1 Title page of the first edition of Vera ac sincera sententia (Salzburg, 1668). NUK Archives. 9 “Sanctissimo Domino N. Clementi Nono, Pon- tifici Opt. Max., Christi in terris Vicario.” 124 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works 10 “Deo laus. Haec & omnia mea S. Rom. Ecclesiae judicio & arbitrio penitus peni- tusque subjecta sunto. Virgini Immaculate Conceptae Honor.” even though a new pope had come to the throne in the meantime, he dedicated the book to the previous pope, not the new one, Clement X (1670–1676; Schönleben 1670: “Dedicatio”, 3). Schönleben rejected all of Marcellus’s untrue claims, fervently defending the truth of the Immaculate Conception. He warned and corrected his opponent, was angry at him, and even threw insulting remarks at him. He spared no words. Irony can be traced in the back- ground of his writing. He already harshly criticized the Dominicans in the foreword, reproaching them with disrespecting papal authority (Strle 1954b: 202–205). In this way, a shadow was cast over the entire order, even though not all Dominicans opposed the Immaculate Con- ception (especially Ambrosius Catharinus, to whom Schönleben made several references; cf. Strle 1955b: 204–211). Despite his unstoppable ardor and belief in his own right, at the end of the book Schönleben nonetheless humbly bowed to authority, leaving the final decision about the correctness of his ideas to the Holy See (Schönleben 1668: 178).10 Anton Strle, who analyzed the content of Vera ac sincera sententia in detail, established that it was dogmatically flawless. Even though not all of Schönleben’s ideas can be accepted, he did not make any major errors. Just like in his later work, Palma virginea, he used the general consensus of the faithful and the infallibility of the Church result- ing from internal protection and guidance by the Holy Spirit as the main proof supporting the Immaculate Conception. In addition, Strle established that the later papal bull, Ineffabilis Deus, through which Pope Pius IX confirmed the Immaculate Conception dogma in 1854, proved that the 1661 papal bull Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum already made any arguments supporting the opposite claims based on dogmatic principles impossible. Hence, Schönleben was right to be angry and defend the truth (Strle 1954b: 205; Strle 1955a: 181–182, 185), but that 125 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands cannot justify the irascible attacks and insults leveled at his opponent. With a little self-censorship, the effect of his works would have been nearly the same and the coverage much broader because significantly more people would have read them. Because the dogma was not yet confirmed at that point, especially because papal censorship was in the domain of the Dominicans, he could have anticipated problems already while writing these works. Both editions of Vera ac sincera sententia were included on the Index on May 18th, 1677, under the reign of Pope Innocent XI (Index: 212, 383). palma virginea (1671) Schönleben continued his polemic style of writing in his next work, Pal- ma virginea sive Deiparae Virginis Mariae de adversariis suae immaculatae conceptionis victoriae omnium seculorum aere christianae succincta narra- tione repraesentatae (The Virgin Palm or the Victories of Mary the Virgin Mother of God over the Adversaries of Her Immaculate Conception in All Christian Centuries Presented in a Succinct Narrative). On the title page, he described it as a fragment or passage of a major work (fragmen maioris operis), probably alluding to his Orbis universi votorum. Judging from the printing permission, Palma virginea must have been completed by early 1669, even though the chronogram and ded- ication use the year 1671. This means that, after finishing the work, Schönleben had more than enough time to send it to his friends at the Academy of the Frozen (Accademia dei Gelati) for review. Two of them, Petrus Hercules de Bellois and Simon Santagata, praised the work in verse. Schönleben included their couplet and epigram in the book, placing them behind the printing permissions and also adding his own epigram dedicated to Santagata (cf. Deželak Trojar: 162–166). It appears 126 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works that it was thanks to this work that Schönleben was accepted among the honorary members of the Academy of the Frozen by 1670 at the latest (Zani: 181r–182r; Miklavčič 1957: 220). In Palma virginea, Schönleben discussed Mary’s victories from the beginning of Christianity to his time. He referred to the general con- sensus of the faithful as the main proof supporting the truth of her Immaculate Conception. The importance of Palma virginea was also rec- ognized by the provincial estates, which presented an honorary award to Schönleben for the work in 1671 (Radics: 51; Ušeničnik: 422). Based on archival sources, the Carniolan provincial estates did in fact make an exceptional monetary award in the amount of 428 guldens to Schön- leben, which he reportedly already received on May 5th, 1670 (Mikla- včič 1967: 237), and so it is unclear whether the award was connected with the publication of this work or Schönleben’s dedication of the first volume of his feast-day sermons Feyertäglicher Erquick-Stunden (Hours of Feast-Day Refreshment, 1669) to the estates. Palma virginea is written in a popular theological style, but in a po- lemic manner. Schönleben was unable to avoid irony, attacks, and harsh expressions, which is why this work, too, was included on the Index on March 13th, 1679 (Index: 383). His attacks were primarily direct- ed at the Dominican Vincenzo Bandello, whom he viewed as Goliath fighting against David—that is, Pope Sixtus IV (Schönleben 1671: 62–70, 79–81; Strle 1954b: 203–205). He wrote that he was “vomiting poison” (virus evomebat Bandellus) and he referred to his acolytes as “the Ban- dello cohort” (Bandelli fida cohors; Schönleben 1671: 63, 81). He accused him of forging documents (Schönleben 1671: 68), wondering at Pope Sixtus IV’s patience and the fact that he did not take action against him (Schönleben 1671: 67). In several places, he could barely resist laughing at his opponents’ stupidity (e.g., magna cum molestia cachinnos cohibui 127 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands ‘I held back laughter with great trouble’; Schönleben 1671: 43) and in general he used very unforgiving language when referring to them (Schönleben 1671: 78, 128). Palma virginea is considered Schönleben’s most important Mario- logical work primarily because of the way he provided argumentation and evidence supporting the Immaculate Conception. He substanti- ated his beliefs with the general consensus of Christians, which had strengthened and spread over the centuries. He presented his views on this fact in detail in an appendix to the book titled De universo fideli- um coetu (Concerning the Entire Assembly of the Faithful; Schönleben 1671: 134–166). In it, he discussed the internal and external evidence based on which he believed the truth of the Immaculate Virgin should be recognized as a dogma. He inferred the external evidence from the ← FIG. 2 Title page of Palma virginea (Salzburg, 1671). Ljubljana Seminary Library. 128 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works fact that the Church had always relied on the consensus of the faith- ful (e.g., in rejecting heresy), and he saw the internal evidence based on which the dogma of the Immaculate Conception should be con- firmed in the workings of the Holy Spirit, which lives inside the Church and under the influence of which such a universal consensus of the faithful regarding the Immaculate Virgin had been able to develop in the first place (Strle 1954a: 4). He attributed such great importance to the consensus of the faithful based on his belief that it had practi- cally already been present from the beginning of Christianity and that it had only grown stronger by his time. He further substantiated this opinion with the truth about the infallibility of the Church, arguing that, by rejecting the validity and importance of the general consensus of the faithful, the truth of the infallibility of the Church would also be rejected (Strle 1954a: 4–7). Nearly two hundred years later, a special council of theologians was appointed under Pope Pius IX in 1848, which was entrusted with establishing whether the concept of the Immaculate Conception could be defined as a dogma. To this end, the council first formulated the positive and negative principles, according to which it then discussed the belief ’s potential to be defined as a dogma (Strle 1954a: 8–9). Strle examined the extent to which Schönleben’s Mariological findings matched these principles, determining that as a whole they matched both the positive and negative principles, and that Schönleben’s line of argumentation proceeded from the same bases that played a decisive role in defining the Immaculate Conception as a dogma in 1854 (the bull Ineffabilis Deus). Therefore, according to him, Palma virginea was an important Mariological work, which—had it not been included on the Index due to its polemical style of writing—would have played an important role in the history of Mariology and would have been 129 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands cited significantly more in the works of later Mariologists (Strle 1954a: 8–10). That Strle’s deduction is correct is also proved by Orbis universi votorum, in which Schönleben defended practically the same principles as in his later two works. The only difference is that in Orbis he re- mained on a strict theological scholarly level and therefore nobody prohibited it. concLuDing MarioLogicaL PerioD Schönleben’s peak Mariological period from 1667 to 1671 was followed by a period of decline resulting from him being heavily occupied with writing and editing sermons, and his intense involvement in histori- ography and genealogy. When he returned to Mariology, he decided to retreat into anonymity, most likely because his previous works had been included on the Index. Upon the 1678 grand opening of the Mayr printshop in Ljubljana, in which Schönleben played the crucial role, he anonymously published a panegyric to the Immaculate Virgin, Mar- iae absque naevo labis originalis conceptae, nova typographia Labacensis urbis consecrata sub felicibus auspiciis procerum inclytae Carnioliae elogium (A Eulogy to Mary, Conceived without the Blemish of Original Sin, upon the Dedication of the New Printing House of the Town of Ljubljana un- der the Happy Greetings of the Champions of Glorious Carniola). This first minor work printed by Mayr in Ljubljana has not been preserved; it is only known from a reprint in Valvasor’s Die Ehre deß Hertzogthums Crain (The Glory of the Duchy of Carniola; vol. 3, book 11, 726–727). The panegyric or praise to Mary mentioned above was later pub- lished in a slightly adapted and expanded form as an introduction to the collection of panegyrics to Mary titled Mariae magnae Dei Matris celebres panegyristae (Panegyrists in Honor of Mary, the Great Mother 130 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works 11 The full title reads: De officio immaculatae conceptionis Deiparae antiquissimo et devo- tissimo, parvo mole, magno mysteriis: recens per anonymum correcto, et Lucensibus typis edito. Observationes Sigismundi a S. Maria, theologi ex SS. patribus, et doctoribus, praesertim ordinis pp. praedicato- rum desumptae. of God), printed by Mayr in 1679. In his copy of the book, Johann An- ton Thalnitscher added a note to the introductory poem that it was written by Schönleben, thereby also confirming the authorship of the first work printed by Mayr in Ljubljana (Smolik: 415). The fact that his panegyric appeared in the introduction to the collection of panegyrics honoring the Virgin Mary suggests that he may have been more actively involved in the book’s publication (e.g., he could have influenced the selection of contributors considering that four of the five Mariologists were Jesuits). Special attention should be drawn to the work De officio immacula- tae conceptionis Deiparae antiquissimo et devotissimo, parvo mole, magno mysteriis (The Oldest and Most Devout Service of the Immaculate Con- ception of the Mother of God, Light in Weight, Great in Mystery) pub- lished in two editions: 1680 and 1681.11 Its author used the pseudonym Sigismundus a S. Maria ‘Sigismund of Saint Mary’. The first edition was printed by a Joseph de Grangiis of “Altstedium”. Nothing is known about this printer, and the town in which the work was printed cannot be iden- tified. Just as mysterious is the information on the printer and place of publication provided in the second edition, which was allegedly pub- lished in Paris. Both editions differ only in their title page and design, whereas their content is the same. Because both the author and printer could have anticipated problems, it is possible that the printer and place of publication were made up. The work was attributed to Schönleben by both Johann Weikhard von Valvasor and Johann Gregor Thalnitscher (Valvasor: vol. 2, book 6, 355; Dolničar: 220), which definitely speaks in favor of this authorship because their lists of Schönleben’s works are generally considered very reliable. In addition, Ušeničnik, Miklavčič, and Štrukelj also included the publication among Schönleben’s works, even though they were only familiar with the first edition (Štrukelj: 372). 131 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands However, they did not examine the work in detail; they merely adopt- ed Valvasor’s account. Strle, who is considered the greatest specialist in Schönleben’s Mariological oeuvre to date, did not mention or discuss this work in his articles. Based on the thoughts of the Church Fathers and (especially Do- minican) theologians, the author Sigismund of Saint Mary provides his opinion on the modifications to the breviary about the Immacu- late Conception produced by an anonymous author, who published a modified version of the breviary in Žatec in what is now the Czech Republic. These modifications were most likely inspired by a 1679 decree in which the pope prohibited the readings of the Immaculate Concep- tion breviary. Because the head of the Vatican office was a Dominican, ← FIG. 3 Title page of De officio immac- ulatae conceptionis Deiparae (Altstedium, 1680). NUK Archives. 132 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works 12 HDA, MK, M 9451: “Syllabus operum et proiectorum Joannis Ludovici Schönleben.” Sigismund found the decision especially questionable. He disagreed not only with the prohibition of the breviary’s readings, but also its modifications (Sigismundus a S. Maria 1681: 3–6). He based his belief on the views of the Church Fathers and theologians (including the Do- minican ones) that supported the Immaculate Conception. On April 14th, 1682, this work, too, was included on the Index librorum prohibitorum, which, however, does not indicate that it was published in two separate editions (Index: 279). The assumption that the work was written by Schönleben is also supported by the fact that Sigismund of Saint Mary’s views are close to Schönleben’s Mariological beliefs. A similarity in terms of content is suggested by the selection of sources and the fact that Schönleben already relied on the favorable views of Dominican theologians while providing arguments for Mary’s exemption from the original sin in his third volume of Orbis universi votorum. However, because others shared his views at that time, it cannot be unequivocally claimed that he is the one hiding behind Sigismund’s name. Further doubt is raised by the fact that the work is not mentioned on the list of his works published during his lifetime.12 However, because all his genealogies printed in 1680 are also missing from that list, it is possible that the list was printed before this work and the genealogies were published. It is also possible that this work was intentionally omitted from the list. Schönleben’s authorship is more likely if the information on the printer and the place of pub- lication provided on the title page were made up, because otherwise the work could only have been printed with extensive support from his influential European friends (cf. Deželak Trojar: 174–178). A final deci- sion on Schönleben’s authorship of this work would definitely be made easier with better knowledge of general theology and a more thorough familiarity with his complete Mariological body of work. 133 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands ConClusion The inclusion of Schönleben’s works on the Index librorum prohibito- rum resulted from his relentless and ardent efforts to prove the truth of the Immaculate Conception. His character was also a large part of this: a strong belief in his own rightness and excessive agitation, which diverted him from the strictly scholarly theological direction illustrated in the work Orbis universi votorum into polemicizing, irony, and using insulting language in Vera ac sincera sententia and in Palma virginea. All this must also have been contributed to by excessive con- fidence inspired by the 1661 bull of Pope Alexander VII, which caused him to conclude that Mary’s victory (Mariana victoria) was practically achieved, and that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception would soon be declared. Because they were included on the Index, Schönle- ben’s Mariological works received less attention than they could have. It is indisputable that the impact of his works—if it had remained at the level of theological writing as displayed in Orbis universi voto- rum—would have been much wider and that his name would also have been more appreciated in Mariology than it currently is. How impor- tant the veneration of Mary was to him personally is indicated, very revealingly, in his epitaph, which prioritizes his efforts to spread the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and have it declared over all his other, generally very diverse, activities: Here lie the remains of Johann Ludwig Schönleben, a doctor of sacred theology, a protonotary apostolic, and the former dean of the Ljubljana cathedral and the imperial parish of Ribnica. [He strove] for the procla- mation and spread of the Immaculate Conception and veneration of the holy ones of heaven, the honor of the most majestic Austrian house, 134 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works 13 “Hic iacet quod mortale fuit Ioannis Ludovici Schönleben ss. theologiae doct. protonotarii apostolici cathedralis ecclesiae Labac. Olim decani et caesarei plebei Reifnicensis asseren- dae, et propagandae immaculatae concep- tionis divorumque coelitum cultui. Augustissimae domus Austriacae honori ducatus Carnioliae, patriaeque nomini qua sacris, qua propha- nis, lucubrationibus ad nominis immortali- tatem claruit huius viri quem dies XV. Octobris ex patria rapuit per- ennem in posteris memoriam fundavit. Requiescat in pace anno M DC LXXXI.” the name of the Duchy of Carniola, and his homeland. He acquired fame with both his sacred and secular works, making immortal the name of this man whom the fifteenth of October separated from his home- land and established for posterity his perpetual memory. May he rest in peace. 1681. (Valvasor: vol. 2, book 6, 354–355)13 ❦ 135 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Sources Arhiv Republike Slovenije (ARS) AS 1073, II/51r, Sodalitas Beatissimae Virginis Mariae in Coelos Assumptae in Archiducali collegio Societatis Iesu Labaci. AS 1073, II/52r, Bruderschaft der unbefleckten Empfängnis. Hrvatski državni arhiv (HDA) MK, M 9451, Dissertatio polemica de prima origine augustissimae domus Habspurgo-Austriacae (Syllabus operum et proiectorum Joannis Ludovici Schönleben). Nadškofijski arhiv Ljubljana (NŠAL) NŠAL 100, KAL fasc. 138/10, Schönleben’s letter to Buchheim (July 17, 1662). 136 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works References deželak trojar, monika, 2017: Janez Ludvik Schönleben (1618– 1681): Oris življenja in dela. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. dolniČar, janez GreGor, 2009: Bibliotheca Labacensis publica Collegii Carolini Nobilium. Trubar, Hren, Valvasor, Dolničar: O slovstvu na Kranjskem: Znanstvenokritična izdaja. Ed. Luka Vidmar. Ljubljana: SAZU. 179–395. Index librorum prohibitorum sanctissimi domini nostri Gregorii XVI, Pontificis Maximi iussu editus Romae MDCCCXLI, 1852. Monteregali (Mondovi): Rossi. [https://archive.org/details/ bub_gb_3h_JMCZWRAUC/page/n4] lavriČ, ana, 2010: Ljubljanske baročne bratovščine in njihovo umetnostno naročništvo: Jezuitske kongregacije. Arhivi 33, 2. 251–286. luBej, uroŠ, 2001: Marijin steber v Ljubljani. Acta historiae artis Slovenica 6. 53–66. miklavČiČ, maks, 1957: Johann Ludwig Schönleben, ein slowenischer Mariologe. Virgo Immaculata: Acta congressus Mariologici-Mariani Romae anno MCMLIV celebrati: Vol. XIV: De immaculata conceptione apud varias nationes. Romae: Academia Mariana Internationalis. 214–241. miklavČiČ, maks, 1967: Schönleben, Janez Ludvik. Slovenski biografski leksikon 10. Ed. Alfonz Gspan. Ljubljana: SAZU. 236–240. radics, peter, 1894: Der krainische Historiograph Johann Ludwig Schönleben. Mittheilungen des Musealvereines für Krain 7. 1–72. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1649: Campus liliorum, sive Album Austriaco-Marianum. Sex admodum reverendis, religiosis, et clarissimis dominis ex celeber. sacr. Ord. Cisterc. monasterio 137 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Campiliorum professis, … anno M. DC. XLIX, XXVI. Augusti solenni ritu suprema theologiae laurea ornatis promotore R. P. Matthia Bastianschizh … Vienna: Matthaeus Rictius. ÖNB, 79. Q. 70. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1659a: Orbis universi votorum pro definitione piae et verae sententiae de immaculata conceptione Deiparae, Liber IV. Klagenfurt: Georgius Kramer. NUK, DS I 141434. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1659b: Orbis universi votorum pro definitione piae et verae sententiae de immaculata conceptione Deiparae, Liber III. Klagenfurt: Georgius Kramer. NUK, DS I 141434. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1668: Vera ac sincera sententia de immaculata conceptione Deiparae Virginis. Salzburg: Melchior Haan. NUK, 14285. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1669: Feyertäglicher Erquick- Stunden. Erster Theil. Das Winter- und Frühlings-Quartall. Salzburg: Melchior Haan. NUK, DS I 44702. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1670: Vera ac sincera sententia de immaculata conceptione Deiparae Virginis. Salzburg: Melchior Haan. Bayerische Staatsbibliothek digital, Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum Digitale Bibliothek. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1671: Palma virginea sive Deiparae Virginis Mariae de adversariis suae immaculatae conceptionis victoriae omnium seculorum aerae Christianae. Salzburg: Melchior Haan. SK LJ, M IV 10. schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1678: Mariae absque naevo labis originalis conceptae, nova typographia Labacensis urbis consecrata sub felicibus auspiciis procerum inclytae Carnioliae elogium. Johann Weikhardt von Valvasor, Die Ehre deß Hertzogthums Crain 3, 11. Ljubljana, Nürnberg: Endter. 726–727. 138 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works schÖnleBen, johann ludWiG, 1679: Dedicatorium elogium Maria nomen ominum, omen nominum. Mariae magnae Dei Matris celebres panegyristae, qui amoeniore stylo eius laudes vulgarunt. In unum collecti fasciculum et in novella typographia Labacensi reimpressi. Ljubljana: Joannes Baptista Mayr. ÖNB, 75367-A. siGismundus a s. maria, 1680: De officio immaculatae conceptionis Deiparae antiquissimo et devotissimo, parvo mole, magno mysteriis; recens per anonymum correcto et lucensibus typis edito. Observationes Sigismundi a S. Maria, theologi ex patribus et doctoribus, praesertim ordinis pp. praedicatorum desumptae. Altstedium: Josephus de Grangiis. NUK, GS 0 21699. siGismundus a s. maria, 1681: De officio immaculatae conceptionis Deiparae antiquissimo et devotissimo, parvo mole magno mysteriis, recens per anonymum correcto et lucensibus typis edito. Observationes Sigismundi a s. Maria theologi ex ss. patribus et doctoribus praesertim Ordinis pp. praedicatorum desumptae. Paris: Sebastianus Martinus. smolik, marijan, 1981: Pridigar, mariolog in zgodovinar Janez Ludvik Schönleben. Bogoslovni vestnik 41, 4. 399–427. strle, anton, 1954a: Slovenski mariolog Schönleben o soglasju vernikov kot teološkem viru. Zbornik Teološke fakultete 4. Ed. France Grivec. Ljubljana: Teološka fakulteta. 2–23. strle, anton, 1954b: Nekaj opomb k Schönlebnovim mariološkim delom. Zbornik Teološke fakultete 4. Ed. France Grivec. Ljubljana: Teološka fakulteta. 201–208. strle, anton, 1955a: Schönleben o mnenju sv. Tomaža Akvinskega glede Marijinega brezmadežnega spočetja. Zbornik Teološke fakultete 5. Ed. France Grivec. Ljubljana: Teološka fakulteta. 171–190. 139 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands strle, anton, 1955b: Schönleben in Ambrozij Catharinus. Zbornik Teološke fakultete 5. Ed. France Grivec. Ljubljana: Teološka fakulteta. 204–211. Štrukelj, anton, 2006: Slovenski mariolog v službi Brezmadežne: Janez Ludovik Schönleben (1618–1681): posvečeno v hvaležen spomin prof. dr. Antonu Strletu. Communio 16, 4. 365–381. uŠeniČnik, FranČiŠek, 1904: Schönleben o Brezmadežni. Katoliški obzornik 8. 413–426. valvasor, johann Weikhard, 1689: Die Ehre deß Hertzogthums Crain. Ljubljana, Nürnberg: Endter. zani, valerio, 1672: Memorie, imprese e ritratti deʼ signori Accademici Gelati di Bologna. Bologna: Manolessi. 140 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works Povzetek Področje mariologije je bilo tisto, ki se ga je Janez Ludvik Schönle- ben (1618–1681) lotil s posebno veliko mero osebne zavzetosti. V res- nico o Marijinem brezmadežnem spočetju je bil neomajno prepričan že v času, ko so se glede nje nekaterim teologom porajali še številni dvomi in vprašanja. Slabih dvesto let pred uradno razglasitvijo do- gme (1854) je napisal svoja temeljna dela o Marijinem brezmadežnem spočetju. V nekaterih od njih je svoja stališča zagovarjal tako goreče in neomajno, da se je zaradi tega njegovo ime znašlo na Indeksu prepo- vedanih knjig. Z mariologijo in zagovarjanjem resnice o Marijinem brezmadežnem spočetju se je Schönleben začel ukvarjati že v svojem jezuitskem ob- dobju na Dunaju. Dejavneje se ji je posvetil v času službe ljubljanskega stolnega dekana in pozneje kot arhidiakon Spodnje Kranjske. Leta 1659 sta v Celovcu izšla dva od načrtovanih petih zvezkov spisa Orbis universi votorum. To delo je bilo zasnovano pregledno, z njim je želel dokazati, da ima pobožno mnenje o Marijinem brezmadežnem spočetju že vse potrebne lastnosti za dokončno opredelitev kot verske resnice. Doda- ten zagon za dokazovanje te resnice mu je leta 1661 dala bula papeža Aleksandra VII. (Sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum), ki jo je razumel kot skorajšnjo zmago zagovornikov Marijine brezmadežnosti. Vrhunec Schönlebnovega mariološkega ustvarjanja predstavljajo leta 1668–1671. Leta 1668 je anonimno izšla prva izdaja spisa Vera ac sin- cera sententia. Natisnil jo je v Salzburgu, in sicer pod psevdonimom Balduinus Helenocceus. V drugo izdajo istega spisa, ki je prav tako izšla v Salzburgu, se je dve leti pozneje (1670) podpisal s svojim pravim imenom. Njegovo najpomembnejše mariološko delo je Palma virginea (Salburg, 1671). Odlikujeta ga način izvajanja in dokazovanja resnice 141 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands o Marijinem brezmadežnem spočetju. Pravilnost svojega prepričanja je utemeljeval v splošnem soglasju vernikov, ki se je tekom stoletij krepilo in širilo. Obe deli sta bili kljub siceršnji teološki neoporečnosti zaradi polemičnega tona pisanja po posredovanju nasprotnikov Mari- jinega brezmadežnega spočetja kmalu po nastanku uvrščeni na Indeks prepovedanih knjig: Vera ac sincera sententia 18. maja 1677, Palma Virginea pa 13. marca 1679. V sklepnem delu svojega življenja se je Schönleben še naprej posve- čal mariološkim temam, a se je umaknil v anonimnost. Po Valvasorjevi zaslugi poznamo pesnitev na čast Brezmadežni z naslovom Mariae absque naevo labis originalis conceptae, nova typographia Labacensis urbis consecrata sub felicibus auspiciis procerum inclytae Carnioliae elogium, ki jo je napisal ob slovesnem odprtju Mayrjeve tiskarne leta 1678 v Lju- bljani. Valvasor mu je tudi prvi pripisal delo De officio immaculatae conceptionis Deiparae antiquissimo et devotissimo (1680, 1681), katerega avtor se skriva za psevdonimom »Sigismundus a S. Maria«. Poleg Val- vasorjevega pričevanja možnost Schönlebnovega avtorstva potrjujeta še sorodnost marioloških nazorov in ujemanje virov. Tudi to delo je bilo 14. aprila 1682 uvrščeno na Indeks prepovedanih knjig. 142 MONIKA DEŽELAK TROJAR ▶ Schönleben’s Prohibited Mariological Works Monika Deželak Trojar Monika Deželak Trojar is a research fellow at the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slo- venian Literature and Literary Studies. In 2015, she received her PhD at the University of Maribor’s Faculty of Arts with the dissertation Janez Ludvik Schönleben (1618-1861) v luči arhivskih virov, njegovega zgodovins- kega in retoričnega opusa (Johann Ludwig Schönleben, 1618–1681, in the Light of Archival Sources and His Historical and Rhetorical Works). In her postdoctoral research project Jesuit Plays as a Factor in the Development of Early Modern Drama: The Slovenian and Central European Context (2018–2020), she examined Jesuit drama and theater in Slovenian territo- ry, especially Jesuit drama activity at the Ljubljana College of the Society of Jesus. She specializes in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Slovenian literature as well as seventeenth-century historiography. 143 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands ❦ Luka viDMar ▶ luka.vidmar@zrc-sazu.si Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa: Between Catholic Tradition and Moderate Enlightenment Sekularizacija knjižne cenzure pod Marijo Terezijo: med katoliško tradicijo in zmernim razsvetljenstvom SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal ISSN 1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online) VOLUME 26 (2021/I), pp. 144–170 DOI 10.13137/2283-5482/32499 145 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands haBsBurG hereditarY lands, maria theresa, catholic church, secularization, censorship, indeX, ForBidden Books haBsBurŠke dedne dežele, marija terezija, katoliŠka cerkev, sekularizacija, cenzura, indeks, prepovedane knjiGe Censorship of books in the Habsburg hereditary lands was initially effective- ly controlled by the Catholic Church and was secularized only under Maria Theresa (1740–1780). During the process, the Church gradually lost its decisive influence: in 1751, the Court Book Censorship Committee was estab- lished, in 1764 the last Jesuit member of the commission was ousted, and in 1772 the state took over censorship of even theological and religious pub- lications. The new censorship differed from the old one in many ways; for example, with grounding in moder- ate Enlightenment. In some respects, it resumed the tradition (e.g., favoring Catholicism), and in others it even became more restrictive (e.g., when dealing with literature). Knjižna cenzura v habsburških dednih deželah je bila sprva v največji meri pod nadzorom Katoliške cerkve, se- kularizirana pa je bila šele pod Marijo Terezijo (1740–1780). V tem procesu je Cerkev postopno izgubila odločilen vpliv: leta 1751 je bila ustanovljena Dvorna komisija za knjižno cenzuro, leta 1764 so iz nje izrinili zadnjega jezuita, leta 1772 pa je država prevze- la celo cenzuro teoloških in verskih knjig. Nova cenzura se je v marsičem ločila od stare, na primer z izho- diščem v zmernem razsvetljenstvu. V nekaterih pogledih je nadaljevala tradicijo (na primer s favoriziranjem katoliške vere), v drugih pa je bila celo restriktivnejša (na primer pri obravnavi leposlovja). 146 LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa Researchers studying the book censorship reform in the Habsburg hereditary lands under Maria Theresa (1740–1780) have rightfully highlighted secularization as its most important outcome while also drawing attention to other aspects of the complex relationships be- tween the secular and Church authorities in this area. Through com- parison and examples of censored authors and banned books from the Duchy of Carniola, this article offers new insights into how the new Habsburg censorship differed from the old Habsburg censorship and the contemporary Church censorship in Rome, as well as insights into the aspects in which it continued their tradition and the areas in which it was even more restrictive. censorshiP secuLarization Book censorship in the Habsburg hereditary lands, which was intro- duced in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, was a power mecha- nism of the ruler. With the ruler’s permission, censorship was initially primarily directed by the Catholic Church—that is, the bishop of Vi- enna, the University of Vienna (which was in Jesuit hands), the local bishops, and the Jesuit colleges. Compared to France, Prussia, and many other German Protestant principalities, secularization occurred fairly late (Sashegyi: 15), also due to a strong Catholic identity reinforced during the Counter-Reformation and the wars against the Ottoman Empire. It was only Maria Theresa that also began to institutionalize, centralize, and bureaucratize censorship after the War of the Austrian Succession. In this process, led by the prefect of the Court Library, Gerard van Swieten, for over two decades, censorship was incorporated into the state administrative apparatus and the Church was gradually driven out of it or removed from direct and decisive influence in this 147 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands area (Papenheim: 90; Bachleitner: 49). Its ideological orientation also partly changed: the old censorship founded on traditional Catholicism was guided by the confessional and political interests of the ruler and the Church, whereas the new censorship founded on the (moderate) Enlightenment and Reform Catholicism primarily pursued the interests of the emerging modern state. In 1751, Maria Theresa established the Court Book Censorship Committee, which took over the responsibilities of older institutions. In it, the Jesuits were initially still in charge of the most extensive areas of theology and philosophy, whereas other areas, such as law and historiography, were largely supervised by secular professors at the University of Vienna, the Savoyard Academy, and the There- sian Academy. Van Swieten, who was initially only responsible for medicine and became the committee’s chair in 1759, soon took over the philosophical works and literature from the Jesuits; in addition, he also censored all the natural science works. In 1764, the last Jesuit was driven out of the committee. The Jesuits were replaced by dioce- san priests, who were proposed by the Archbishop of Vienna but had to be approved by Maria Theresa (Klingenstein: 161, 172; Bachleitner, Eybl, Fischer: 109; Olechowski: 59–61; Bachleitner: 41, 49, 50). Until van Swieten’s death in 1772, the committee was composed of seven censors. Thus, in 1767, they included three diocesan priests and four secular professionals, among them Karl Anton von Martini, a profes- sor of natural law at the University of Vienna (Klingenstein: 158). The censors practiced both retroactive and preventive censorship. They evaluated the yet unknown printed works brought from abroad and the pre-publication manuscripts of domestic works assigned to them by the committee’s secretary according to the area they covered. The secretary handed one manuscript copy of a domestic work to the censor 148 LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa and kept one for himself, so that, if the work was positively evaluated and published, he could check whether the manuscript matched the printed version. Censors met at van Swieten’s office once a month, or more often if needed, to report on the works they had received for evaluation. If a judgment was unanimous, the case was solved, and a potential ban was sent to the ruler or the court office for approval. If no agreement could be reached, the opinions were protocolized and the case was handed over to the ruler to decide (Bachleitner: 54–55). In 1772, the Church was hit by a new, especially painful blow: the old committee, which also included diocesan priests (albeit a minori- ty) and ultimately still respected the will of the archbishop of Vienna, was dissolved, and the new twelve-member committee was conceived as a purely administrative body. From then onward, censors were paid for their work. With this reform, the state also took over the censorship of theological and religious texts from the Church. The archbishop of Vienna, Count Christoph Anton von Migazzi, could only protest (mostly in vain) if the censorship committee permitted any non-Catholic works he deemed problematic or banned any Catholic works that he viewed as unproblematic (Bachleitner: 57–58; cf. Wolf 2007: 311; Papenheim: 90). The composition and modus operandi of the Vienna central com- mittee were copied—even though often with a delay and with a milder attitude toward the Church authorities—by local committees, which were set up in the provincial capitals to control the local books and newspaper production. Thus in 1771, the Ljubljana book review com- mittee was headed by Baron Niklas Rudolph von Raab, a represent- ative of the provincial government, but the priests nonetheless held the majority (three of five members) in the committee: the vicar general of the Ljubljana Diocese, Karl Peer, and the rector and dean 149 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands of the Ljubljana Jesuit College (Kaiserl. Königl. Innerösterreichischer Schematismus: 158). It was only 1773, when the Society of Jesus was dissolved, that both Jesuits were replaced by two diocesan priests. Peer issued licenses for religious works printed in Ljubljana on be- half of the diocesan office even before the 1751 establishment of the Vienna committee (Kidrič 1935), and he continued to do the same during the operation of the Ljubljana committee around 1770. It was not until the final secularization of the Vienna committee in 1772 that an important change was also brought to Ljubljana: Peer remained on the committee, but from then onward religious works were pub- lished with express permission from the Ljubljana committee or its (secular) chair; initially this was Raab (cf., e.g., Pohlin 1773; Pohlin 1774). The situation was similar in Bohemia, where, during the first half of Maria Theresa’s reign, the Church authorities, including the Jesuits, were still involved in censorship. In 1772, the book censorship committee in Prague, led by the archbishop until then, was conceived as a pure state body, following the model of the Vienna committee, and the archdiocesan consistory was prohibited from confiscating problematic printed works and pursuing other similar activities (Píša, Wögerbauer: 196–197). To improve control over imported books, in 1754 the Court Book Censorship Committee began to publish the index Catalogus librorum rejectorum per consessum censurae, which in later editions changed its title to Catalogus librorum a commissione aulica prohibitorum. Rough- ly once a month, the committee gathered the prohibited titles into consignments, which were then sent to the provinces, and at the end of each year it added these titles to the index (Bachleitner: 54–56). The Vienna index thus ended the two-century-long universal validity of the Roman Index librorum prohibitorum in the Habsburg hereditary FIG. 1 ↑ The imprimatur by Baron Niklas Ru- dolph von Raab, chair of the Ljubljana book review committee, in the 1774 book Pet sveteh petkov mesza sushza (Five Holy Fridays in the Month of March) by Marko Pohlin. Photo: Lju- bljana National and University Library. 150 LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa lands or limited it to the Church sphere (Vidmar 2018: 23). This change, too, was enforced only gradually. Even in 1770, the Prague Archbish- op Anton Peter Příchovský ordered the publication of the Church Index Bohemicorum librorum prohibitorum et corrigendorum, which was conceived in an entirely Counter-Reformation spirit, but later the provincial authorities no longer permitted such bans from the Church (Píša, Wögerbauer: 195–196). The secularization partly changed the criteria for evaluating con- tentiousness, which primarily benefited scholarly works. In terms of religion, the criteria showed some degree of forbearance toward Protestant works, but they affected a larger number of Catholic works FIG. 2 → Title page of Catalogus librorum a commissione aulica prohibitorum, printed in Vienna in 1768. Ljubljana National and Univer- sity Library. Photo: Luka Vidmar. 151 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands than before. Thus, in his 1772 report to Maria Theresa, van Swieten also mentioned certain Catholic books (i.e., superstitious and Jesuit books) among those that censorship should ban, while recommending that scholarly books by Protestant writers be tolerated, even though they contained anti-Catholic barbs (Bachleitner: 52). That the censors (but not Maria Theresa) paid somewhat less attention to Protestant books is also indicated by the Vienna index, which, contrary to the Roman one, did not include works by Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and other important reformers—which, as non-Catholic works, were prohibited in the Habsburg hereditary lands anyway. For the same reason, the Vienna index did not include the main Slovenian reformer Primož Trubar, who was listed on the Roman index in 1596 under the most dangerous authors – auctores primae classis (Vidmar 2018: 30). Religious Catholic works were subjected to significantly stricter evaluation than in the past. Because they reached the largest number of people across all social classes, the Enlightenment state wanted to use them in cultivating the common folk as religious, reasonable, moral, and hard-working citizens. Superstition (e.g., occult works) was already persecuted by the Church and pre-Theresian censorship (Vidmar 2018: 41), but the Enlightenment censors also included many previously acceptable Catholic books under this category; for exam- ple, books that promoted certain Baroque forms of devotion, described the miracles of Christian saints (Ogrin: 137), or thematized the devil (Bachleitner: 282–287). For these reasons, they banned, among other things, certain older works on Christian teachings and as many as ten ascetic, hagiographic, and meditative works by the German Capuchin Martin of Cochem (Bachleitner, Eybl, Fischer: 111; Ogrin: 127), who ended up among the most frequently banned authors on the Vienna index (Bachleitner: 80). 152 LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa continuing the censorshiP traDition Despite its secularization, which part of the Church experienced almost as an apocalypse, in many aspects the Theresian censorship did not break with tradition. It retained several features of the old censorship: as an absolutist monarch’s institution, its main task was still to protect the faith and morals of individuals and especially young people against harmful influences and to protect the ruler, the Church, and the ex- isting social order against attacks. For this reason, it suppressed many of the same or similar book categories as the old Habsburg censorship and the concurrent Church censorship in Rome. Hence, secularization did not automatically bring liberalization. Compared to censorship in Saxony, France, and Prussia, Austrian censorship—together with Bavarian—remained relatively restric- tive (Angelike: 228; Wolf 2007: 312; Bachleitner: 41). From 1754 to 1780, the Vienna index was published in four editions and seventeen sup- plementary volumes, with an average of 157 titles included each year. Even though the number of bans did not grow as fast as book produc- tion, thus implying a relaxation in retroactive censorship (Bachleit- ner: 55–56, 73–75), the Vienna index was growing increasingly longer (Hadamowsky: 294; Wolf 2007: 314), ultimately reaching the length of the Roman index. However, the Vienna index by far exceeded the Roman one in the frequency of updates and releases: only one edition of the Roman index was published during that period (i.e., in 1758 under Pope Benedict XIV). The censors sometimes handled the banned books surprisingly similarly as in the past, even though books were hardly ever burned in public anymore. Hence, during its sessions, the Vienna commit- tee destroyed the banned books that it had confiscated from private 153 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands owners and only included political and theological works in the court or archdiocesan library (Bachleitner: 51, 55). A similar distinction was made during the Counter-Reformation and Catholic restoration: for example, in 1600 and 1601 the religious committee for Carniola publicly burned heretical books, especially the theological writings by the most dangerous authors (auctores primae classis), on town squares, where- as it included more useful and less problematic books, such as the Protestant translations of the Bible and philological works, in Church libraries (Vidmar 2018: 15, 28–29). Characteristic of both the old and the new censorship was also the differentiation between different groups of readers in terms of their social class and education. Already in principle, censorship was more forbearing toward members of the social and intellectual elite, to whom it granted special licenses for purchasing specific problematic books, such as Hontheim’s De statu ecclesiae, which advocated reducing papal power (Bachleitner: 56). Namely, it still applied that suitably educated readers (primarily priests in the past) could more successfully with- stand harmful ideas than uneducated readers. the Persistent infLuence of cathoLicisM in censorshiP Moreover, secularization did not remove Catholicism and subsequently, at least, the indirect influence of the Church from censorship. Even though the Church was pushed out of political decision making, it con- tinued to set the norms of what was allowed and desired in society to- gether with the state (Bachleitner: 407). Continuing the tradition of her ancestors, Maria Theresa remained a devout Catholic concerned with the preservation of the only true religion permitted in the Habsburg hereditary lands, who viewed Protestantism as a heresy outside the 154 LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa law (Žnidaršič Golec: 264; cf. Wolf 2007: 311). The ruler’s beliefs were also reflected in the operations of censorship bodies, which, just like other state bodies, supported the Enlightenment version of religious ideology: moderate Reform Catholicism (Bachleitner: 50). In 1759 and 1761, Maria Theresa thus approved measures to prevent the spread of Protestant works, which included supervision over peddlers of print- ed goods (Bachleitner: 43), and in the following years she imposed a fine on reading non-Catholic books in the amount of eighteen guldens, of which the person reporting the reader would receive two-thirds (Žnidaršič Golec: 269). That the state and Church censorship were still largely in agreement regarding heresy is indicated by a note added by Father Hieronymus Markillitsch, who served several times as guardian of the Franciscan monastery in Ljubljana, to the German translation of the Jesuit Al- phonse Antonio de Sarasa’s work Ars semper gaudendi printed in Magde- burg in 1764, which Markillitsch acquired in 1767. He clearly took into account the Vienna index (the book was not listed on the Roman index), which banned the book due to its Protestant-oriented remarks (Cat- alogus: 283), because he noted the following in his copy of the book: “This book [is] prohibited and must not be read unless in the hands of an educated and trained [man] […]. Because it [was] translated from Latin into German and supplemented with notes by heretics and print- ed in a heretical place, it is suspected of being corrupt.”1 greater restrictiveness of censorshiP Last but not least, Theresian censorship and the Church remained in accord in prohibiting a large number of philosophical, political, and literary works by the English, French, and German men of the 1 “Liber prohibitus, et non, nisi â docto et facultatem habente tenendus, legendus […]. Quia ab haereticis ex latino versus in ger- manicum, et notis adauctus, inque loco haeretico impressus, et hoc ipso corruption- is suspectus habetur.” FSLC, Alfons Anton von Sarasa, Sitten- lehre, oder die Kunst sich immer zu freuen, Magdeburg 1764. 155 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Enlightenment—not only radical authors, such as the proponents of atheism and materialism, but often also moderate ones. In this re- gard, the Vienna censorship proved to be even more thorough than the Roman one because, through its 1758 reformed edition published under Pope Benedict XIV, the papal index, which was updated based on denunciations rather than systematic reviews (Papenheim: 85), renounced the practically unattainable control over the world’s book production and focused on works with a Catholic content (Green, Car- olides: 266). The Vienna censorship also outdid the Roman one in other criteria: from 1701 to 1813, the Congregation of the Index and the Con- gregation of the Inquisition banned a total of approximately 1,600 ← FIG. 3 Title page of the German translation of Alphonse Antonio de Sarasa’s work Ars semper gaudendi printed in Magdeburg in 1764 and owned by Father Hierony- mus Markillitsch. Ljubljana Center Franciscan Monastery. Photo: Luka Vidmar. 156 LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa books (Wolf 2011: 27, 29), whereas from 1751 to 1780 alone the Court Book Censorship Committee banned as many as 4,701 (Bachleitner: 55). For example, both the Roman and Viennese censors banned several philosophical and political works by Bolingbroke, Locke, Hume, Bayle, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire, Helvétius, and La Mettrie, and the Encyclopédie co-edited by Diderot and d’Alembert, but the Viennese censors—also because they were much more familiar with and took greater account of the German market—prohibited more authors, including Leibniz (Papenheim: 85), and more works, including Vol- taire’s (Bachleitner: 79, 80). Something similar applied to literature, in which the Viennese censors strove to subdue any immorality to an equal or even greater extent than the former and concurrent Roman censors. Considered useless, harmful, and godless, these types of books were evaluated especially strictly by van Swieten (Wolf 2007: 312–313; Bachleitner: 53). Maria Theresa’s pronounced concern for her subjects’ morals was re- flected in the ban of many now canonized German, French, and English literary works. The German works of the Enlightenment listed on the Vienna index included Goethe’s novel Die Leiden des jungen Werthers (The Sorrows of Young Werther; due to the suicide motif and descrip- tions of passion) and Wieland’s novel Die Abenteuer des Don Sylvio von Rosalva (The Adventures of Don Sylvio de Rosalva; most likely due to its lascivious passages and critical remarks about rulers; Bachleit- ner: 287–288, 302–303). In addition, the Viennese censors were signif- icantly more conscientious in their search for cheap erotic novels and stories or even more controversial works that criticized the unbridled love lives of rulers, such as Louis XIV and Louis XV (cf. Bachleitner: 269–281): the 1786 edition of the Roman index lists three works whose titles begin with amor, amore or amour ‘love’ (the last published in 1685; 157 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Index: 9), whereas the 1776 edition of the Vienna index lists as many as twenty-nine such titles (the last published in 1769; Catalogus: 10–11). Increased moralism is also shown in the stricter treatment of Classical authors, at least in principle. The seventh rule adopted at the Council of Trent and published in the editions of the Roman index prohibited lascivious and obscene texts, but, due to their artistic language and excellent style, these types of works by Classical authors (e.g., Ovid’s Ars amatoria) were excluded from this rule; their use was only prohibited in school instruction (Vidmar 2018: 43). In turn, the Viennese cen- sors expressly prohibited as many as eight editions of Ovid’s works (Bachleitner: 81). Completely anew and unrelated to tradition, Theresian censorship, however, established strict control over plays and especially their stag- ing, because in the second half of the eighteenth century the theater was turning into an increasingly influential public space reaching people across all classes. During that time, the Church was no longer able to intervene in it and so, for example, several of Lessing’s works can be found on the Vienna index (Catalogus: 173–174) and none on the Roman one. Theater censorship in Vienna was established in 1770: for a short time, it was conducted by the theater reformist Joseph von Son- nenfels and then Franz Karl Hägelin after him. From the perspective of the Enlightenment, the theater’s task was to educate and ennoble people, and therefore the state encouraged permanent theaters and German drama in the Austrian lands. Censorship prohibited any depic- tions of violence, immorality, and indecent jokes and gestures on stage, as well as any inappropriate portrayal of the rulers and improvisa- tion. Sometimes the two co-rulers themselves decided on the staging of an individual play. Thus, in 1777, the staging of Shakespeare’s trag- edy Romeo and Juliet was cancelled because Maria Theresa could not 158 LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa bear to see any dead people, cemeteries, funerals, and similar motifs on stage, and that same year Joseph II prohibited the staging of Frie- drich Maximilian Klinger’s Sturm und Drang play Die Zwillinge (The Twins; Glossy: 248; Hadamowsky; Höyng: 103; Bachleitner: 54, 239–241). The Carniolan author Anton Tomaž Linhart, who studied at the University of Vienna, where he also attended Sonnenfels’s lectures, wrote the tragedy Miss Jenny Love in Vienna in 1779. The work was based primarily on Lessing’s and Klinger’s plays and filled with pas- sion, violence, and murder, which is why Linhart could have no hope FIG. 4 → Cover of the tragedy Miss Jenny Love pub- lished by Anton Tomaž Linhart in Augsburg in 1780. Photo: Lju- bljana National and University Library. 159 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 2 “Ce que j’ai le plaisir de Vous assurer, c’est que monsieur Stage, Imprimeur de l’ouvrage, m’a ecrit avec la dernière poste, de Vouloir bien me l’envoyer vers la pâque, par un chemin sur, à l’abri d’incommod- ités de la Censure” (Linhart: 270). whatsoever to have it staged in the Habsburg hereditary lands (Zu- pančič: 31–71). In 1780, he had it printed in the free imperial city of Augs- burg, probably to avoid preventive censorship, and after its publication he shared his fear of retroactive censorship with his friend Martin Kuralt: “What I have the pleasure to assure you is that Mr. Stage, the printer of my work, wrote to me in his last letter that he planned to send it to me around Easter by a safe path, so it would be safe from the in- convenience of censorship.”2 retroactive censorshiP anD church Libraries Theresian retroactive censorship was only partially successful. On the one hand, contemporary authors, such as Johann Pezzl, noted that be- cause of it new literary works that were already well known in other parts of the empire were read with a delay in Vienna (Wolf 2007: 316), and even more so on the Austrian periphery. On the other hand, as in the past, retroactive censorship was unable to effectively prevent banned books from being read by the members of the social and intellectual elite, who in the religiously and politically fragmented empire easily found ways to circumvent the regulations. When purchasing such books (including on the German black market), they mostly ignored the index and did not waste time on acquiring permits for which they would often be eligible, but instead used informal channels to which they gained access through their political and economic connections. Such were, for example, Count Karl von Zinzendorf, the governor of Trieste during the last years of Maria Theresa’s rule (Bachleitner, Eybl, Fischer: 111; Bachleitner: 56–57), and his friend, Baron Žiga Zois, a wealthy merchant, industrialist, and landlord, whose library in Lju- bljana contained a series of banned works, including those authored 160 LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa by Bayle, Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau (Vidmar 2018: 39, 41; Svoljšak: 106). Such readers of course often used both the Vienna and Roman indices as guides in looking for exciting works. However, in provinces such as Carniola, there were not yet many intellectuals under Maria Theresa that would be interested in the most controversial Enlightenment works. This was not so much the result of retroactive censorship, but of the dominant Baroque culture and Catholic tradition, which were gradually replaced by moderate En- lightenment and Reform Catholicism only in the second half of the Theresian period. Being rooted in medieval, humanist, and Baroque FIG. 5 → Montesquieu’s portrait in the 1771 London edition of his works owned by Baron Žiga Zois. Ljubljana National and Univer- sity Library. Photo: Luka Vidmar. 161 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands universalism, Church libraries strove to maintain an overview over the entire body of human knowledge, including banned knowledge. Thus, on the one hand, they successfully defied both the Roman and Vienna indices, but, on the other, they could largely no longer keep up with the rapid development of science, philosophy, and historiography during that time (cf. Papenheim: 95; Wolf 2007: 313–314). Of the authors listed on the Roman and Vienna indices, libraries often included older an- ti-Catholic and anti-Curia writers, such as Gregorio Leti and Ferrante Pallavicino, and only rarely modern Enlightenment authors, such as Rousseau or Helvétius (Vidmar 2018: 36, 38, 48, 49; Vidmar 2019). Preventive censorshiP anD cathoLic books For the most part, Theresian preventive censorship was successful, es- pecially because it retained and further improved the strict control over book production that had already been imposed by the old censorship based on the Counter-Reformation. The number of publishers, printers, booksellers, and published works remained relatively low even in the cosmopolitan capital, the authors continued to resort to self-censor- ship, and there was no underground press, so that the Vienna index hardly contained any works by Austrian authors. The lengthy and re- strictive censorship procedures contributed to slower development of the public sphere (Hadamowsky: 295; Wolf 2007: 312–316). The combination of traditional restrictiveness and a new ideolog- ical orientation of censorship made it difficult for some works with traditional Catholic topics to be printed because, from the perspective of the Enlightenment, they were often considered outdated, useless, or even harmful. A series of Slovenian works, including translations and adaptations of Martin of Cochem’s works, which the authors could FIG. 6 ↑ Gregorio Leti’s portrait in his 1693 work Vita di Sisto V. owned by the Stična Cis- tercian Monastery. Ljubljana National and University Library. Photo: Luka Vidmar. 162 LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa not hope to be permitted by the censors, could only circulate among people, especially priests, in the form of manuscripts (Ogrin). Howev- er, other Theresian reforms, especially the school and administrative ones, provided new impetus to religious and educational books that especially priests continued to write in the vernacular. The Ljubljana Discalced Augustinian Marko Pohlin, the pioneer of the Slovenian revival, published his works without any major difficulties under Ther- esian censorship. He was skilled at connecting traditional Catholic genres, such as hagiographies and texts for saints’ devotions, with the goals of the moderate Enlightenment, especially folk education. He regularly obtained imprimaturs for his works printed in Ljubljana, first from the diocesan office and then from the censorship committee (cf., e.g., Pohlin 1774). In 1778, he even received the imprimatur for his Slovenian translation of the Pentateuch directly from the Vienna censorship committee because he was active at the Mariabrunn mon- astery in Vienna at that time. However, when he wanted to publish his translation in Ljubljana, the bishop of Ljubljana, Count Johann Karl von Herberstein, refused to grant him the imprimatur in November 1781, one year after Maria Theresa’s death, and instead entrusted the translation of the Bible to his circle of priests loyal to Josephinism and Jansenism (Kidrič 1978: 9, 16). concLusion Secularization of book censorship in the Habsburg hereditary lands under Maria Theresa was a long and gradual process that was faster and more pronounced in Vienna than in the provincial capitals, but by the 1770s at the latest it led to universal state takeover, the elimi- nation of the decisive influence of the Church, and the establishment 163 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands of the moderate Enlightenment policy. Despite great structural and organizational changes, the conceptual basis following Maria There- sa’s principles remained largely the same or at least similar: censorship continued to protect the Catholic faith, the ruler, the state, the Church, the social order, and individuals’ morals against the same or similar books (e.g., Protestant, atheist, and libertine works). Because its ap- paratus was much more effective than that of the old Habsburg and concurrent Church censorship, it could even increase the pressure in certain areas, such as literature and theater. Its impact was complex in both the religious and secular spheres. Retroactive censorship seems not to have had any major negative effect on either Church or private libraries, but it nonetheless slowed down the reception of new books from abroad. In turn, preventive censorship effectively limited unde- sired topics, including some traditionally Catholic ones, but, in com- bination with other Theresian reforms, it nonetheless encouraged the publication of an increasingly larger number of books, especially those educating the common folk. ❦ 164 LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa Sources Frančiškanski samostan Ljubljana – Center (FSLC) Alfons Anton von Sarasa, Sittenlehre, oder die Kunst sich immer zu freuen, Magdeburg 1764. 165 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands References anGelike, karin, 2007: Presse, nouvelles à la main und geheime Korrespondenz: Ein französischer Journalist im Rheinland und sein Umgang mit der Zensur. Zensur im Jahrhundert der Aufklärung: Geschichte – Theorie – Praxis. Ed. Wilhelm Haefs, York- Gothart Mix. Göttingen: Wallstein. 225–241. Bachleitner, norBert, 2017: Die literarische Zensur in Österreich von 1751 bis 1848. Vienna: Böhlau. Bachleitner, norBert, Franz m. eYBl, ernst Fischer, 2000: Geschichte des Buchhandels in Österreich. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Catalogus librorum a commissione aulica prohibitorum. Vienna: typis Geroldianis, 1776. GlossY, karl, 1897: Zur Geschichte der Wiener Theatercensur. Jahrbuch der Grillparzer-Gesellschaft 7. 238–340. Green, jonathon, nicholas j. karolides, 2005: Encyclopedia of Censorship. New York: Facts On File. hadamoWskY, Franz, 1979: Ein Jahrhundert Literatur- und Theaterzensur in Österreich (1751–1848). Die österreichische Literatur: Ihr Profil an der Wende vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert (1750–1830). Ed. Herbert Zeman. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt. 289–305. hÖYnG, peter, 2007: Die Geburt der Theaterzensur aus dem Geiste bürgerlicher Moral: Unwillkommene Thesen zur Theaterzensur im 18. Jahrhundert? Zensur im Jahrhundert der Aufklärung: Geschichte – Theorie – Praxis. Ed. Wilhelm Haefs, York-Gothart Mix. Göttingen: Wallstein. 99–119. 166 LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa Index librorum prohibitorum sanctissimi domini nostri Pii Sexti pontificis maximi jussu editus. Rome: ex typographia rev. camerae apostolicae, 1786. Kaiserl. Königl. Innerösterreichischer Schematismus auf das Jahr 1771. Graz: bey den Widmanstätterischen Erben, 1771. kidriČ, France, 1935: Peer Karel. Slovenski biografski leksikon 6. Ed. Franc Ksaver Lukman. Ljubljana: Zadružna gospodarska banka. 278. kidriČ, France, 1978: Izbrani spisi 2. Ed. Darko Dolinar. Ljubljana: SAZU. klinGenstein, Grete, 1970: Staatsverwaltung und kirchliche Autorität im 18. Jahrhundert: Das Problem der Zensur in der theresianischen Reform. Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik. linhart, anton tomaž, 1950: Zbrano delo. Ed. Alfonz Gspan. Ljubljana: DZS. oGrin, matija, 2020: Poznobaročni slovenski rokopisi – literarna tradicija v spoprijemu z razsvetljensko cenzuro. Cenzura na Slovenskem od protireformacije do predmarčne dobe. Ed. Luka Vidmar. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. 119–150. olechoWski, thomas, 2004: Die Entwicklung des Preßrechts in Österreich bis 1918: Ein Beitrag zur österreichischen Medienrechtsgeschichte. Vienna: Manz. papenheim, martin, 2007: Die katholische kirchliche Zensur im Reich im 18. Jahrhundert. Zensur im Jahrhundert der Aufklärung: Geschichte – Theorie – Praxis. Ed. Wilhelm Haefs, York- Gothart Mix. Göttingen: Wallstein. 79–98. pÍŠa, petr, michael WÖGerBauer, 2017: Das Königreich Böhmen (1750–1848). Norbert Bachleitner: Die literarische Zensur in Österreich von 1751 bis 1848. Vienna: Böhlau. 193–215. 167 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands pohlin, marko, 1773: Sveti postni evangeliumi. Ljubljana: Eger. pohlin, marko, 1774: Pet sveteh petkov mesza sushza. Ljubljana: Eger. sasheGYi, oskar, 1958: Zensur und Geistesfreiheit unter Joseph II.: Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte der habsburgischen Länder. Budapest: Akadémíai Kiadó. svoljŠak, sonja, 2018: A Selection of Banned Authors and Works from the National and University Library Collection. And Yet They Read Them: Banned Books in Slovenia in the Early Modern Age from the National and University Library Collection. Ed. Urša Kocjan. Ljubljana: NUK. 61–157. vidmar, luka, 2018: Authors and Readers of Banned Books in Slovenian Lands in the Early Modern Age: Libri Prohibiti from the National and University Library Collection. And Yet They Read Them: Banned Books in Slovenia in the Early Modern Age from the National and University Library Collection. Ed. Urša Kocjan. Ljubljana: NUK. 9–59. vidmar, luka, 2019: Ferrante Pallavicino in Carniola. Les Régions slovènes entre XVIIIe et XIXe siècles: Plurilinguisme et transferts culturels à la frontière entre empire des Habsbourg et Venise. Ed. François Bouchard, Patrizia Farinelli. Paris: Le Manuscrit. 263–286. WolF, huBert, 2011: “Ich hoffe, ich werde meinen Prozess bei Gott besser ausfechten, als auf Erden.” Eine Hinführung zu den Möglichkeiten der Grundlagenforschung zum 18. Jahrhundert am Beispiel des “Falles Stattler”. Inquisition und Buchzensur im Zeitalter der Aufklärung. Ed. Hubert Wolf. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh. 17–41. WolF, norBert christian, 2007: Von “eingeschränkt und erzbigott” bis “ziemlich inquisitionsmäßig”: Die Rolle der 168 LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa Zensur im Wiener literarischen Feld des 18. Jahrhunderts. Zensur im Jahrhundert der Aufklärung: Geschichte – Theorie – Praxis. Ed. Wilhelm Haefs, York-Gothart Mix. Göttingen: Wallstein. žnidarŠiČ Golec, lilijana, 2018: Politika Marije Terezije do akatoličanov na ozemlju notranjeavstrijskih dežel. Marija Terezija: med razsvetljenskimi reformami in zgodovinskim spominom. Ed. Miha Preinfalk, Boris Golec. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. 263–280. zupanČiČ, mirko, 1972: Literarno delo mladega A. T. Linharta. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. 169 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Povzetek Knjižna cenzura v habsburških dednih deželah, oblikovana v 16. in 17. stoletju in utemeljena na protireformaciji, je bila oblastni mehanizem vladarja, ki pa ga je z njegovim dovoljenjem večinoma upravljala Kato- liška cerkev. Sekularizacijo je izvedla šele Marija Terezija (1740–1780), ki je cenzuro vključila v državni administrativni aparat, iz nje pa pos- topoma izrinila Cerkev. Cenzura je bila po novem utemeljena v zmer- nem razsvetljenstvu, upoštevala pa je predvsem interese nastajajoče moderne države. Leta 1751 je Marija Terezija ustanovila Dvorno komisijo za knjižno cenzuro, ki je prevzela pristojnosti starejših ustanov. Leta 1764 so iz komisije izpodrinili zadnjega jezuita, jezuite pa so sprva na- domestili škofijski duhovniki. Leta 1772 so komisijo zasnovali kot čisto uradniško telo in Cerkvi odvzeli še cenzuro teoloških in verskih tekstov. Sekularizacija je delno spremenila merila za ocenjevanje sporno- sti del, ki so koristila predvsem znanstvenim delom, na primer nara- voslovnim. Glede na vero so v praksi nakazala nekaj popustljivosti do protestantskih del, prizadela pa večje število katoliških del kot prej. Kljub temu terezijanska cenzura ni povsem prekinila tradicije stare cenzure. Med glavnimi cilji je ohranila varovanje vere in Cerkve. Ostala je restriktivna: njen Catalogus librorum a commissione aulica prohibitorum je po obsegu dosegel rimski indeks, daleč presegel pa ga je po pogosto- sti dopolnjevanja in izhajanja. Cenzura je s spornimi knjigami včasih ravnala podobno strogo kot prej (jih celo uničevala), ohranila je tudi tradicionalno ločevanje med različnimi skupinami bralcev – glede na njihov stan in izobrazbo. Vpliv katolištva je bil še vedno prisoten: čeprav je bila Cerkev odrinjena od političnega odločanja, je skupaj z državo še vedno določala norme dovoljenega. Marija Terezija je ostala globoko verna katoličanka, zaskrbljena za ohranjanje edine dovoljene 170 LUKA VIDMAR ▶ Secularization of Book Censorship under Maria Theresa vere v habsburških dednih deželah, zato je cenzura podpirala raz- svetljensko različico verske ideologije, zmerno reformno katolištvo, in še vedno preganjala protestantske knjige. Prav tako je prepovedala veliko filozofskih, političnih in literarnih del angleških, francoskih in nemških razsvetljencev, pa ne le radikalnih, na primer zagovornikov ateizma in materializma, ampak pogosto tudi zmernih. V primerjavi s staro in cerkveno cenzuro se je ponekod celo zaostrila, na primer v odnosu do novejših političnih, erotičnih, leposlovnih in gledaliških del. Na cerkvene knjižnice, ki se za tovrstna dela večinoma niso zani- male v tolikšni meri kot v preteklosti, z omejevanjem uvoza spornih knjig ni posebej vplivala. Čeprav je omejevala tradicionalne katoliške vsebine in s tem preprečila natis nekaterih knjig, so nabožne knjige v ljudskih jezikih dobile nov zagon z drugimi terezijanskimi reformami, posebej šolskimi. Luka Vidmar Luka Vidmar is an assistant professor and research fellow at the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies (Ljubljana). He works on literature, art, and culture in Slovenia from the Baroque and Enlighten- ment, especially on the Academia Operosorum, the Zois circle, cultural na- tionalism, and forbidden books. In 2013, he published the volume Ljubljana kot novi Rim: Akademija operozov in baročna Italija (Ljubljana as the New Rome: The Academy of the Industrious and Baroque Italy). In 2016, he published A Slavic Republic of Letters: The Correspondence between Jernej Kopitar and Baron Žiga Zois (Peter Lang). In 2019, he received the Izidor Cankar Award and the Prometheus of Science for Excellence in Com- munication Award. 171 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Censorship in Carniola under Joseph II Cenzura na Kranjskem pod Jožefom II. ❦ anDrej Pastar ▶ andrej.pastar@guest.arnes.si SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal ISSN 1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online) VOLUME 26 (2021/I), pp. 172–195 DOI 10.13137/2283-5482/32500 173 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands joseph ii, censorship, siGmund zois, Wilhelm heinrich korn, Booksellers’ cataloGues jožeF ii., cenzura, žiGa zois, viljem henrik korn, knjiGotrŠki kataloGi This article addresses the impact of the censorship reforms introduced by Emperor Joseph II with regard to the inhabitants and culture of the Duchy of Carniola. The first part presents the major reforms to censorship that were introduced and applied in all of the crown lands of Austria. The second part discusses the circumstances in Carniola. It analyses newspapers and catalogues of booksellers from that period as well as contemporary histo- riographic literature. It turns out that three major intellectual circles in Lju- bljana benefited from the reforms of Joseph II: the circle of enlightened intellectuals gathered around Baron Sigmund Zois, the circle around Bishop Johann Karl von Herberstein, and, finally, booksellers such as Wilhelm Heinrich Korn. Razprava se ukvarja z vplivom cen- zurnih reform Jožefa II. na prebivalce in kulturo v vojvodini Kranjski. Prvi del predstavi cenzurne reforme, ki so jih uveljavili v vseh kronskih de- želah Avstrije. Drugi del se podrobneje ukvarja z razmerami na Kranjskem. Na podlagi analize časnikov in knji- gotrških katalogov iz tega obdobja ter sodobne zgodovinske literature je mogoče ugotoviti, da so imeli od re- form največ koristi trije intelektualni krogi v Ljubljani: krog razsvetljencev, zbranih okoli barona Žige Zoisa, krog okoli škofa Karla Janeza Herberste- ina in knjigotržci, kot je bil Viljem Henrik Korn. 174 ANDREJ PASTAR ▶ Censorship in Carniola under Joseph II Many writers, poets, and publishers remembered Joseph II as the emperor under whose rule censorship in the Habsburg Monarchy was abolished. In historical books, Joseph II often appears as a symbol of a “good” ruler. However, was he truly an ideal enlightened ruler, as many generations remembered him, or was he perhaps merely the first and loyal servant of his own state apparatus? Probably neither. This article explores how the emperor’s censorship reforms affected Carniola during his short but turbulent reign. Joseph II was named King of the Romans at the age of twenty-three, and he became Holy Roman Emperor in 1765. After her husband’s death, Maria Theresa announced that she and her son would rule the Habsburg Monarchy together but in reality she continued to have the final word. Joseph II became the sole ruler after his mother’s death in November 1780. Like many monarchs at that time, he was influenced by ideas of the Enlightenment. He considered himself the first public servant of his state (Staatsdiener), and he also expected his subjects to serve the state. Joseph II was influenced by German thinkers that advocated natural law. The idea of rational freedom was one of the main ideological motives for his reforms of the school system, religious education, and censorship. Citizen education was also very important for the emperor. Hence, despite its proverbial liberalism, Josephinian censorship continued to perform the function of an educational institution. In the event of violations in this area, the government naturally imposed appropriate sanctions (Štih, Simoniti, Vodopivec: 212–214; Ingrao: 182–184, 192–198; Sashegyi: 4–14). censorshiP unDer josePh ii Joseph II’s own education had a great impact on him and his censorship reforms. As an heir to the throne, he was also trained as a printer. 175 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Habsburg censorship was structured vertically, and so Joseph II’s deci- sions had a great influence in this area across the monarchy, including Carniola. He addressed the issue of printing and censorship immedi- ately after becoming the co-regent: in 1765, he wrote a memorandum presenting his views on censorship. Only five days after becoming the sole ruler (December 4th, 1780), he began introducing changes in this area (Olechowski: 89–90; Sashegyi: 18). His main censorship reforms were adopted in the following chron- ological order: 1. Basic Rules for Ordinary Future Book Censorship (Grund-Regeln zur Bestimmung einer ordentlichen künftigen Bücher Zensur) These rules caused a true revolution in the Habsburg censorship policy of that time. The emperor introduced them in early 1781. They formed the basis for the upcoming censorship regulations (Zensurordnung). In addition to the centralization and modernization of the state ap- paratus, one of the main guidelines of the Josephinian cultural policy is also evident from these rules: popular education. A supreme book censorship committee (Bücherzensurhauptkommission) was established, among whose tasks was also reviewing the Catalog of Prohibited Books (Catalogus librorum prohibitorum; Sashegyi: 19–21; cf. Wiesner: 142–143; Olechowski: 90–93; Bachleitner: 61, 65). 2. The 1781 Censorship Regulations (Zensurordnung 1781) These regulations include an opening address and ten itemized sec- tions. A central censorship committee was established in Vienna and the provincial censorship committees were dissolved, with only one book review office remaining in each province. During this period, 176 ANDREJ PASTAR ▶ Censorship in Carniola under Joseph II the state censorship index was also updated. The new index was pre- sented on November 19th, 1783. Its title was simple: A List of All Books Prohibited until January 1st, 1784 (Verzeichnis aller bis 1-ten Jenner 1784 verbothenen Bücher). The number of prohibited books decreased from five thousand to nine hundred, and even certain books were allowed that the emperor had banned himself. The list was copied by hand and sent to the provincial offices. The Josephinian index was never printed, and therefore no copy has been preserved in full (Bachleitner: 50–52, 65; Sashegyi: 114–116). This was the heyday of the domestic book market and newspapers. First and foremost, Joseph II removed all the bureaucratic obstacles for establishing new printshops and bookshops. Together with a flourish- ing book market, the number of newspapers increased significantly in the Habsburg Monarchy: between 1781 and 1784, forty-three new newspapers were published in Vienna alone. Nonetheless, newspapers with political content were rare. Since the dissolution of provincial censorship offices, newspaper censorship was under the authority of the provincial offices, which, following a quick review, would issue a printing permit (imprimatur). The decision to leave newspaper censor- ship to the provincial offices was primarily practical because it would have been too time-consuming for the central censorship committee to examine all the newspapers. The situation was different for weeklies and monthlies, which fell under the authority of the Vienna central committee (Olechowski: 96–98; Sashegyi: 35, 138–143; Žigon: 21–26). The emperor even allowed criticism to be leveled at him (Article 3 of the 1781 Censorship Regulations), which was a precedent in the history of European monarchs and their public treatment. Joseph II granted his subjects what was great freedom of criticism at that time, but that did not mean that he also gave them any active policymaking 177 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands role. Nonetheless, freedom of critical thought became the basis for the development of public opinion. This began to manifest itself through a “flood of brochures” (Broschurenflut), in which the newly awakened bourgeoise discussed various topics, ranging from art to domestic pol- icy and the emperor. The emperor often even allowed the publication of brochures that insulted him because, by showing his liberalism, he strengthened his positive public image (Ingrao: 198; Olechowski: 96). Censorship kept an especially close eye on religious works. The conflict between the pope’s adherents on the one hand and the propo- nents of “state religion” on the other continued in the 1781 Censorship Regulations. A priest of Slovenian origin, Joseph Pochlin, also found himself in the middle of this dispute. He was the brother of Father Marko Pohlin, the author of Kraynska grammatika (Carniolan Gram- mar). From 1770 onward, Joseph had served as a curate at Saint Ste- phen’s Cathedral in Vienna. He was a proponent of the old church policy and believed that a compromise with Josephinism, which subordinated church matters to the state, was impossible (Bachleitner: 50–52, 65; Kidrič; Sashegyi: 31–34). Pochlin wrote anti-Josephinian brochures; for example, An Herrn Verfasser über die Begräbnisse in Wien (To the Author Regarding Fu- nerals in Vienna, 1781) and Gnade und Abfertigung einer hochgelehrten Gesellschaft der Predigerkritiker (Grace and Dispatch for an Erudite So- ciety of Preaching Critics, 1782). At that time, the clergy that did not accept the subordination of church censorship to state censorship was an obstacle on the way to complete state subjugation of censorship. Some priests continued to follow the old rules, based on which they submitted their writings to church censorship. Under these conditions, Pochlin became a scapegoat because he still published his brochures without permission from state censorship. The reprinted edition of his 178 ANDREJ PASTAR ▶ Censorship in Carniola under Joseph II prayerbook Bündniß dreier andächtigen Personen zu Ehren der allerselig- sten Dreifaltigkeit (A Union of Three Devout People to the Glory of the Holy Trinity), which was not cleared by the censors, was subjected to a drastic penalty. As its publisher, Pochlin was fined one hundred gul- dens and sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment under the supervision of the archdiocesan consistory. Considering that his annual salary was only one hundred and fifty guldens, the high fine was the greatest blow for him. However, his financial problems did not end there. The court office found the fine too low and it therefore demanded Pochlin be fined an additional fifty guldens because as a publisher he was not granted a placetum regium (i.e., royal approval required prior to the publication of church decrees). The emperor himself learned about Pochlin’s diso- bedience. He found the proposed fine too low and on December 1st, 1784 he ordered Pochlin’s benefice as a curate to be revoked forever. At the request of the Viennese Archbishop and Cardinal Anton Christoph Migazzi, the emperor reduced the penalty to a fine of one hundred guldens and the aforementioned imprisonment. Despite this reduction, the severity of the punishment was met with a wide response and shock among the advocates of the old church policy. Pochlin himself stopped writing and publishing for four years. This punishment demonstrated the power of Joseph II and his adherents, who used this case to show that state censorship was above Church authority. It should be noted that it was only thanks to Cardinal Migazzi’s intervention that Pochlin retained his position (Kidrič; Sashegyi: 31–34). Censorship under Joseph II was not under police authority, which nonetheless occasionally also extended to this area. In 1786, at the in- itiative of Ignaz von Born, the police destroyed the entire print run of a work directed against Prince Dietrichstein and indirectly the Free- masons, and they confiscated the original manuscript. Even though the 179 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands work had been printed without prior censorship approval, the emperor found that the police exceeded their powers (Olechowski: 100–101). 3. 1787 Censorship Reform (Pressefreiheit) Nearly a year after this incident, on April 26th, 1787, the ruler issued a resolution based on which printing was allowed without an imprima- tur. This did not do away with censorship, but it replaced preventive censorship with repressive or retroactive censorship instead. This means that a printing permit did not have to be obtained in advance, but printed works were subject to retroactive censorship, which removed the work from sale and punished the author with a fine or imprison- ment (such a censorship system was considered a more advanced one and was first introduced in Great Britain). In reality, freedom of the press only applied in Vienna. However, it is also true that most of the works published at that time were printed there. Joseph II’s decision had far-reaching consequences for the entire censorship apparatus and freedom of the press. What followed was a boom in the trade of prohib- ited books not only in Vienna, but also elsewhere across the monarchy: in many places, the resolution was interpreted very arbitrarily, and manuscripts were no longer submitted for censorship review (Sash- egyi: 119–123; Olechowski: 82, 100, 102; Judson: 64). the Last years of josePh ii’s reign anD stricter censorshiP A multitude of reforms did not make Joseph II popular in all social groups: some clergy and nobles were dissatisfied. Despite all criticism and passive resistance, the main opposition to the emperor’s reforms did not come from the Austrian hereditary lands, but from the margins, 180 ANDREJ PASTAR ▶ Censorship in Carniola under Joseph II especially Hungary and the Austrian Netherlands. Alongside foreign policy failures, Joseph II’s efforts to make his diverse empire uniform led to an armed insurrection in the Austrian Netherlands and resistance from the Hungarian estates. Thus, in 1789 Joseph II had to deal with an ex- tremely unpleasant political situation at home and abroad (Lefebvre: 100, 174–175; Kontler: 174–175; Ingrao: 203–209). The stricter censorship policy imposed by the emperor resulted not only from the pamphlets and citizens’ disobedience, but also the sig- nificant social changes across all of Europe, which culminated in the 1789 French Revolution. During the second phase of Joseph II’s reforms, newspapers were no longer under state control and they no longer served the ideals of Josephinism. The freedom of the press proved to benefit brochures and newspapers more than science and popular education. Through a resolution of January 24th, 1789, the emperor imposed a special tax referred to as “newspaper stamp duty” (Zeitungssteuer) on all newspa- pers, weeklies, brochures, and theater plays. The two official newspapers, Wiener Zeitung (Vienna News) and Brünner Zeitung (Brno News), were exempt from it. It was up to the censor to decide which works were sub- ject to the stamp duty. After reviewing the work, he would determine whether it was appropriate for publication or dissemination (admitti- tur or toleratur), adding the note “to be stamped” (ist zu stempeln) at the end. Ordinary works (Ordentliche Werke), entire books, collections, and so on were exempt from the stamp duty (Kranjc: 525; Sashegyi: 132–138, 144, 224–229; Olechowski: 102–103, 187–188). The stamp duty achieved its purpose, severely affecting many critical newspapers. The censorship policy tightened even further in the second half of 1789. First, the newspaper Wiener Bothe (The Vienna Herald) was suspended on July 26th. The pamphlet publisher Georg Philipp Wuch- erer was arrested and banished from the Austrian hereditary lands. His 181 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands arrest and the dissolution of newspapers showed that the emperor had completely changed his view on censorship. In 1789, the number of news- papers published in Vienna returned to the same level as at the beginning of Joseph II’s rule. On November 24th, 1789, the emperor decided that manuscripts again had to be submitted for censorship before publication, thereby restoring preventive censorship. At the end of the year, he also prohibited book peddling and ordered corporal punishment for anyone selling prohibited books (Winckler: 55; Olechowski: 103–104, 187–188). This concluded a nearly decade-long experiment by Joseph II, which went down in history as the period of “the freedom of the press in the Habsburg hereditary lands.” Joseph II had to admit bitter defeat in this area. He expected that relaxed censorship would have a positive economic and moral-educational effect, but instead it primarily resulted in the development of public opinion. Along with the flourishing of “bad and improper” literature, the printing of prohibited books spread rampant- ly, especially in the capital, which was the only place that enjoyed the freedom of the press de jure. The state apparatus simply could not cope with such rapid developments and the emperor reacted in the only way he knew: with repression. Nonetheless, his rule had many positive long- term effects, having introduced controversial Enlightenment literature to the public in the monarchy within a short time. Joseph II, of course, was unable to see the positive consequences of his censorship policy (Kontler: 17; Vocelka: 255). censorshiP in carnioLa In terms of the Josephinian censorship reforms, for Slovenians the historically most important province was Carniola with its capital Lju- bljana. As a provincial capital, the town had a sufficiently strong circle 182 ANDREJ PASTAR ▶ Censorship in Carniola under Joseph II of burghers or intellectuals that it could facilitate the start and flour- ishing of the Enlightenment in Slovenia at the end of the eighteenth century. Among other things, the supporters of the Enlightenment and many of Joseph II’s reforms were brought together in Baron Sigmund Zois’s intellectual circle. sigMunD zois anD his Library Baron Sigmund Zois was born in Trieste. After 1780, Ljubljana became his permanent residence, where he gradually gathered the most im- portant Carniolan scholars, writers, and poets around him. He became the main benefactor and mentor of the Slovenian revival in Carniola. His circle included Jurij Japelj, Blaž Kumerdej, Anton Tomaž Linhart, Valentin Vodnik, and Jernej Kopitar. From 1780 to 1819, Zois also com- piled one of the largest private libraries in the wider region at his mansion on Ljubljana’s Breg (Bank). He purchased books on his travels and, after disease confined him to bed and a wheelchair in 1797, he or- dered books from his home. They were supplied to him by Ljubljana book traders, such as Wilhelm Heinrich Korn, and book and print shops in Vienna and other European centers. Books were also brought or sent to him by friends and acquaintances. Upon Zois’s death in 1819, his library contained the most extensive collection of Slovenian, Slavic (especially South Slavic), and Slavic studies books and manuscripts in this part of Europe. In addition, there was no shortage of historical and geographical works and fiction, which, alongside political and philosophical works, most often ended up on lists of prohibited books (Svoljšak, Vidmar: 37–39; Štih, Simoniti, Vodopivec: 237). The library was managed and maintained by renowned individuals, such as Blaž Kumerdej and Jernej Kopitar, and it was later incorporated 183 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 1 The website https:// www.univie.ac.at/zen- sur/ (Verpönt, Verdrängt – Vergessen? ‘Frowned Upon, Repressed—For- gotten?’) provides data on the works censored in the Habsburg Monarchy. The only work in Slovenian that was banned during the pre-March period was Shivlenje svetiga Joshta (The Life of Saint Judoc) by an unknown author. It was labeled non admittitur (https:// www.univie.ac.at/ zensur/, search key: “Slowenisch”). into the Ljubljana lyceum library by Matija Čop. Zois naturally lent the books from his library to friends and acquaintances. He intensively expanded his library precisely under Joseph II, who significantly liber- alized the book market. This allowed Zois to add works to his collection in a legal and more cost-effective way. It should be noted that most books in his library were never of interest to Habsburg censorship because they largely covered Slavic studies and natural science. Such works were not banned even after Joseph II’s rule, so it is not surprising that one of the most famous visitors to the Zois library—and at the same time the savior of one of the most important book collections for the Slovenian nation—was Prince Klemens von Metternich, one of the most ardent censorship supporters. Metternich visited the library for the second time in 1821, during the Congress of Ljubljana, after which he arranged for the Austrian government to approve the purchase of a major portion of the library in the amount of seven thousand guldens in 1823. The books were then donated to the Ljubljana lyceum library, the predecessor of today’s National and University Library. Nearly 2,300 titles in over five thousand volumes have been identified to date (Svoljšak, Vidmar: 39–42). The works of Slovenian and other South Slavic authors, which Zois collected, did not cause any special problems to the Habsburg censors because only one book in Slovenian, which the censor probably considered superstitious, was banned be- tween 1821 and 1848, and none between 1792 and 1820.1 Among works in other South Slavic languages, only twenty-two books and manu- scripts in Serbian and one work in Illyrian (i.e., Croatian) were banned between 1821 and 1848. Unfortunately, no data have been preserved for the period under Joseph II (for more, see Bachleitner: 151–173). Zois’s collection also included philosophical and political works that were among the most controversial and sought-after in Europe. 184 ANDREJ PASTAR ▶ Censorship in Carniola under Joseph II They included works by Voltaire, Montesquieu, DA̓lembert, and Rous- seau, and an abridged edition of the French Encyclopédie. In sum, Zois owned the most extensive collection of (allowed and prohibit- ed) works of the Enlightenment in Carniola (Svoljšak, Vidmar: 21; Vodopivec: 20).2 johann karL von herberstein anD josePhinian censorshiP Joseph II’s reforms also found support in church circles: in Carn- iola there were several strong supporters of Jansenism or Reform Catholicism. One of the most important Josephinian bishops in all of the Habsburg Monarchy was Johann Karl von Herberstein, a bishop in Ljubljana from 1772 to 1787 (Štih, Simoniti, Vodopivec: 238; Dolinar: 211–230; Sashegyi: 176–177). Bishop Herberstein owned a large book collection, albeit incom- parable to Zois’s. According to the list in Catalogue de Prince Eveque de Laibach Comte Charles H. from around 1772, it included 995 titles. Many works covered topics such as theology, Jansenist church law, and Jansenist liturgical reforms. The bishop was also interested in phil- osophical works, some of which had been prohibited under Maria Theresa (e.g., Montesquieu’s The Spirit of Law and Pufendorf ’s works). Prohibited books in the hands of a church dignitary were naturally nothing extraordinary because members of the social and intellec- tual elite were able to access such printed works with or without the required permits. Herberstein’s book collection also reflects his ideological orientation. The bishop supported the Josephinian re- forms, especially religious toleration. With such views, he was a per- fect ally to Joseph II, and he also chaired the Ljubljana book review 2 The last catalog of Zois’s library, titled Bibliothecae Sigis- mundi Liberi Baronis de Zois Catalogus, from 1821 is held as part of the Collection of Manuscripts and Rare and Old Printed Works (Ms 677) at the Ljubljana National and University Library, and it is also available at https://www.dlib.si/ stream/URN:NBN:SI:- DOC-HPBII5XS/1f79 a5f6-9aba-4c42-96ca -f5a96122941b/PDF. 185 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands committee at least from 1779 to 1780 (Dolinar: 211–230; Lesar; Štih, Simoniti, Vodopivec: 238). By Herberstein’s death, a large portion of the diocesan clergy had been cultivated in the spirit of Reform Catholicism. Under his pa- tronage, Jurij Japelj and associates began translating the Bible into Slovenian, resulting in the first Slovenian Catholic translation of the Bible (1784–1802). Before that, on November 14th, 1781, Herberstein refused to grant Father Marko Pohlin a printing permit for his Slove- nian translation of the Bible because the Discalced Augustinian, who opposed the Josephinian reforms, was not a member of his circle. In any case, Herberstein had nothing against Slovenian and he supported the publication of books in Slovenian (especially if they agreed with Reform Catholicism). During his time, priests received the most vital Slovenian books required to perform pastoral work (Dolinar: 211–230; Lesar; Štih, Simoniti, Vodopivec: 238). a fLourishing book Market Under Joseph II, Ljubljana again had its own newspaper, which also obtained competition. In addition to newspapers, the range of books, brochures, and other printed material available also expanded. After 1765, there was only one printer in Ljubljana—Johann Friedrich Eger, who kept his monopoly until 1782, when Joseph II adopted a new, more liberal censorship and press law. Then Josef Ignaz von Kleinmayr and Michael Promberger also obtained a license in Ljubljana, but Promb- erger’s printshop never really gained a foothold. In 1786, a third printer, Ignaz Merk, started operating. In the first half of the eighteenth cen- tury, it was common for small printed material to be sold by bookbind- ers and for printers to also sell books in addition to practicing their 186 ANDREJ PASTAR ▶ Censorship in Carniola under Joseph II basic profession. During the 1760s, the first specialized booksellers appeared in Ljubljana, starting with Alois Raab, Lorenz Bernbacher, and Michael Promberger, who in the 1780s, during Joseph II’s rule, were joined by Wilhelm Heinrich Korn and Johann Georg Licht; Licht took over Promberger’s printshop in the 1790s (Dular: 142–143, 160, 168). Hence, under Joseph II Ljubljana had seven booksellers that could advertise their books in the newspapers published in Ljubljana at that time. Before Joseph II, from 1775 to 1776, the only newspaper in town was Wochentliches Kundschaftsblatt des Herzogthum Krain (Weekly News of the Duchy of Carniola). This was followed by several years without a newspaper, after which in 1783 the Klagenfurt publisher Kleinmayr began publishing Wöchentlicher Auszug von Zeitungen (Weekly News- paper Digest), which was renamed Laibacher Zeitung (Ljubljana News) a year later. In 1788 or 1789, it obtained a competitor: Merkische Laibacher Zeitung (Merk’s Ljubljana News). A great deal of information on what booksellers had on offer in Ljubljana at the end of the eighteenth cen- tury can be obtained from the ads in these newspapers. An equally important source is the catalogs published by some specialized book- sellers (Pastar: 15–18; Dular: 143). The Ljubljana booksellers varied greatly in terms of the books offered: • Johann Friedrich Eger printed nearly all the Slovenian works published between 1765 and 1782 at his printshop, which was the only one in Ljubljana until 1782. Among other things, he printed Pohlin’s works, the fascicles of Japelj’s and Kumerdej’s translation of the Bible, and Linhart’s Versuch einer Geschichte von Krain (An Es- say on the History of Carniola). In addition to official documents, Eger also printed the newspaper Wochentliches Kundschaftsblatt des Herzogthum Krain and later the newspaper Lublanske novize 187 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands (Ljubljana News, 1797–1800), which was edited by Valentin Vodnik. Bookselling was his secondary activity. • Alois Raab, a bookbinder, bookseller, and publisher, published various publications, ranging from religious works in Slovenian to those intended for intellectuals, such as manuals and a German translation of one of Cicero’s speeches. • Lorenz Bernbacher was also a bookbinder, who also engaged in publishing. In 1768, he published Pohlin’s Kraynska grammatika. • Michael Promberger remained a bookseller only, even though he also had a printer’s license. He primarily published religious books and he also sold books that the Viennese printing, publishing, and bookselling giant Johann Thomas von Trattner had in stock; he liked to emphasize this in his ads. • Ignaz Merk was initially the head of Kleinmayr’s printshop in Lju- bljana. In 1786, the emperor’s liberal legislation allowed him to ob- tain a permit to open his own printshop. From 1787 onward, he also printed the Ljubljana town council’s official releases. In general, he primarily printed official publications and newspapers. • Josef Ignaz von Kleinmayr obtained a ten-year privilege in 1784 to print official sovereign princely regulations for all three Inner Austrian duchies. He was a loyal adherent of Josephinism, and in 1787 Joseph II ennobled him. Kleinmayr published the newspaper Laibacher Zeitung, in which he also posted ads for other booksellers in Ljubljana (Korn and Promberger). He printed books in German and Slovenian, including Anton Tomaž Linhart’s comedy Ta veşsęli dan, ali: Matizhek şe shęni (The Merry Day, or Matiček’s Wedding) in 1790. The selection of books at his bookshop was very diverse. Worthy of mention among literature were the works of Shakespeare (Hamlet) and Voltaire (Candide). Later he also arranged a lending 188 ANDREJ PASTAR ▶ Censorship in Carniola under Joseph II library at his bookshop (the 1795 list of works, which has been pre- served, includes 262 titles). • Wilhelm Heinrich Korn was a Protestant, and so he was unable to perform his activity in Ljubljana before the adoption of the 1781 Patent of Toleration. By 1782, he was already selling books there. In- itially, he cooperated with the Klagenfurt bookseller Karl Friedrich Walliser, who produced bookselling catalogs for his customers, which were printed by Kleinmayr. The 1782 catalog was produced jointly by Walliser and Korn because they were selling the same books. In 1783, Korn published the first independent bookselling catalog for his bookstore in Ljubljana. Many other catalogs followed, of which the 1785, 1787, 1788, 1789, 1790, and 1797 ones have been preserved. Korn published many works important for Slovenians, including Linhart’s history (printed by Eger), Vodnik’s Velika pra- tika (Large Almanac) and Mala pratika (Small Almanac), and Kopi- tar’s grammar (Dular: 143–223). Korn’s catalogs are an important source for studying the selection of books offered by booksellers and the impact of censorship reforms on the Carniolan book market under Joseph II. Seven have been pre- served from this period and one from 1797. The 1797 catalog is especially important. It does not belong to the Josephinian period, but it clearly indicates that the period of increased freedom that readers enjoyed under Joseph II had come to an end. In studying these catalogs, the focus was primarily on fiction and philosophical and political works banned before and after Joseph II’s rule. The author with the largest number of banned works (i.e., ninety-two) in the Habsburg crown lands between 1754 and 1780 was Voltaire. Also banned were Rousseau and Diderot, alongside Defoe, Hume, Goethe, and Ovid. Some new 189 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands names also appeared among the most banned authors under Joseph II, such as Karl Friedrich Bahrdt (fifteen works), Karl von Güntherode (six), and so on. This list is shorter and the authors on it are also less known today (Bachleitner: 80–84). Even the first catalog that Korn published together with Walliser in 1782 already features 471 titles on forty pages. The more interesting ones include Shakespeare’s collected plays (sämtliche Schauspiele), and Milton’s Paradise Lost (Verlohrenes Paradieß, 1780) and Paradise Regained (Das wiedereroberte Paradies, 1781). Korn’s first independent catalog of 1783 contains sixty-five pages with 830 titles from various areas arranged in alphabetical order by author or title. Theological works are listed in the appendix. This catalog includes several banned works, such as those by Voltaire (vermischte Scriften ‘miscellaneous writings’ and Versuch einer allgemeinen Weltgeschichte ‘An Essay on Universal History’), Diderot, Rousseau, Defoe, Swift, Milton, Fielding, Schiller, Lessing, and Goethe. The 1785 catalog uses the same concept and fea- tures 777 book titles on sixty-two pages. Offered among the critical authors are Montesquieu (Werk vom Geist der Gesetze ‘The Spirit of Law’) and Voltaire (e.g., Privatleben des Königs von Preußen ‘The Private Life of the King of Prussia’). The 1787 catalog was less extensive (457 titles) and the 1788 one was even shorter (372 titles). Original editions by Vol- taire and Rousseau could still be purchased. The next year, the catalog presented 437 on twenty-two pages (Dular: 194–223; NUK, GS I 23689). The catalog from (allegedly) 1790 is the most extensive in terms of the number of book titles offered, and it is the only one that was not dated (based on the year of publication provided, it cannot be dat- ed before 1790). It lists 870 titles on forty-eight pages. The last of Ko- rn’s book catalogs preserved, dated 1797, was already published during the period of tightened Habsburg censorship. It presents 493 works 190 ANDREJ PASTAR ▶ Censorship in Carniola under Joseph II on thirty-six pages and it was arranged similarly to older ones (i.e., by topic and alphabet). For example, it includes the novels Don Quix- ote and Robinson Crusoe, and Kant’s collected works. The last six pages list sixty-nine French books. This catalog no longer advertised works by Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and other prominent authors of the Enlightenment (Dular: 194–223; NUK, GS I 23689). The examination of book catalogs and ads in the Ljubljana news- papers under Joseph II shows that Carniolan readers gained access to many books that had been previously prohibited. This is especially evident from the fact that they were able to purchase previously prob- lematic books by French Enlightenment authors, which were banned in most European countries. There is a notable difference between Korn’s catalogs from the Josephinian period and the one from 1797, when the authorities reimposed a stricter censorship policy, which was also reflected in the books available for sale: the problematic French Enlightenment authors disappeared. concLusion Censorship in the Habsburg Monarchy was structured vertically. Its stringency for the entire state was determined by Joseph II and the central censorship committee in Vienna. The emperor’s censorship and bookselling reforms, which largely relaxed the book and newspa- per market, had a positive impact on the cultural and intellectual life in Carniola. In combination with the rudiments of a bourgeois intel- lectual elite (the Zois circle) and the new generation of priests (Bishop Herberstein and his circle), the reform policy brought progress to the inhabitants of Carniola. Cultural life in Ljubljana became more vibrant, and the number of booksellers, printers, bookstores, and newspapers 191 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands increased significantly. Many books that had previously been banned could suddenly be obtained on the market. Greater accessibility of pre- viously banned literature is evident from the catalogs by the Ljubljana bookseller Wilhelm Heinrich Korn. The Josephinian period saw the publication of important books in Slovenian and German written by Carniolan Enlightenment authors. During the nineteenth century, the school system introduced by Joseph II and his mother produced many intellectuals that brought the cultural and intellectual blossoming of the Slovenian nation to completion. The emperor’s attempt to introduce retroactive censorship in Vienna between 1787 and 1789 fell through, but it nonetheless aroused hope for milder censorship and its ultimate abolition, including in Carniola. ❦ 192 ANDREJ PASTAR ▶ Censorship in Carniola under Joseph II References Bachleitner, norBert, 2017: Die literarische Zensur in Österreich von 1751 bis 1848. Vienna: Böhlau. dolinar, France m., 2007: Ljubljanski škofje. Ljubljana: Družina. dular, anja, 2002: Živeti od knjig: zgodovina knjigotrštva na Kranjskem do začetka 19. stoletja. Ljubljana: Zveza zgodovinskih društev Slovenije. inGrao, charles W., 2000: The Habsburg Monarchy 1618–1815. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. judson, pieter m., 2016: The Habsburg Empire: A New History. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard UP. kidriČ, France, 2013: Pohlin, Jožef (1742–1796). Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: SAZU, ZRC SAZU. [https://www.slovenska-biografija. si/oseba/sbi443475] kontler, lÁszlÓ, 2005: Madžarska zgodovina: tisočletje v Srednji Evropi. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. krajnc, janez, 1996: Cenzurni predpisi, veljavni za Kopitarja kot cenzorja. Kopitarjev zbornik. Ed. Jože Toporišič. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 523–534. leFeBvre, GeorGes, 2007: Francoska revolucija. Ljubljana: Študentska založba. lesar, France, 2013: Herberstein, Karel Janez, grof (1719–1787). Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: SAZU, ZRC SAZU. [https://www. slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/sbi227919] olechoWski, thomas, 2004: Die Entwicklung des Preßrechts in Österreich bis 1918: Ein Beitrag zur österreichischen Medienrechtsgeschichte. Vienna: Manz. 193 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands pastar, andrej, 2011: Odmevi mednarodnih dogodkov v časnikih 18. stoletja na Slovenskem. [MA thesis]. Ljubljana: Author. sasheGYi, oskar, 1958: Zensur und Geistesfreiheit unter Joseph II.: Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte der Habsburgischen Länder. Budapest: Akadémíai Kiadó. Štih, peter, vasko simoniti, and peter vodopivec, 2008: Slovenska zgodovina: družba – politika – kultura. Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, 2008. [http://www.sistory.si/publikacije/ prenos/?urn=SISTORY:ID:902] svoljŠak, sonja, and luka vidmar, 2019: Knjižnica barona Žige Zoisa: središče razsvetljenske kulture na Slovenskem / Baron Sigismund Zoisʼs Library: The Centre of Enlightenment Culture in Slovenia. Ljubljana: NUK. vidmar, luka, 2015: Knjižnica Žige Zoisa kot žarišče slovenskega kulturnega nacionalizma. Knjižnica 59, 3. 33–46. vodopivec, peter, 2006: Od Pohlinove slovnice do samostojne države: slovenska zgodovina od konca 18. stoletja do konca 20. stoletja. Ljubljana: Modrijan. Wiesner, adolph, 1847: Denkwürdigkeiten der Oesterreichischen Zensur vom Zeitalter der Reformazion bis auf die Gegenwart. Stuttgart: Adolph Krabbe. Winckler, johann, 1875: Die periodische Presse Oesterreichs: Eine historisch-statistische Studie. Vienna: K. K. statistische Central-Commission. žiGon, tanja, 2001: Nemško časopisje na Slovenskem. Ljubljana: Študentska založba. 194 ANDREJ PASTAR ▶ Censorship in Carniola under Joseph II Povzetek Razprava je sestavljena iz dveh delov. V prvem se ukvarja s cenzurni- mi reformami Jožefa II. Habsburška cenzura je potekala vertikalno, tako da so reforme, sprejete na Dunaju, vplivale na vse dedne dežele, vključno s Kranjsko. Predstavljene so poglavitne reforme Jožefa II. na področju cenzure – Osnovna pravila za navadno prihodnjo knjižno cenzuro, Cenzurni red iz leta 1781 in cenzurna reforma iz leta 1787 – t. i. Pressefreiheit. Svoboda tiska iz leta 1787 ni prinesla odprave cenzure, saj je preventivno cenzuro le zamenjala z represivno. Poleg tega je ta odlok v resnici veljal samo za Dunaj. V zadnjem obdobju vladavine Jožefa II. pa je prišlo do zaostritve cenzure. Cesar je na začetku svoje vladavine pričakoval, da bo s sprostitvijo cenzure dosegel pozitiven gospodarski in moralno-vzgojni učinek, dejansko pa je z njo bolj spodbudil nastanek javnega mnenja, ki mu je bilo na koncu vse manj naklonjeno. Drugi del razprave se ukvarja z razmerami na Kranjskem. Od reform Jožefa II. so imeli največ koristi trije intelektualni krogi v Ljubljani: krog razsvetljencev, zbranih okoli barona Žige Zoisa, krog okoli reformnega škofa Herbersteina in knjigotržci, kot je bil Viljem Henrik Korn. Ohra- njeni knjigotrški katalogi in časniki dokazujejo, da se je na Kranjskem v obdobju vladavine Jožefa II. povečal in sprostil knjižni in časnikarski trg. Povečalo se je število časnikov in knjigotržcev, bralstvu pa je pos- tal dosegljiv velik del prej prepovedane literature. Jožefinsko obdobje je imelo tako dolgoročno pozitiven vpliv, saj je v kratkem času bralstvu predstavilo spornejšo razsvetljensko literaturo širši publiki monarhije, tudi Kranjske. 195 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Andrej Pastar Andrej Pastar is a history teacher and currently works at the Multimedia and Graphic Technology Secondary School (SMGŠ) in Ljubljana. He stud- ied history at the University of Ljubljana’s Faculty of Arts. He received his master’s degree in 2011 and finished his doctorate in late 2020 at the Fac- ulty of Arts in Ljubljana, with the dissertation Newspaper Censorship in Carniola from the Reign of Joseph II to the Revolution of 1848. His main historical focus is on censorship in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. He also published an article that compares censorship systems in continental Europe in the first half of the nineteenth century. Slovenian Manuscripts of the Late Baroque: Literary Tradition Defying Enlightenment Censorship Slovenski rokopisi poznega baroka: kljubovanje literarne tradicije razsvetljenski cenzuri ❦ Matija ogrin ▶ matija.ogrin@zrc-sazu.si SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal ISSN 1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online) VOLUME 26 (2021/I), pp. 196–220 DOI 10.13137/2283-5482/32501 197 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands slovenian literature, Baroque, manuscripts, censorship, vita christi, haGioGraphies, ascetic prose slovenska književnost, Barok, rokopisi, cenzura, vita christi, haGioGraFije, asketiČna proza Slovenian literature of the early mod- ern period is characterized by a fact common to some smaller European literatures: because of difficult access to printing, manuscript culture played an important role in this literature from the early seventeenth centu- ry to the mid-nineteenth century. For certain literary genres of this period, the existence of texts, their textual transmission, distribution, and reader reception could be based almost exclusively on the medium of the manuscript. When Enlighten- ment censorship began to suppress Baroque Catholic literature in the late eighteenth century, Slovenian manuscript culture was a means of perpetuating the literary tradition in a persistent and creative way. This article outlines six groups of Slovenian manuscripts that managed to do so, albeit only for a limited period of time. Slovensko književnost zgodnjega no- vega veka zaznamuje dejstvo, skupno nekaterim manjšim evropskim litera- turam, da je zaradi težavnega prehoda v tiskani medij vse od zgodnjega 17. sto- letja do srede 19. stoletja v tej književ- nosti imela pomembno vlogo rokopisna kultura. Za določene literarne zvrsti tega obdobja so se obstoj besedil, njiho- va preoddaja, diseminacija in bralska recepcija lahko opirali skoraj izključno na rokopisni medij. Ko je v poznem 18. stoletju razsvetljenska cenzura začela zatirati baročno katoliško literaturo, je bila slovenska rokopisna kultura sredstvo trdoživega in kreativnega nadaljevanja literarne tradicije. Članek oriše šest skupin slovenskih rokopisov, ki jim je to v veliki meri uspelo, četudi le za omejen čas. 198 MATIJA OGRIN ▶ Slovenian Manuscripts of the Late Baroque the enLightenMent versus baroque Literature From the seventeenth to the mid-nineteenth century, Slovenian literary and semi-literary works—such as collections of religious poems or hym- nals, the majority of homiletic or rhetoric prose, ascetic or meditative prose, and ultimately religious drama in its diverse forms, especially passion plays—existed primarily or exclusively in manuscript form. The reasons for this were complex, from economic to conceptual ones, but an important reason was undoubtedly the exceptionally small mar- ket for books in Slovenian. This article discusses six genres or groups of late-eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century Slovenian manu- scripts that never made their way into print not only because of eco- nomic problems, but also another, insurmountable obstacle: censorship. Most of these manuscripts were translations and adaptations of older ascetic or meditative prose from German Baroque literature, including texts from the Vita Christi genre, prophetic texts about the arrival of the Antichrist, Baroque hagiographic prose, meditative prose on eschatological topics, and so on. Early German printed books— which, upon their publication, were popular and highly valued works of literary and spiritual culture of the High Baroque—served as the bases for very loose adaptations in these manuscripts. Hence for ex- ample, the ascetic, hagiographic, and other religious texts by the Ger- man Capuchin Martin of Cochem (1634–1712) were extremely popular at the end of the seventeenth century and the early eighteenth century, which was manifested in the publication of numerous editions of his books: according to Volker Meid (779), over 450 German editions of his books were published between 1666 and 1740, and a total of over 1,500 by the twentieth century. One reason for this was Father Martin’s style, which, in addition to clarity and striking picturesqueness, was marked 199 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands by a special triple-layer narrative structure that combined psycholog- ical persuasiveness and unintrusive religious instruction in literary form (Žejn: 179–191). His exceptional popularity was not limited to the German-speaking environment, but it also extended elsewhere across central Europe. For example, in the eighteenth century, Father Mar- tin’s works were published in over 130 editions in Czech alone, and a total of over two hundred editions were published in the Czech lands, also counting the German and Latin editions, and those published in Czech in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (Sládek: 8). However, as early as the mid-eighteenth century, something extraor- dinary happened: the emerging Enlightenment period—specifically, the Enlightenment proponents among the highest ranks of the Church and the state—harshly rejected these popular Baroque texts and, contrary to their declared tolerance, sought to eliminate them: they included them on the Austrian state list of prohibited books. One of the essential tendencies of the Enlightenment was to reform Christianity by reducing it to a set of “rational” and “natural” ethical principles beneficial to public morale and hence the state. On the other hand, the Enlightenment mostly either ignored or sought to eliminate or suppress all Christian spirituality that was founded on canonical revelation and complemented by personal revelations—in short, any- thing that was contemplative, mystical, and miraculous (Borgstedt: 35). These tendencies materialized, visibly and with dramatic effects, in radical changes to the traditional forms of Catholic devotions in- troduced by some bishops and Emperor Joseph II: they reduced the number of Church holidays (turning them into workdays suitable for doing corvée!) and prohibited pilgrimages, passion plays, processions, and so on. Through these measures, the state authorities and pro-re- form Enlightenment Catholicism, whose goal was subordination of the 200 MATIJA OGRIN ▶ Slovenian Manuscripts of the Late Baroque Church to the Austrian state (Klueting: 129), sought to cleanse religious life of anything that the Enlightenment bishops and Joseph II deemed “superstitious” or “irrational” (Reinalter: 16). censorshiP as a forM of oPPressing Literary traDition An obstacle in seeking to understand the fact that the Enlightenment also used censorship to fight against the Christian spiritual tradition is the firmly rooted notion that, already in principle, censorship has always been conservative and that it oppressed any progressive and development-oriented conceptual initiatives by definition. This notion is oversimplified and does not agree with the real historical material. Censorship also served as a powerful weapon of the Enlightenment authorities in the battle against traditional Catholicism. In 1758, the Austrian court censorship committee published the in- dex Catalogus librorum a commissione aulica prohibitorum, which was later revised several times; 1776 already saw the publication of its ninth edition. In addition to morally questionable works and texts by some radical French Enlightenment authors, listed on the index and labeled “superstitious” alongside dubious brochures were also many classic Baroque religious works. According to Franz M. Eybl, censors took a special interest in reading material for the general public and hence they “sought, along the lines of Jansenist religious concepts, to eradicate any Baroque forms of piety” (Bachleitner et al. 2000: 111). Enlighten- ment authorities thus interfered directly with Catholic pastoral and preaching practice—that is, an area that the state had not interfered with for over a millennium. However, these authorities did so because they perceived it as the key area for disseminating ideas, transforming people’s mindsets, and thus reeducating the widest circles. 201 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands In this respect, the fate of Czech Baroque literature of that time can serve as an example. When the Prague governorate councilor Joseph Anton von Riegger was tasked with implementing Joseph II’s 1781 cen- sorship rules in Bohemia, he appointed exclusively Prague intellectuals from among the opponents of monasticism as censors. According to Nor- bert Bachleitner (2017: 200–201), these were radical Enlightenment men, known for their criticism of Baroque sermons, polemics against monasticism, and so on. With their help, Riegger gave orders to especially supervise literature accessible to the general public. This was followed by reimposed censorship of classic Czech and German Baroque religious works, which were inspected in detail for new editions and partly or fully banned; this was nothing new because such a ban had already been in force since 1778 in all Austrian hereditary lands for all of Martin of Cohem’s works. In 1784, similar measures were taken against a collection of Mariological works comprising 128 Latin book titles. In this way, Czech Enlightenment figures were able to carry out their cultural and political program as official Habsburg censors. (Bachleitner 2007: 201)1 ← FIG. 1 Excerpt from page 60 of the state index of prohibited books, Catalogus librorum prohibitorum (1776), prohibiting the ascetic, hagiographic, and meditative works by the Capuchin Martin of Cochem. Source: DLib. 1 For more details on the censorship of Czech Baroque literature, see Wögerbauer et al. (131–134). 202 MATIJA OGRIN ▶ Slovenian Manuscripts of the Late Baroque However, they were not the only ones doing this: even as late as 1810, a Baroque-inspired Czech manuscript was rejected by the Slovenian linguist Jernej Kopitar (Vidmar: 105). The example of Czech Baroque literature censorship is important because it proves that in the hands of strict men of the Enlightenment, such as von Riegger and his Prague circle, the seemingly liberal cen- sorship rules of Joseph II could have very repressive consequences in practice. It should be noted that the Czech Baroque authors were not even listed on the state index of prohibited books, but von Rieg- ger’s enlightened friends saw to it that they were censored or banned nonetheless. According to Eybl, the freedom of the press introduced in 1781 under Joseph II “by no means entailed a complete removal of state control over the press, but a great liberalization” of this area (Bachleitner et al. 2000: 112)—a liberalization that, in principle, already included the oppression of what men of the Enlightenment perceived as “irrational” and “obscure” in the Catholic spiritual tradition. sLovenian ManuscriPts as “PubLications” of ProhibiteD books Such was the reality of the situation in which Slovenian writers of the second half of the eighteenth century translated, adapted, and re- worked older Baroque ascetic texts to convey them to Slovenian readers, who were no less eager to read them, and the illiterate to listen to them, than those in the Catholic parts of Germany or in Bohemia. However, an important difference lay somewhere else. In Slovenia, the obstacles that Enlightenment authorities imposed on Baroque liter- ature accompanied the already old problems associated with printing books: high costs due to the extremely small market for Slovenian 203 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands books. In addition, it should be noted that from 1769 to 1787 the Ljublja- na Diocese was headed by Bishop Johann Karl von Herberstein, who proved to be the most ardent supporter of Josephinism among all the bishops in the Habsburg Monarchy. He enforced Joseph II’s decrees so eagerly that he even came into conflict with the Pope himself (Lesar). Within this context, the position of Slovenian Baroque literature de- teriorated to the extent that most literary genres could not be circulated in any other way than in a form that was already somewhat anachronis- tic in the second half of the eighteenth century: that is, as manuscripts. As unusual as it might have seemed, manuscript culture nonetheless functioned as an independent, but vital and resilient preserver of the oppressed literary tradition, immune to both official bans and infor- mal censorship. It was eventually destroyed by the ravages of time because under later owners many manuscripts deteriorated or were lost, especially after the dissolution of monasteries. A brief overview of the main genres and groups of these manuscripts presented below indicates the extent of the diversity of Slovenian texts that were able to exist and be received with the help of manuscript culture. However, it should be noted that the specimens preserved clearly constitute only a miniscule fragment of the former Slovenian manuscript literature. 1) The first genre discussed here is hagiography, or the lives of saints. From early Christianity, through the Middle Ages, and up until the early modern period, hagiography was an extremely popular genre among the common people. It existed in a multitude of manuscripts created as records of previous oral tradition, and so many elements of folk legends and narratives entered the hagiographic texts. There is no reason to believe that these things were any different in the historical Slovenian lands, but the first booklets on the 204 MATIJA OGRIN ▶ Slovenian Manuscripts of the Late Baroque lives of the saints in Slovenian, prepared by Marko Pohlin, were only printed after 1768, and major Slovenian hagiographic works recorded by literary history were only published during the nineteenth century. However, literary history did not take into account Slovenian manuscript culture, in which hagiography already occupied an important place in the eighteenth century. For example, this is proven by the Carinthian manuscript Dober Legent teh Suetnikov, created in the second half of the eighteenth century, which contains 1,032 pages of text in two columns and is thus the most extensive Slovenian Baroque manuscript work (RRSS Ms 14; Ogrin 2011b). In broad terms, the 181 legends of saints translated from German and covering half the calendar year, from January to June, include material from various older sources, partly medieval and partly early modern ones. Therefore, these narratives are full of spiritual and even mystical exuberance, alongside legendary and fantastic elements adopted from the oral culture of Classical Antiquity and the Middle Ages. All this combined strongly enhances the literary nature of hagiographies. FIG. 2 → The Carinthian manu- script Dober Legent teh Suetnikov. The begin- ning of the biography of Pope Leo the Great. Source: RRSS Ms 14. 205 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands The manuscript Dober Legent teh Suetnikov would have undoubt- edly become a popular Slovenian book as early as the eighteenth century if it had been printed, but that did not happen. This was also contributed to by the fact that the author of the German original was Martin of Cochem, whose works were prohibited. The manuscript, which—judging from its worn corners—was frequently borrowed, defied this ban as best as it could. 2) The second important genre of prohibited Slovenian texts that could only exist in manuscript form is the Vita Christi or the stories of the lives, activity, and especially suffering of Jesus and the Virgin Mary. The most important preserved representative of this genre is the Poljane manuscript, which is described in detail in the Register of Early Modern Slovenian Manuscripts (RRSS Ms 23) and which has already been the subject of several studies and analyses.2 Less research has so far been done on the surprisingly rich textual tradition of this manuscript.3 Because these manuscripts were only discovered recently, the fact that the great work by the Capuchin Martin of Cochem, Das grosse Leben Christi, was transmitted to Slovenians through them also remained unknown. Cochem’s work was created in the late seventeenth century, over a long process of revisions spanning several editions roughly up to 1685, after which it was printed again and again until Enlightenment-era book censorship finally put an end to it. The manuscripts described were the only mediators and preservers of the Slovenian version of the text on the life of Jesus, which, through its specific combination of theology and legend, dogma and fantasy, and religious instruction and first-rate rhetorical and literary design, mesmerized and enthused—initially in German and then also in other languages— hundreds of thousands of readers in central and western Europe. 2 Cf. Ogrin (2011a: 394–397), Avsenik Nabergoj, and Žejn (2016, 2017). 3 In the Register of Early Modern Slovenian Manuscripts, this primarily includes the units Ms 28 and Ms 111; cf. Ogrin (2017b: 35– 36). With certain reser- vations, Ms 117 can also be included in the tex- tual tradition roughly outlined there; this manuscript is based on an original that was reworked in Jansenist style but was probably created as an Enlight- enment adaptation of a Baroque text. 206 MATIJA OGRIN ▶ Slovenian Manuscripts of the Late Baroque Conclusions comparable to those made for this work by its main researcher and editor of the contemporary Czech edition, Miloš Sládek (8, 10, 18, 19), can be made for the Poljane manuscript and its protographs, albeit in much smaller dimensions because these are only manuscripts. Sládek’s main arguments are that the great book about the life of Jesus written by Martin of Cochem, which is sometimes described as the only Czech Baroque novel, influenced entire generations of folk readers, shaped their thoughts and value systems, stimulated various expressions and forms of Czech devotions, influenced certain folk plays (especially passion plays), and even had an impact on handicrafts and the folk visual arts. The work, which was written in German in the 1670s, was very popular among the Czechs; it was already translated into Czech in the 1690s by the Capuchin Edelbert of Nymburk. This text is an important FIG. 3 → Eighty pages have been preserved from the manuscript protograph of the life of Jesus from the mid-eighteenth cen- tury, which had over nine hundred pages and from which the Poljane manuscript was later copied. Source: RRSS, Ms 28. 207 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands link between the German, Czech, and Hungarian rural and market- town communities in the early modern period. In some cases, it has been attested that owners loaned or read the same copy of the book to their neighbors for several generations, and so on. A similar conclusion can be drawn for Slovenian manuscripts, of which only the Poljane manuscript has been nearly fully pre- served and others only in fragments: with their literary-aesthetic form and theological-parabiblical material, they make up a true folk hermeneutics of the gospels. They introduced a long tradition into Slovenian literature, extending from the Church Fathers via Pseudo-Bonaventure and Ludolph of Saxony to Martin of Cochem. Therefore, these manuscripts “testify to the exceptional and undis- puted topicality and existential resilience of the Vita Christi genre in the long period from the eleventh to the eighteenth century” (Avsenik Nabergoj: 595–596), or even to the twentieth century, one might add. 3) Closely connected with the previous category of texts is the group of manuscripts about the Four Last Things (quattuor novissima). These are ascetic meditative texts discussing eschatological topics— that is, the last stages of the soul in life and the afterlife according to Christian theology: death, judgment, heaven, and hell. All these Slovenian Baroque texts, too, most likely derive from the prohibited works of Martin of Cochem, specifically his book Nutzlicher Zusatz zu dem Leben Christi, von denen Vier letzten Dingen: Nemlich von dem Tod, Gericht, Höll, und Himmelreich, which began to be published around 1700 together with Das grosse Leben Christi. Based on the research conducted to date (Ogrin 2017b: 37–40), two major groups can be identified among these manuscripts: the first one comprises manuscripts that initially included all of Cochem’s book, even 208 MATIJA OGRIN ▶ Slovenian Manuscripts of the Late Baroque though the text is partly lost due to damage (RRSS Ms 34, 37, 119), and the second group included manuscript fragments of the entire book, in which some had already been copied only as individual chapters or a sequence thereof. The unit Ms 111 of the Register of Early Modern Slovenian Manuscripts includes one that, for the most part, falls under the Vita Christi genre, but it also includes a chapter on the Four Last Things. This raises an important question of whether it was copied as a selected passage from a longer manuscript or whether it is simply a preserved copy of an already damaged, fragmentary manuscript. This will probably remain a mystery. The only fact that remains clear is that Cochem’s forbidden ascetic texts on the Four Last Things also continued to be disseminated through many Slovenian manuscripts well into the nineteenth century and that these manuscripts confirm how extremely popular and necessary reflection on the last existential horizons of human life was among the people of that time. 4) The fourth group of Baroque texts that were affected by the prohibitions of the Enlightenment and that therefore found modest shelter in manuscript culture in Slovenian literature comprises prophetic texts, which continued the medieval prophetic and FIG. 4 → The oldest preserved manuscript about the Four Last Things was written in 1793, during the greatest Enlight- enment oppression of Baroque devotion. Source: RRSS, Ms 34. 209 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands apocalyptic literary tradition from the early Baroque onward. A very popular and widespread work in this genre was Leben Antichristi by the German Capuchin Dionysius of Luxembourg (1652–1703), published in 1682 and prohibited in the Austrian monarchy from at least 1774. His picturesque apocalyptic narrative relies partly on biblical stories and partly on parabiblical stories about the genesis and the age of the world, various historical periods, the arrival of the Antichrist, the prophets Elijah and Enoch, who will fight against him, and the end of the world. After the allegedly initial Slovenian translation or adaptation by the self-educated rural writer Mattias Schegar (1734–1798) in 1767, this text was also copied by other authors in Carinthia and Carniola. A thorough study on the Slovenian tradition of Leben Antichristi was published in the mid- twentieth century by France Kotnik, who reported on over thirteen manuscripts that he witnessed himself (Kotnik). Of these, only one is presented in the Register of Slovenian Manuscripts.4 The fact that this dramatic medieval Baroque narrative was reworked into a series of manuscript versions that differ in terms of both textology and the influence of Slovenian dialects proves the great interest and fascination that this book aroused among Slovenians during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The book elaborates in a narrative form on the old theological theme about the invasion of overwhelming evil into human history and the final victory of supreme good in the face of the end of the world and final divine judgment. Like many other things, the reading of this exciting Baroque literature in the form of a printed book among Slovenians was prevented by the Enlightenment with its narrow, apodictic conceptions of what is rational and suitable for people to read, and what is superstitious and immoral. Late-eighteenth-century 4 Labeled RRSS Ms 17; on Kotnik’s list this is manuscript no. 3. It seems that Kotnik must have overlooked the beautiful hand-color- ed manuscript RRSS Ms 15 in the register, written between 1823 and 1824, even though it was also created in Carinthia. 210 MATIJA OGRIN ▶ Slovenian Manuscripts of the Late Baroque Slovenian manuscript culture was sufficiently developed to display its effectiveness, diversity, and resilience in the case of this Slovenian folk book. 5) The next very important group of Slovenian Baroque texts that were affected by Enlightenment censorship, which prevented their transition to printed books, comprises theological and pastoral texts by Slovenian monastic writers. The Enlightenment authorities’ attitude toward monasticism was conflictual as it is, and so this topic by far exceeds the issue of censorship, even though it does include it (both formal censorship and, even more, its informal form). In an atmosphere in which monks feared seeing their monasteries being dissolved and bishops limited their freedom in every possible way, hindered pastoral work, and made their lives more difficult on a daily basis (Papež), it was of course impossible to even think about their books being printed and published, and so no form of formal censorship even took place. Any small monastic work that managed to avoid this and could not justify its existence with usefulness as conceived by the Enlightenment still had to be suppressed through formal censorship: when the Capuchin friar Seraphin of Montegranaro was canonized by the Catholic Church in 1767 and the Capuchins published the booklet Kurzer Lebens-Begriff des heiligen Seraphin von Monte Granario (1768) about him in Bratislava, the state censorship included it in the very next edition of the index of prohibited books (Supplementum ad Catalogum: 28). Venerating saints, reflecting on their lives, and praying to them were undesired and even prohibited in practice. The energetic and inventive Slovenian Discalced Augustinian Marko Pohlin (1735–1801) nonetheless published a series of shorter printed texts, even though not without difficulty. Most of his works 211 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands remained in manuscript form, as was proven by France Kidrič with his list of Pohlin’s works (Kidrič). However, the dexterous Pohlin was an exception in many ways; during that same period, many Slovenian monastic authors wrote high-quality theological and pastoral-meditative works, but they all remained in manuscript form. Even though many of them unfortunately deteriorated, quite a few have been preserved but cannot be examined here. Mention can be made of two unknown monastic authors that created an impressive oeuvre, which, however, could not be printed. The first one is the Franciscan friar Konrad Branka (1737–1789), a first-rate writer of meditative prose and theological-speculative essays, who was excellent at expressing, stringing together, and building up, in nuances, various aspects of the spiritual topics of religion, sacraments, the passion of Jesus, and so on, either in sermons or contemplative texts, all of which have been preserved in manuscript form or lost (Ogrin 2015). Another excellent yet almost completely unknown represent- ative of late Baroque rhetorical prose, worth highlighting in the group of overlooked monastic authors, is the Capuchin friar An- gelicus from Kranj (1735–1790). He left six manuscript books be- hind, featuring over three hundred carefully composed sermons for Sundays, holidays, Lent, and various occasions (Senica) in a very clear, harmonious, and moderately rhetorical style. During the period dominated by Enlightenment reason and care for citizens, the Slovenian Franciscans and Capuchins were practically unable to convert even a single manuscript into a printed book. 6) The last group of Slovenian texts, for which it was impossible to think that they would come even close to a printshop, includes manuscripts that at the end of the eighteenth century and even 212 MATIJA OGRIN ▶ Slovenian Manuscripts of the Late Baroque until the mid-nineteenth century helped revive the life of Slovenian Baroque printed books that had remained very popular for a long time, but it was impossible to reprint them due to the aversion of the Enlightenment authorities to Baroque forms of devotion. Of course, this was not part of formal censorship, but informal censorship as a broader category of spiritual and cultural differ- ences with practical implications that prevented some works from being printed as books. For example, the fact that Matija Kaste- lec’s 1688 book Navuk christianski, sive Praxis cathechistica was ex- ceptionally popular, so that various authors copied it for a long time, is confirmed by two preserved and accurately produced man- uscript copies of the entire book: the Črni Vrh manuscript (RRSS Ms 124; Ogrin 2018) from around 1800, and another, graphically even better crafted manuscript from 1843 (Ogrin 2017a: 50–51). Even though there must have been other manuscripts that have not been preserved, these two manuscripts and other similar late copies prove that the best works of Slovenian Baroque literature fulfilled certain deep spiritual needs and desires of Slovenians, not only in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but well into the nine- teenth century and even later. This reflects the existential human FIG. 5 → The numerous works of the Franciscan friar Konrad Branka include an extensive series of sermons with a theo logical explanation of the sacrifice of the mass. Source: FSNM. 213 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands tendency for a created human being to fully enter into a relation- ship with his Creator, or the need for human relationship with the transcendental. Baroque literature drew the individual as a whole, as a composite physical and spiritual entity with a single being, into this relationship. Specifically, this literature intensively catered to both: human sensations and fantasy on the one hand, and hu- man mind and will on the other (i.e., both the body and soul). From this comprehensiveness, Baroque literature drew its life-creating force, thanks to which Kastelec’s works continued to be copied even a century and a half after the prior of the Novo Mesto Fraternity of the Holy Rosary passed away. ❦ 214 MATIJA OGRIN ▶ Slovenian Manuscripts of the Late Baroque Sources Frančiškanski samostan Novo mesto (FSNM) Kerſhansku Poduzhenie Zheſ Offer ſvete Maſhe Sʼ red nekaterimʼ visham, Po katerih bi en Criſtian svoje ſerze kʼ Bogu obrazhal kadar ſk ſnaide per timo preſvetimo Offru / vkup isloshenu ſkusi eniga Pridigarja, inú Lectorja vʼ ſvetimo Piſmu is oiſtreſhiga Ordna ſ. Franciſka Register rokopisov slovenskega slovstva (RRSS) Ed. Matija Ogrin. Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, 2011. http://ezb.ijs. si/fedora/get/nrss:ms/VIEW/ (access: 30 December, 2019). 215 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands References avsenik naBerGoj, irena, 2016: Izvori in tradicija literarne zvrsti vita Christi v Poljanskem rokopisu. Bogoslovni vestnik 76, 3–4. 585–596. Bachleitner, norBert, 2017: Die literarische Zensur in Österreich von 1751 bis 1848. Vienna: Böhlau. Bachleitner, norBert, Franz m. eYBl, ernst Fischer, 2000: Geschichte des Buchhandels in Österreich. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. BorGstedt, anGela, 2004: Das Zeitalter der Aufklärung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Catalogus librorum per quinquennium a commissione aulica prohibitorum. Vienna: Kaliwoda, 1758. Catalogus librorum a commissione caes. reg. aulica prohibitorum: Editio nova. Vienna: Gerold, 1776. kidriČ, France, 2013: Pohlin, Marko (1735–1801). Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: SAZU, ZRC SAZU. [https://www.slovenska- biografija.si/oseba/sbi443704] kluetinG, harm, 2005: Aufklärung, katholische. Lexikon zum Aufgeklärten Absolutismus in Europa. Ed. Helmut Reinalter. Vienna: Böhlau. 127–131. kotnik, France, 1844: Bukovniški rokopisi Antikrista. Zbornik Zimske pomoči. Ljubljana: Zimska pomoč. 415–424. Kurzer Lebens-Begriff des heiligen Seraphin von Monte Granario. Bratislava: Johann Michael Landerer, 1768. lesar, josip, 2013: Herberstein, Karel Janez, grof (1719–1787). Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: SAZU, ZRC SAZU. [https://www. slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/sbi227919] 216 MATIJA OGRIN ▶ Slovenian Manuscripts of the Late Baroque meid, volker, 2009: Die deutsche Literatur im Zeitalter des Barock: Vom Späthumanismus zur Frühaufklärung: 1570–1740. Munich: C. H. Beck. oGrin, matija, 2011a: Neznani rokopisi slovenskega slovstva 17. in 18. stoletja. Slavistična revija 59, 4. 385–399. oGrin, matija, 2011b: Dober Legent teh Suetnikov: Koroški rokopis iz 18. stoletja. Primerjalna književnost 34, 3. 65–79. oGrin, matija, 2015: Frančiškan p. Konrad Branka in njegovi baročni rokopisi o Svetem Rešnjem Telesu. Mohorjev koledar. Celje: Mohorjeva družba. 112–116. oGrin, matija, 2017a: O vlogi rokopisov v dolgem prehodu iz rokopisne v tiskano knjigo v slovenski književnosti. Primerjalna književnost 40, 1. 43–58. oGrin, matija, 2017b: Slovenski rokopisi o štirih poslednjih stvareh človeka in baročno eshatološko izročilo. Rokopisi slovenskega slovstva od srednjega veka do moderne. Ed. Aleksander Bjelčevič, Matija Ogrin, and Urška Perenič. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete. 33–41. oGrin, matija, 2018: Rokopis kot preoddaja slovenske tiskane knjige: Primer Črnovrškega rokopisa. Starejši mediji slovenske književnosti: Rokopisi in tiski. Ed. Aleksander Bjelčevič and Urška Perenič. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete. 15–24. papež, viktor, 2004: Škof Karel Janez Herberstein in frančiškani. Herbersteinov simpozij v Rimu. Ed. Edo Škulj. Celje: Mohorjeva družba. 343–356. reinalter, helmut, 1993: Aufgeklärter Absolutismus und Josephinismus. Der Josephinismus: Bedeutung, Einflüsse und Wirkungen. Ed. Helmut Reinalter. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 11–21. 217 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands senica, marko, 1992: Slovenske pridige kapucina p. Angelika iz Kranja iz let 1766–1771. Acta ecclesiastica Sloveniae 14. 120–180. slÁdek, miloŠ, 2007: Zrcadlo zrcadlu nastavené aneb Několik vět na okraj životů Kristových. Martin z Kochemu: Veliký život Pána a Spasitele našeho Krista Ježíše a jeho nejsvětější a nejmilejší matky Marie Panny. Ed. Miloš Sládek, Lucie Peisertová, and Tomáš Breň. Prague: Argo. 5–27. Supplementum ad Catalogum librorum a commissione aulica prohibitorum, de annis 1766, 67, 68, 69, 70. Vienna: Trattner, 1771. vidmar, luka, 2010: Zoisova literarna republika: Vloga pisma v narodnih prerodih Slovencev in Slovanov. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC, ZRC SAZU. WÖGerBauer, michael et al., 2015: V obecném zájmu: Cenzura a sociální regulace literatury v moderní české kultuře: 1749–2014. Prague: Academia, Ústav pro českou literaturu AV ČR. žejn, andrejka, 2016: Jezik Poljanskega rokopisa: Jezik rokopisa na prehodu iz 18. v 19. stoletje. Slavistična revija 64, 4. 407–425. žejn, andrejka, 2017: Medbesedilnost in retoričnost baročne asketično-meditativne proze Poljanskega rokopisa. Primerjalna književnost 40, 1. 175–193. 218 MATIJA OGRIN ▶ Slovenian Manuscripts of the Late Baroque Povzetek Slovenski rokopisi poznega 18. in zgodnjega 19. stoletja dokazujejo, da avstrijski cenzurni sistem nikakor ni bil le sredstvo oblasti v boju proti liberalnim idejam, panslavizmu in podobnim politično nevarnim gibanjem. Nasprotno, cenzura je bila tudi močno orožje v boju razsve- tljenstva proti katoliški tradiciji – še zlasti proti baročnim oblikam verskega življenja, kakor so bile verske igre, pasijonske idr. proce- sije, romanja, češčenje svetnikov, pobožnost do Matere božje, križev pot, pobožnost svetih stopnic idr. Te oblike verskega življenja so bile med ljudstvom zelo priljubljene in ukoreninjene v izročilu. Razsve- tljenski ukrepi cesarja Jožefa II. so to tradicionalno versko življenje močno prizadeli in večidel zatrli, ne brez rabe nasilja. Avstrijska cezura pa je poskrbela, da so besedila, iz katerih je ta duhovnost rastla, bila bodisi prepovedana bodisi so jih morali avtorji v cenzurnem postop- ku predelati. Za slovensko književnost, ki jo je vse od začetka spremljal problem velikih stroškov zaradi zelo majhnega knjižnega trga slovenske knjige, je razsvetljenska cenzura v praksi pomenila, da je slovenska rokopisna kultura zgodnjega baroka dobila nov zagon še za skoraj sto let. Besedila prepovedanih baročnih duhovnih pisateljev je bilo moč posredovati in razširjati zgolj v rokopisni obliki. V članku predstavim šest skupin slovenskih rokopisov, ki so dajali obstoj in recepcijo baročnim besedilom, v Avstriji prepovedanim ali onemogočenim na razne načine, formalno ali neformalno. Koroški hagiografski rokopis Dober Legent teh Suetnikov, najobsežnejši slovenski rokopis, in Poljanski rokopis, prvovrsten predstavnik tradicijske zvrsti vita Christi, kot priredbi ali baročni predelavi oba izvirata iz opusa kapucinskega patra Martina Cochemskega, ki ga je indeks prepovedal 219 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands za vse avstrijske dežele. Na drugi strani pa denimo meditativna bese- dila, ki jih je napisal doslej neznani frančiškanski pisatelj p. Konrad Branka (1737–1789), prvovrsten pisec meditativne proze in teološko- -spekulativne esejistike, seveda niso bila uradno prepovedana, saj frančiškanski red, ogrožen z razpustitvami samostanov ipd. ukrepi (mdr. dlje časa niso smeli sprejemati novincev), ni mogel niti pomisliti na tiskano izdajo spisov. Tako je slovenska rokopisna kultura reševala baročno katoliško tra- dicijo; s skromnimi sredstvi, toda vendar: piscem slovenskih baročnih rokopisov je uspelo besedilo ne le prevesti, marveč tudi preoblikovati in prilagoditi svojemu jezikovnemu in socialnemu okolju. Zato ni pre- tirano reči, da tekstološko gledano nastopa v ustvarjanju slovenskih rokopisnih besedil določena sinteza posredovanja in poustvarjanja besedila, sinteza preoddaje in kreacije teksta. Z literarnega gledišča pa smemo reči, da v teh besedilih prihaja do vznemirljive in estetsko zelo slikovite pripovedne sinteze med bibličnim in parabibličnim, med svetom dogme in ljudskega izročila, med teološko razlago in legendar- nimi prvinami – s tem pa so baročni rokopisi izrazili, pa tudi ohranjali in utrjevali duhovno substanco slovenskega človeka dolge baročne dobe v spoprijemu z nasilnimi posegi razsvetljenstva v duhovno življenje. 220 MATIJA OGRIN ▶ Slovenian Manuscripts of the Late Baroque Matija Ogrin Matija Ogrin is the head of the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies. His research focuses on early modern Slovenian lit- erature, especially from the Baroque to the early nineteenth century. Og- rin’s work is based on studies of primary sources, especially manuscripts, and their traditional scholarly treatment: transcription, commentary, and critical editing. He combines traditional approaches with methods of digital scholarly editing and coordinates several projects in the field (such as eZISS). Ogrin has edited several critical editions, including the Škofja Loka Pas- sion Play. He is the editor of the series Collected Works of Slovenian Writers (Zbrana dela slovenskih pesnikov in pisateljev). 221 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands ❦ sonja svoLjšak ▶ sonja.svoljsak@nuk.uni-lj.si Banned French, English, and American Authors, and Their Works in the Ljubljana Lyceum Library up to 1848 Prepovedani francoski, angleški in ameriški avtorji in njihova dela v licejski knjižnici v Ljubljani do leta 1848 SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal ISSN 1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online) VOLUME 26 (2021/I), pp. 222–242 DOI 10.13137/2283-5482/32502 223 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Banned Books, French authors, enGlish authors, american authors, Book censorship, ljuBljana lYceum liBrarY, eiGhteenth centurY, nineteenth centurY prepovedane knjiGe, Francoski avtorji, anGleŠki avtorji, ameriŠki avtorji, knjižna cenzura, knjižnica ljuBljanskeGa liceja, 18. stoletje, 19. stoletje Based on copies that have been pre- served in the National and University Library, archival documents, early library inventories and catalogues, and accession logs, this article examines the presence of works by prominent French, English, and American phi- losophers and political philosophers in the Ljubljana lyceum library’s collec- tion in the last decades of the eight- eenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century. It also presents sources that testify to the influence of imperial censorship policies and leg- islation on the acquisition, recording, and lending of banned literature in the library until 1848, and provides infor- mation on individuals and institutions that kept works by banned authors in their personal collections before they became part of the Ljubljana lyceum library. Na podlagi izvodov, ki so se ohranili v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici, arhivskih dokumentov, zgodnjih popi- sov in katalogov zbirke ter akcesijskih dnevnikov članek raziskuje prisotnost del nekaterih prominentnejših prepo- vedanih francoskih, angleških in ame- riških filozofov ter političnih filozofov v zbirki ljubljanske licejske knjižnice v zadnjih desetletjih 18. in v prvi polo- vici 19. stoletja. Predstavlja tudi vire, ki pričajo o vplivu cesarskih cenzurnih politik in zakonodaje na pridobivanje, evidentiranje in izposojo prepovedane literature v licejski knjižnici do leta 1848, ter prinaša podatke o posamezni- kih in ustanovah, ki so prepovedane avtorje oziroma njihova dela hranili v osebnih zbirkah, preden so te postale del knjižnice ljubljanskega liceja. 224 SONJA SVOLJŠAK ▶ Banned French, English, and American Authors book censorshiP uP to 1848 anD the LyceuM Library In terms of book censorship, the period from 1774—when the lyceum library was formally established according to most sources—to 1848 in the Habsburg provinces was characterized by centralized censor- ship, a switch from retroactive to preventive censorship, and a gradual tightening of criminal legislation or censorship regulations from the 1780s onward (cf. Bachleitner). The legislation and the regulations and measures arising from it had an impact on the import of books, periodicals, and other printed publications from abroad (including the French- and English-speaking countries and more liberal publishing environments, such as the Dutch provinces), the autarchy of the book market in the Habsburg provinces, and self-censorship. They also in- fluenced the purchasing policies of public educational institutions and their libraries, including the lyceum library, which had to comply with the legislation in force and the resulting decrees, regulations, and instructions in acquiring, storing, and lending its materials. Even though no data have been preserved on the subject, it is highly likely that, either intentionally or unintentionally, individual banned works were already removed from the lyceum library’s emerging col- lection between 1782 and 1789, when based on the imperial reforms it acquired the book collections of dissolved monasteries and other institutions (Stefan: 15). From its outset in the first half of the 1790s, the library received censorship lists from the court’s censorship office via the provincial censorship office, which operated under the Carniolan presidency (Dović: 108–109), and officially banned content already seems to have been subject to special treatment at that time. For instance, on July 27th, 1793 Franz Wilde reported to the teachers’ assembly on the work 225 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands of the library scribe, whose duties included drafting a catalog of per- mitted, tolerated, and banned works—which, however, has not been preserved (Stefan: 21). It is not evident from the preserved library records whether the banned works were also kept separately from others during that period. In 1801, the new criminal legislation enforced stricter adherence to censorship regulations, and on December 9th Wilde was informed that the lists of banned works that the censorship committee sent to those responsible were being published in various foreign news- papers, and that in the future those that forwarded such lists would be sanctioned (Stefan: 31–32). This information indirectly shows that in- terest in the “news” on the banned literature in the Habsburg Monarchy after censorship lists were no longer printed was also present abroad. On June 30th, 1802, Wilde received the following instruction based on the court’s office order of June 18th, 1802: All books and works that contain any kind of views that oppose the faith, are morally inacceptable, or are in conflict with the state, and any principles that are extremely dangerous due to spreading the spirit of revolution, such as those originating from Voltaire, Rousseau, Helvé- tius, and other, especially French, authors, whereby any library clerks acting in contravention of this are threatened with dismissal shall not be made available for reading or browsing to anyone other than those that require any of these now fully banned works for professional pur- poses in order to contest these beliefs or to defend what is good for the faith and the state. (Stefan: 31–32) On January 21st, 1804, in accordance with the court and ministerial de- cree on state police, Wilde was ordered to “use the same precautionary 226 SONJA SVOLJŠAK ▶ Banned French, English, and American Authors measures as those prescribed for banned books with the special phil- osophical volumes of the new editions of Encyclopédie ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences arts et métiers if there are any in the library.” That same year, all the books that had been allowed until 1791 had to be re- viewed again (Stefan: 31–32). According to a high decree of December 20th, 1807, all the banned books under the librarian’s supervision were to be assigned a special status; all banned books originating from, for instance, inheritance, had to be handed over to the lyceum library, which based on this decree was allowed to include the better works in its collection and destroy the others (Stefan: 31–32). In terms of documenting and storing the selected books, the preserved documents do not make it clear what “better works” and “special status” might have meant. These instruc- tions primarily indicate that the library had the right to eliminate and destroy banned literature if it was part of donations or inheritance. Under French rule, a central censorship office for the Illyrian Prov- inces was established. According to a decree of July 27th, 1810, printers were required to send a copy of every book or other material printed in the Illyrian Provinces to the lyceum library and to submit a document confirming this to the central censorship office. Even though one of the decree’s aims was to promote book imports, distribution, and printing, only those books that contained “nothing that may violate due respect for the ruler and government, morality, and religion” were not subject to taxation and duties (Kodrič–Dačić: 9). The lyceum library’s archives also include a preserved 1811 letter by the censorship office head and public library inspector, Bartolomeo Benincasa, to the librarian and curator Girolamo Agapito. In it, Benincasa gives permission to Agapito to donate twenty-eight books from a previously inspected list to the lyceum library (NUK, Ms [Zbirka posameznih popisov donacij]). 227 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands The preserved book records from the 1830s, when the lyceum library was headed by Matija Čop, under whose leadership the earliest card catalog also began to be compiled, again indicate no special treatment or separate storage of banned authors and works. The decisions to lend or not lend these types of works were most likely in the librarians’ domain, but the provisions and procedures enforced by the new im- perial censorship regulation of 1810 (cf. Bachleitner: 149) must have been applied at least until 1848. Following a decree by the Royal Aca- demic Commission of April 1st, 1848, alongside the promised freedom of the press declared by the highest imperial patent, changes were also introduced to the regulations or instructions that had applied until then in relation to the ban on lending certain books to the lyceum library’s reading room. From then onward, the principle applied that “scholarly works, even though banned until then, could be lent without reservations and that the ban only applied to lending clearly immoral and ungodly works, as well as those encouraging nonobservance of the law” (Stefan: 52). Hence, the preserved data referring to the censorship policies and related activities primarily show that, in terms of acquiring, keeping, and lending works at the lyceum library, French authors or French scholarly and literary production were the most problematic during this period, which is not surprising considering the political situation in France and also elsewhere in Europe. Imperial decrees and regu- lations (cf. Bachleitner: 140–143), as well as the instructions that the lyceum library received in connection with problematic or banned literature, indirectly show that the banned authors included the pro- ponents of all of the most groundbreaking epistemological and political philosophy proveniences of that time, including materialists, skeptics, utilitarianists, and all those that advocated human rights and freedoms 228 SONJA SVOLJŠAK ▶ Banned French, English, and American Authors in their works, proposed various changes and improvements to the le- gal, political, and social orders, criticized the current sociopolitical and religious situation, and conveyed deistic or atheistic religious views. In his article on banned books in Carniola, Luka Vidmar (2012: 253) ascertains that “in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries there were not many people in Carniola interested in contemporary rationalist and materialist, let alone empirical, philosophy.” This also indirectly implies that Carniolans were not interested in keeping abreast of con- temporary French, British, and American philosophy and political phi- losophy, nor the literature that predominated in these areas. Because of certain circumstances and a lack of sources, the collection of the Ljubljana lyceum library is not the most reliable and representative sample,1 but due to its size and many known former owners of the material it can nonetheless provide some insight into whether this truly was the situation in the last third of the eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century. ProbLeMatic or banneD works by french, british, anD aMerican authors at the LyceuM Library froM 1774 to 1848 Between 1774 and the early nineteenth century, based on Joseph II’s re- forms, various decrees, and other legal instruments, the collections or parts of the collections of the Jesuit College, which was dissolved in 1773 and destroyed in a fire in 1774, the dissolved monasteries of the Augustinians and Discalced Augustinians in Ljubljana, the Carthusi- ans in Bistra, the Cistercians in Kostanjevica na Krki and Stična, and the Servites in Duino, as well as the library of the Carniolan Society for Agriculture and Useful Arts and the Gornji Grad episcopal library, were handed over to the Ljubljana lyceum library, which was opened 1 Books from the librar- ies of dissolved church and other institutions were also selected by other institutions, which added them to their collections, including the Vienna imperial library; indi- vidual works relevant to this study may also have been intentional- ly or unintentionally eliminated. During the period studied, many books were also destroyed or sold at auctions. It was not until 1835 that the lyceum library began keeping accession logs according to the meth- od of acquiring mate- rial in a given calendar year (cf. Svoljšak, Kocjan), but a great deal of material that the library obtained in various ways since its establishment re- mained uncatalogued or unrecorded up until the 1850s (Stefan: 68). 229 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands to the public in 1794. The collections or individual books owned by Bar- on Raigersfeld, the Ljubljana vicar general Karl Peer, the head of the lyceum library Baron Innocenz von Taufferer, the Ljubljana physician Jakob Pfandl, Count Jobst Weikhard Anton Barbo von Waxenstein, the Flachenfeld canon’s office, and other individuals were also donated to the library, but these donations are not recorded or evident from the archival documents or the earliest inventories of the library’s collection and catalogs (Stefan: 82–96). The library inventory of the Carniolan Society for Agriculture and Useful Arts, which also contained several contemporary French works on natural and applied sciences, also lists the 1775 edition of Rous- seau’s collected works printed in Neuchâtel (NUK, Ms 1933). Consid- ering that the collection was compiled through individuals’ donations, the edition must have been owned by one of the society’s members, but his identity is not evident from the copy preserved. The list of books from the Cistercian monastery in Kostanjevica na Krki copied by Wilde includes the second, third, fourth, and fifth volumes of dA̓lembert’s Mélanges de littérature, dʼhistoire et de philoso- phie published in Amsterdam in 1770 (NUK, Ms 1946). The same edition is also included in the catalog of Sigmund Zois’s library purchased in 1823 (NUK, Ms 667). Even though the copy now kept by the Nation- al and University Library (NUK) has binding typical of Zois’s books, it does not include the first volume, just like the one from Kostanjevica na Krki. The reason for this may also be that this very volume contained dA̓lembert’s Discours préliminaire de lʼEncyclopédie. ← FIG. 1 Rousseau’s collected works in the library inventory of the Carniolan Society for Agriculture and Useful Arts. Photo: Milan Štupar, NUK. 230 SONJA SVOLJŠAK ▶ Banned French, English, and American Authors In 1792, the first head of the lyceum library, Baron Innocenz von Tauf- ferer, donated his collection to the library, including a 1741 edition of Voltaire’s Anti-Machiavel, ou Essai de Critique sur le Prince de Machiavel printed in Marseille (NUK, Ms 1941). The earliest catalog of the lyceum library (NUK, Ms Bibliothecae Caes. Reg. Licei Labacensis Catalogus) also lists the 1757 London edition of Voltaire’s Lettre philosophique, par M. de V*** avec plusieurs piéces galantes et nouvelles de différens auteurs, which is entered under the work’s title with no information on its origin, and the 1742 Amsterdam edition of the French translation of Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. The binding of the copy of Locke’s work indicates that it may have once belonged to the collection of the Carniolan Society for Agriculture and Useful Arts, just like Rousseau’s collected works, but the work is not included in the 1787 inventory, nor on the list of the society’s books copied by Wilde in 1788. The book may have been donated to the lyceum library by a member of this society, which had already been dissolved by that time. The first edition of Helvétius’s De lʼhomme, de ses facultés intellectu- elles, et de son éducation printed in the Hague in 1773 is not listed in any FIG. 2 AND 3 → DA̓lembert’s Mélanges in the inventory of the Kostanjevica na Krki monastery library and in the Zois library catalog, which actually lists all five volumes. Photo: Milan Štupar, NUK. 231 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands of the early inventories or catalogs, but the low acquisition number assigned to the copy now kept at NUK implies that it probably already entered the collection before 1810. An unknown reader or its former owner wrote Jönsen on the title page. The lyceum library’s pre-1848 collection included at least two copies of the same edition of the Ger- man translation of this work by Helvétius published in 1785 by Johann Ernst Mayr in Wrocław. They, too, are not listed in any of the catalogs or separate inventories of that time, but they contain the signature or ex-libris of a certain Jos. Antonzizh, 1789 and the professor Franz Xaver Heinrich, who taught at the Ljubljana lyceum during the first and second decades of the nineteenth century. The acquisition number of the 1762 Amsterdam edition of Rous- seau’s Discours sur l o̓rigine et les fondemens de lʼinégalité parmi les hommes, which contains the signatures of a certain Dr. Callan and a certain Marchab, captain of the ship Puebla, and the acquisition numbers of the 1752 Dresden edition of Voltaire’s collected works and the Ger- man translation of Paine’s treatise on human and civic rights (Die Rechte des Menschen) published in Copenhagen in 1793 show that these books were most likely included in the library’s collection before 1827. It is also possible that they were assigned a vacant acquisition number after that. None of them are listed in the inventories of individual collections and donations, the earliest lyceum library’s catalog and its supplements, or the accession logs covering the period up to 1860. Sigmund Zois had the 1765 Amsterdam edition of Rousseau’s Lettres écrites de la montagne in his collection as early as the 1780s, alongside ← FIG. 4 Voltaire’s Lettre philosophique in the lyceum library’s first catalog. Photo: Milan Štupar, NUK. 232 SONJA SVOLJŠAK ▶ Banned French, English, and American Authors the most extensive collection of Voltaire’s works, but, except for the 1754 Geneva edition of Annales de l e̓mpire depuis Charlemagne and the 1754 Leipzig edition of Le siecle de Louis XIV. (ARS, SI AS 1052, fasc. 19), these were not handed over to the lyceum library. After Zois’s death they probably remained in the possession of his nephew and heir, Karl Zois, or they may have been eliminated from the works selected for the sales catalog due to their problematic nature (just like the first volume of dA̓lembert’s Mélanges). The low acquisition numbers of the 1752 Dresden edition of Vol- taire’s collected works, the 1782 Lausanne edition of Rousseau’s Les Confessions, and his Pensées published in Geneva in 1789 also indicate that these books may have been kept by the lyceum library significantly early on. The library’s pre-1848 collection most likely also included the 1757 Altenburg edition of the German translation of Locke’s essay Versuch von menschlichen Verstand. Voltaire’s Candide published in Berlin in 1778, which also has a very low acquisition number, contains a heral- dic ex-libris of Lőrincz Szőgény, but it is unknown how and when the book entered the collection. The first volume of the 1738 Amsterdam edition of Voltaire’s collected works (but probably also the remaining volumes of this collection, which is no longer preserved) was once part of Anton Tomaž Linhart’s library, and it features his signature on its title page. It only entered the collection of the National and University Library through a purchase in 2009. The 1742 Amsterdam edition of Hobbes’s Elementa philosophica de cive only entered the lyceum library in 1844, when Matija Čop’s collection was purchased, and it was only entered in the accession logs in 1862. Čop’s collection also included the 1817 Paris edition of Julie, où la nouvelle Heloise and Rousseau’s 1763 letter to the Paris archbishop titled Jean Jacques Rousseau, citoyen de Geneve à Christoph de Beaumont, archeveque 233 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands de Paris, as well as the 1743 Amsterdam edition of Voltaire’s tragedy Le fanatisme, ou Mahomet le prophète and its Italian translation published in Venice in 1762 (NUK, Ms Accessions-Protokolle). Among the French Enlightenment authors, Montesquieu also seemed to be very popular in Carniola. Thanks to his personal inter- vention at the Viennese court, his political and philosophical trea- tise De l é̓sprit des loix even avoided censorship, albeit only for a while (Bachleitner: 51). Until the first half of the nineteenth century, various editions of this work formed part of the private collections of Sigmund Zois, Matija Čop, and various other individuals, who, however, cannot be identified with certainty. Over fourteen various editions of Voltaire’s and Rousseau’s works published until 1848 made their way into the National and University Library’s collection from the Federal Collection Center after the Sec- ond World War. They also include the monumental collection of Vol- taire’s works published in Kehl in 1785. Voltaire’s collected works published in Paris between 1835 and 1838 include a heraldic ex-libris of the Gutmansthal-Benvenuti family, from which the Paris edition of the 1798 French translation of Paine’s treatise on human rights also came into the collection. The lyceum library’s collection seems to have never included dA̓lembert’s and Diderot’s L̓ Encyclopédie ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers. Through the purchase of Sigmund Zois’s collection in 1823, it also acquired a selection of articles from this encyclopedia titled L̓esprit de lʼEncyclopédie ou, choix des articles, ← FIG. 5 Hobbes’s Elementa philosophica de cive in the 1862 invento- ry of Čop’s col- lection. NUK. 234 SONJA SVOLJŠAK ▶ Banned French, English, and American Authors les plus curieux, les plus agréables, les plus piquants, les plus philosophiques de ce grand dictionnaire printed in Geneva in 1769 (NUK, Ms 667). It was edited by Joseph de la Porte and already banned through the Theresian censorship list. The accession logs indicate that in 1869 the Provincial Research Library, as it was called at that time, purchased the 1762 Paris edition of Diderot’s collected works (NUK, Ms Accessions-Protokolle). Until 1848, the lyceum library also did not hold any works by David Hume, but after the Second World War two London editions of his The History of England from the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution of 1688 published in 1789 and 1833 were obtained from the Federal Col- lection Center. Similarly, the library did not have any works by Henry Bolingbroke, Marquis de Condorcet, Baron dʼHolbach, Bernard Man- deville, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, Julien Offray de La Mettrie, Alexis de Tocqueville, and many other banned French, British, and American authors. Judging from the data on the size of the collection for individual years and decades (Stefan: 68), the German transla- tion of de Tocqueville’s treatise on democracy in America published in Weimar in 1836 most likely entered the collection between 1853 and 1860. In turn, the French translation of Paine’s The Age of Reason pub- lished in Copenhagen in 1793 was added to the National and Univer- sity Library’s collection from the Federal Collection Center after the Second World War. concLusion As the preserved books and other sources show, with regard to banned French, British, and American authors the lyceum library’s pre-1848 collection was dominated by dA̓lembert’s, Helvétius’s, Rousseau’s, Montesquieu’s, and Voltaire’s works. Prior to becoming part of its 235 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands collection, they largely belonged to private collections that the li- brary acquired based on the Josephinian reforms, or it purchased them or received them as donations from various individuals and institutions. The collection included somewhat fewer editions of works by British and American authors, and most likely no copy of the French encyclopedia (except for Zois’s abridged version). Many works ex- amined—which, judging from the low acquisition numbers, were already present in the lyceum library during the first decades of the nineteenth century—are not even included in the earliest library records. This may be attributed to the significant delays in invento- rying and cataloguing the collection, which were typical up to the mid-nineteenth century. Even though, especially based on the instructions of the high decree of December 20th, 1807, it is very likely that this occasionally occurred, no planned or systematic elimination of problematic material, such as the one at the Ljubljana Seminary Library in 1802 (Vidmar: 236), is evident from the sources preserved. Especially from 1801 to 1848, the censorship legislation, regulations, and related instructions to the lyceum library surely had an impact, especially on the smooth pur- chase of works by banned authors and lending or “using” those works that were already in the library’s collection. Sigmund Zois stands out among the former owners of the books examined that became part of the lyceum library’s collections. His interest in French and British Enlightenment philosophy, political phi- losophy, and literature can be somewhat better elucidated by an earlier catalog of his library kept at the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia (ARS, SI AS 1052, fasc. 19). Some of the works by banned authors from Zois’s collection were not sold to the lyceum library, which, in addition to the fact that his nephew and heir Karl kept a large number of books 236 SONJA SVOLJŠAK ▶ Banned French, English, and American Authors to himself, also implies that individual problematic or inappropriate books could have been intentionally eliminated before the purchase. Despite the partly incomplete sources and the circumstances that affected its content and hence also the information it presently provides on the presence of banned literature in Carniola, the ly- ceum library’s pre-1848 collection nonetheless offers some indirect and direct insight into the interest in French, British, and American philosophy, political philosophy, and literature. However, this raises even more questions because the lack of research into the influence of these works on local scholarship and literature makes it impossi- ble to establish what the motives of known and unknown individu- als were for purchasing and reading them. The data obtained thus suggest only that in the last quarter of the eighteenth century the Carniolan or Ljubljana nobility and intelligentsia, which accounted for only a miniscule percentage of the total population, were famil- iar with some of the more influential works by French philosophers and to some extent also with British and American authors and their individual works, and that, at least in the earliest period or before the tightening of the censorship policies in the early nineteenth century, the lyceum library probably included the banned works in its collec- tion without any special treatment or reservations. Some of them also entered the collection as donations that were not recorded. The years and places of publication of the books examined show that most were printed in the Netherlands, various German or Prussian and French towns, Geneva, Basel, Venice, Denmark, and the British Isles before the 1780s. It also seems that most were purchased before the end of the relatively tolerant period under the rule of Joseph II. Voltaire’s and Rousseau’s works that entered the collection from the Federal Collection Center were printed in the nineteenth century. The 237 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 2 Igor Gardelin is reconstructing the collection. The editions identified to date based on the estate inventory of Georg Jacob von Hohenwart can be viewed at https:// ravne.librarika.com/ search/catalogs. small number of editions from the first half of the nineteenth centu- ry is probably also the result of the tightened preventive censorship policy and legislation, which prevented importing, translating, and reprinting foreign banned literature, and hence indirectly influenced both the content of private collections and that of the lyceum library. It may also reflect a lessened interest in Enlightenment scholarship and literature or the authors and works examined among the Carniolan intellectuals during this period. The nobility’s and intelligentsia’s book collections, which were preserved only piecemeal and entered the National and University Library’s collection after the Second World War via the Federal Col- lection Center, do not allow an extensive analysis, but they nonethe- less suggest that in the second half of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century there may have been more buyers and readers of (especially French) banned authors, including Voltaire, Rousseau, and Helvétius, in Carniola than indicated by the earliest records from the lyceum library and other research to date. In this regard, it would be interesting to examine in detail the recently dis- covered 1808 catalog of the book collection of Franz Josef Hanibal von Hohenwart from Ravne (Germ. Raunach) Castle near Pivka, which includes approximately nine hundred works, most of which were printed in the eighteenth century.2 ❦ 238 SONJA SVOLJŠAK ▶ Banned French, English, and American Authors References ars, si as 1052, fasc. 19, Fond Rodbina Zois, Posebno udejstvovanje. Katalog der Bücher die sich in der Bibliothek der Herrn Baron Sigmund Zois Freyherren Edelstein befindet. Bachleitner, norBert, 2017: Die literarische Zensur in Österreich von 1751 bis 1848. Vienna: Böhlau. doviĆ, marijan, 2007: Slovenski pisatelj: Razvoj vloge literarnega proizvajalca v slovenskem literarnem sistemu. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. Grajska knjižnica, 2020: Grajska knjižnica Ravne pri Pivki. Ed. Igor Gardelin. [http://ravne.librarika.com/search/catalogs] kodriČ daČiĆ, eva, 1994: Obvezni izvod na slovenskem ozemlju (1807–1945). Knjižnica, 38, 1–2. 7–22. NUK, Ms Accessions-Protokolle der Studienbibliothek in Laibach. Angefangen 1835 beendet mit 1860. NUK, Ms Bibliothecae Caes. Reg. Licei Labacensis Catalogus. NUK, Ms 667, Bibliothecae Sigismundi Liberi Baronis de Zois Catalogus. NUK, Ms 1933, Bücherkathalog der kaiserl. königl. ökonomischen Gesellschaft in Krain (1). NUK, Ms 1941, Verzeichniss der Bucher, welche der gymnasial Prafekt Hr. Baron v. Taufferer in die lyzeal Bibliothek den 1s April 1791 uberliefert hat. NUK, Ms 1946, Verzeichniß der laybacher akademischen Büchersammlung kraft des gemachten Inventariums den 4ten May 1788. 239 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands NUK, Ms [Zbirka posameznih popisov donacij]: Peer, Barbo- Waxenstein, Knauer, Wilde, Agapito, Flachenfeldov kanonikat, cesarski dvor, Vest, Hoffman, Damian und Sorge, Krausler. steFan, konrad, 2009: Zgodovina C. kr. Študijske knjižnice v Ljubljani. Ljubljana: Zveza bibliotekarskih društev Slovenije, Narodna in univerzitetna knjižnica. svoljŠak, sonja and urŠa kocjan, 2017: Knjiga kot dar: darovalci in darovi v licejski oziroma Cesarsko-kraljevi študijski knjižnici v Ljubljani med 1774 in 1860. Keria, 18, 1. 82–96. vidmar, luka, 2012: Prepovedane knjige na Kranjskem od indeksa Pavla IV. (1559) do indeksa Pija VI. (1786): Libri prohibiti v Semeniški knjižnici. Svetovne književnosti in obrobja. Ed. Marko Juvan. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. 233–262. 240 SONJA SVOLJŠAK ▶ Banned French, English, and American Authors Povzetek Obdobje od leta 1774 do leta 1848 v habsburških deželah so na področju knjižne cenzure zaznamovali centralizacija cenzurne dejavnosti, pre- hod od retroaktivne k preventivni cenzuri ter postopno zaostrovanje kazenske zakonodaje oziroma cenzurnih predpisov od devetdesetih let 18. stoletja dalje. Ti so vplivali na knjižni trg, pa tudi na nabavne politike oziroma obravnavo gradiva v javnih izobraževalnih ustanovah in njihovih knjižnicah. Med slednjimi je bila tudi licejska knjižnica, ki se je morala pri pridobivanju, hranjenju in izposoji gradiva ravnati po veljavni zakonodaji ter iz nje izhajajočih uredbah, predpisih in po- sebnih navodilih. Iz ohranjenih virov je razvidno, da so bili s stališča pridobivanja ter hranjenja in izposoje v licejski knjižnici v obravnavanem obdobju najbolj problematični francoski avtorji oziroma francoska znanstve- na in literarna produkcija, pa tudi drugi avtorji, ki so v svojih delih razpravljali o človekovih pravicah in svoboščinah, predlagali različne spremembe in optimizacije pravno-političnih in družbenih ureditev ali kritizirali aktualne družbenopolitične in verske razmere na način, ki je kršil spoštovanje do vladarja in vlade, nravnosti in vere. Knjižnica je od začetka svojega delovanja v devetdesetih letih 18. stoletja prejema- la cenzurne sezname in različna navodila za ravnanje s prepovedano literaturo. Kljub temu in kljub navedenim okoliščinam pa je hranila tudi prepovedana dela nekaterih odmevnejših francoskih, angleških in ameriških razsvetljenskih filozofov, političnih filozofov in literatov, ki so bili prepovedani bodisi s cesarskimi cenzurnimi seznami bodisi s kazenskimi zakoniki in iz njih izhajajočimi uredbami. Najbolje so bila zastopana DA̓lembertova, Helvetiusova, Rousseau- jeva, Montesquiejeva in Voltairova dela. Pred tem so bila večinoma del 241 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands drugih zbirk, ki jih je knjižnica pridobila na podlagi jožefinskih reform ali pa jih je odkupila oziroma prejela v dar od različnih posameznikov in ustanov. Nekoliko manj je bilo v zbirki izdaj del angleških oziroma ameriških avtorjev, zelo verjetno pa (razen Zoisove okrnjene različice) tudi nobenega izvoda francoske enciklopedije. Kot kaže, je licejska knjižnica prepovedane avtorje oziroma njihova dela vsaj v najzgodnej- šem obdobju delovanja oziroma pred zaostrovanjem cenzurnih politik v začetku 19. stoletja najverjetneje vključevala v zbirko brez posebnih zadržkov oziroma posebne obravnave. Ob upoštevanju fragmentov drugih tedanjih zasebnih knjižnic, ki so v zbirko Narodne in univerzi- tetne knjižnice prišli po drugi svetovni vojni prek Federalnega zbirnega centra, je verjetno, da je bilo kupcev in bralcev (predvsem francoskih) prepovedanih avtorjev na Kranjskem še nekaj več, kot jih beležijo naj- zgodnejše evidence licejske knjižnice ter dosedanje raziskave. Ne glede na to, da ni jasno, s kakšnimi motivi so znani in neznani posamezniki ta dela kupovali in brali, je iz ohranjenih knjig in drugih virov mogoče razbrati, da je med sicer maloštevilnim kranjskim izobraženstvom v drugi polovici 18. in v prvi polovici 19. obstajala določena mera za- nimanja za sočasne epistemološke, filozofske in politično-filozofske trende oziroma razprave, ki so prihajale s francosko in angleško go- vorečih območij. 242 SONJA SVOLJŠAK ▶ Banned French, English, and American Authors Sonja Svoljšak Sonja Svoljšak received her doctorate at the Ljubljana Faculty of Arts’ Depart- ment of Library and Information Science and Book Studies in 2009. Since 2010, she has been the curator of the National and University Library’s Early Printed Books Collection. She focuses on book history, cultural history, and provenance research. She occasionally lectures at the Department of Library and Information Science and Book Studies, and teaches courses around Slo- venia in early printed book cataloguing. She has authored or coauthored several articles and books, has arranged exhibitions dealing with various aspects of book history, provenance research, and book art, and has cata- logued and digitized early printed materials. 243 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands ❦ Marko juvan ▶ marko.juvan@zrc-sazu.si Censorship and the Literary Field: Kopitar, Čop, and Krajnska čbelica Cenzura in literarno polje: Kopitar, Čop in Krajnska čbelica SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal ISSN 1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online) VOLUME 26 (2021/I), pp. 244–267 DOI 10.13137/2283-5482/32516 245 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands censorship, literarY criticism, aesthetic autonomY, austro- slavism, romanticism, slovenian literature, jernej kopitar, matija Čop, France preŠeren cenzura, literarna veda, estetska avtonomija, avstroslavizem, romantika, slovenska literatura, jernej kopitar, matija Čop, France preŠeren Slovenian literary history discussed Austrian censorship in Carniola during the Pre-March Era mainly through the conflict between the Romantic poet Prešeren and backward secular and church authorities. This article changes the perspective by examining the par- adox of censor as an instrument of im- perial thought control and a trained expert resembling the literary critic. In the period of Metternich’s absolutist policing, censorship was inadvertently individualized. How censors relied on their aesthetic judgement, prestige, and strategies is shown by the treat- ment of the almanac Krajnska čbelica by Kopitar and Čop in the 1830s. During the “Slovenian alphabet war,” Kopi- tar’s Herderianism collided with the Romantic cosmopolitanism of Prešeren and Čop, who advocated the impor- tance of aesthetic autonomy for the national movement. O avstrijski cenzuri na Kranjskem v predmarčni dobi je slovenska literarna zgodovina pogosto razprav- ljala prek konflikta med romantičnim pesnikom Prešernom in zaostalimi posvetnimi in cerkvenimi oblastmi. Pričujoči članek spreminja perspek- tivo in poudari paradoks cenzorja kot instrumenta imperialne kontrole uma in usposobljenega strokovnjaka, podobnega literarnemu kritiku. V ob- dobju Metternichovega (policijskega) absolutizma je cenzura nenamer- no postala individualizirana. Kako so se cenzorji oprli na svojo estetsko presojo, prestiž in strategije, dokazuje Kopitarjeva in Čopova obravnava alma- naha Krajnska čbelica. Med »slovensko abecedno vojno« 1833 se je Kopitarjevo herderjevstvo spopadlo s Prešernovim in Čopovim romantičnim kozmopoli- tizmom, ki je zagovarjal pomen estet- ske avtonomije za nacionalno gibanje. 246 MARKO JUVAN ▶ Censorship and the Literary Field the censor’s ParaDox Plato’s Republic introduced the idea that the art of literature is a threat to politics because it uses fiction and the expressive power of language to deceive the audience and alienate it from the community truth and ethos that are politically defined by those in power (Juvan 2018: 104–108). Ideas of the mimetic power of literature extended all the way to the nineteenth century: through affects and emotions, which were considered cognitively inferior to conceptual thinking, liter- ary fictions were believed to create deceptions of reality, motivating the audience to copy them in their behavior and thought. In the early modern period, the assumption that because of its mimetic nature literature poses a threat to the community ethos defined by the govern- ing power alternated with the assumption about the epidemic nature of ideas that politics considered dangerous (cf. Bachleitner: 33–40). The order of discourse is generally controlled in and of itself (through conventions, bans, and pre-defined statements), but the eventness of its statements produces unpredictable singularities and transgressions. Therefore, in the early modern period the religious and secular author- ities institutionalized the management of statements, with censorship taking over the function of selecting, restricting, hierarchizing, and destroying statements. Censorship is a repressive institution and an adversary of literature. However, as such it forced literature to develop innovative modes of ex- pression and communication channels, and it influenced the establish- ment of the authorial function and value ranking of literary discourse. To avoid censorship, writers invented Aesopian procedures, renewing literary language this way. In searching for ways to bypass censorship, literary communication more or less internationalized. In addition 247 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 1 The 1810 Austrian censorship regulation distinguished between serious works for intellectuals and pop- ular literature for the common folk. Litera- ture for wider circles was subject to tighter restrictions than works for the educated elites; enlightened absolutism persecuted folk superstitions and tried to stifle the popularity of novels (Wiesner: 214; cf. Kranjc: 528–531). to the religious reformer Primož Trubar, authors of popular erotic literature, or radical men of the Enlightenment, many banned authors printed their works abroad; educated elites purchased banned books on their travels, and enterprising booksellers smuggled foreign works on the censorship list from abroad (cf. Vidmar 2018a). Following Michel Foucault, censorship is among the factors that, by requiring authors to be personally criminally liable for their creations, shaped the early modern author function key to the emergence of the literary field (Fou- cault 1981: 52–61; 1979). As argued by Robert Darnton (Censors at Work), censors even helped writers come up with permissible formulations, and through their authority as arbiters of taste (in pre-revolutionary France) or designers of state-supported publishing programs (in com- munist East Germany) they influenced writers’ reputation and fame. From this perspective, censors played a role close to that of literary criticism. As early as 1847, Adolph Wiesner drew attention to the fact that Habsburg censors confused the repression of politically, morally, or religiously unacceptable writings with the subjectivity of literary criticism: “By definition, Austrian censorship is thus not only a policing Areopagus but also a literary one” (Wiesner: 279). Habsburg censorship was known to be more forgiving toward the reading needs of the nobility and stricter toward the reading prefer- ences of ordinary citizens (Marx: 13; Bachleitner: 22–23).1 Alongside literary criticism, it was censorship in particular that established the class difference between high literature and trivial genres, regulating the repertoire of the emerging literary field. Censorship influenced the publicly available range and hierarchy of reading material, through which it aesthetically educated readers. Over the long nineteenth cen- tury, the popular genre of novels, which were targeted by censorship, contributed to the autonomy of the literary field while narratively 248 MARKO JUVAN ▶ Censorship and the Literary Field 2 University profes- sors and high school teachers were assigned the task of providing assistance in censoring technical literature, textbooks, and similar material (Marx: 23). disseminating the bourgeois ideology, especially nationalism; all of this helped undermine the old regime. In Austria, from the Theresian and Josephinian Enlightenment re- forms onward, the panoptic preventive censorship of all creative pro- duction was organized into a hierarchic state apparatus with a central office and local branches at provincial governments and governorates, which was directly subordinated to the absolutist sovereign as the first among censors (Marx: 17–30). Under the restoration government headed by Klemens von Metternich (1821–1848), who liked to interfere in censorship and police matters (Marx: 31–36), the pressure of cen- sorship on all forms and channels of public communication grew even stronger in order to bring about a reactionary restoration of absolut- ism, which was threatened by bourgeois revolution, radical liberalism, and nationalist movements. The rigorous censorship apparatus was headed by the central imperial office in Vienna, which included a book revision office. This already came under the police ministry in 1801 through an imperial decree; in addition, the censorship and police activities also relied on a wide network of informants (Marx: 17–24; Bachleitner: 96). Subordinated to the Vienna office were the provincial review offices, which supervised the local production and in more complex matters turned the case over to the head office in Vienna. Only a few censors, one book reviewer, and a handful of support staff worked at the Vienna imperial censorship office, which is why individuals and institutions in Vienna and provincial capitals were also authorized to issue censorship reports (Bachleitner: 96–97; Kranjc: 524).2 The censorship apparatus had to cover public discourse in all stand- ard languages and in all provinces of the monarchy, which is why it re- quired a multitude of knowledgeable, multi-lingual, and specialized connoisseurs (Marx: 45–49). At the same time, individuals recruited 249 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands as censors and coopted into the police system remained respected personalities in the literary, artistic, and research-academic spheres. Among the scholars that cooperated with the head censorship of- fice was the orientalist Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, but the role of censors was also performed by less distinguished men of letters (at least from today’s perspective). All found themselves in a conflict situation because the government authorized them to supervise the areas they themselves engaged in (cf. Bachleitner: 97–99). According ← FIG. 1 Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich as portrayed by Thom- as Lawrence, 1815. 250 MARKO JUVAN ▶ Censorship and the Literary Field to Wiesner, censors ranked the works they examined into categories by value (scholarly versus popular works, new insights, compilations, and so on) and they also decided on the suitability of their content. Hence, by playing the role of a “police tool” they could prevent books from being published due to their aesthetic preferences, even though the works did not violate any political, moral, or religious princi- ples. Regardless of their personal taste and critical capacity, they had great power as institutional actors (Wiesner: 225–226). In the process in which literary discourse gradually became autonomous and nation- ally profiled over the course of the long nineteenth century, censors influenced the value hierarchization of this discourse from the position of power, similar to literary critics in the literary field. Censors were shadows of literary critics. The panoptic structure of Austrian censorship, which was to en- sure unbiased control, was thus clearly also dependent on individuals. A censor’s judgment about which discourse-filtering category an in- dividual piece of writing should be included in was quite arbitrary, in part also because of the loose censorship norms. The interest of the state mixed with the censor’s personal interest. Even though censors embodied the transmission of imperial policy, they were also the agents of autonomous critical judgment. As actors esteemed in the public eye, they were involved in the development of literature, science, or any other area they controlled as officials on behalf of the state. Despite being part of a rigid procedure, they were able to exercise their personal power of judgment and influence. This paradoxical position was able to emerge based on the Enlightenment modernization of feudal soci- ety demanded from the absolutist sovereign by the global expansion of capitalism and industrial revolution. Censors, who indeed served as tools of the absolutist monarch, were usually learned experts that, 251 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 3 For the background of the alphabet and censorship wars between the Slavic specialist Jernej Kopitar and his former protégé Matija Čop and the poet France Prešer- en, see Žigon (1903: 89–122); for the devel- opment of the alphabet and censorship wars, see also Žigon (1926), Kidrič (1911; 1938: cclii– cclvi, cccviii–cccxix), Slodnjak (1984), Pater- nu (146–170, 232–242), and Pogačnik (1977: 110–117). Čop’s (and Prešeren’s) side in the dispute is presented in, for example, Čop (1983: 109–184), Slodnjak (1986: 167–173, 189–195, 186–188, 189–195, 239–245, 246–265, 271–276, 277–282), and Kos (144–170). thanks to the Habsburg education system, could even rise to important positions (in science, literature, philosophy, etc.) from a lower estate (e.g., Jernej Kopitar). the carnioLan censorshiP war anD the autonoMization of the Literary fieLD The censorship conflict over the poetry almanac Krajnska čbelica (The Carniolan Bee) has been examined in detail by Prešeren studies in Slo- venia, largely according to the pattern of the battle between the brilliant Slovenian poet France Prešeren and the narrow-mindedness of the censor Jernej Kopitar.3 Allegedly, Kopitar was offended because his protégé Matija Čop broke faith with him due to Prešeren and opposed Kopitar’s cultural plan in his homeland. According to Kopitar, the di- vided Slavs, especially those subordinate to the Austrian crown, should be brought closer together through the introduction of a uniform al- phabet. In 1825, Franc Serafin Metelko devised a Slovenian alphabet following Kopitar’s principles, which Prešeren satirically ridiculed (e.g., in his 1831 poem “Nova pisarija” [A New Alphabet]) and Čop re- jected with a polemic discussion in 1833 in the midst of the “Slovenian alphabet war.” At that time, Kopitar used his position of a censor in sla- vicis to thwart Čop’s and Prešeren’s more progressive Romantic concept of Slovenian literature. Kopitar proceeded from his Austro-Slavism program, which he modeled after Herder’s ideology of rural folk, folk literature, and folk languages as the foundations on which young na- tions should gradually build their own culture. In this culture, litera- ture should rely on folklore and be available to the simple rural folk; in addition, it should not be raised above other discourses. It was based on these ideas that, after the outbreak of the alphabet war, Kopitar 252 MARKO JUVAN ▶ Censorship and the Literary Field sought to block the publication of the fourth volume of Krajnska čbelica as a censor, and to ridicule the main actors of the Carniolan Romantic circle and devalue their publishing activity as a critic and cultural planner hidden inside the censor. In 1830, half a century after the Enlightenment Rococo poetry al- manac Pisanice (Belletristic Writings), Krajnska čbelica rekindled the attempts at a Slovenian literature. By publishing this Slovenian-lan- guage poetry almanac, Čop and Prešeren sought to attract the bilingual Carniolan educated readers as some sort of vanguards of the nationally conscious bourgeoisie into the philological and literary phase of the national movement. Accordingly, they opposed Kopitar’s idea that the pure language of peasants is the only suitable foundation of a standard language. Addressing the urban taste of the Bildungsbürgertum, they promoted Prešeren’s serious reflective poetry in the almanac against the backdrop of less complex versifications adapted to this target audience. FIG. 2 → Matija Čop as por- trayed by Matevž Lan- gus around 1830. 253 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 4 The reason for this is also that most of his censorship reports have clearly not been preserved in Vienna (cf. Kidrič 1911: 161; 1928: 183). Published so far have been Kopitar’s documents revealing his role as a censor in the oper- ation of Vuk Karadžić (Ivić: 178–281). 5 In 1819 and 1824, he was reprehend- ed for supporting Karadžić (cf. Ivić: 195–196, 222). They believed that Romantic, aesthetically autonomous Slovenian po- etry could offer the way for the emerging literature to internalize the universal aesthetic standards accumulated in world literature in its own language in an accelerated manner. In Čop’s and Prešeren’s version of European cultural nationalism, the ability of a vernacular language to transform into a literary language through aesthetic cultivation and reach the level of other cultivated languages is crowning proof of the quality of a peripheral or “non-historical” nation (cf. Juvan 2012: 250–276). Censorship studies conducted by scholars from Marx to Darnton and Bachleitner allow the relationship between Kopitar and Prešeren to be cast in a different light: in the censorship procedure surround- ing the publication of individual volumes of Krajnska čbelica, traces of critical judgments and divergent interests of two actors (Kopitar and Čop) involved in the autonomization and nationalization of the literary field in Carniola can be identified. Is individualization of an an- ti-Romantic censor ultimately not complementary with the Romantic individualization of a writer? Censorship remains a poorly studied area of Kopitar’s professional activity (Pogačnik 1977: 82).4 Kopitar served as an imperial censor in Vi- enna from September 7th, 1810 until his death. Initially, he was in charge of Slavic and Modern Greek literature, and later also Romanian texts. He followed the regulations (cf. Kranjc) and received remuneration for his work as a censor, but he also pursued his own goals, for which he was often admonished by his superiors.5 Even though he ironically called himself a “police agent” (Ivić: 265), his real agenda was different. By creating a network of students and colleagues, and establishing contacts with renowned European scholars, he sought to build a strong Slavic philology movement in the monarchy’s intellectual centers. 254 MARKO JUVAN ▶ Censorship and the Literary Field 6 Kopitar revealed his Slavic studies views and plans in works, such as Introduction to the Grammar (Kopi- tar 1808: iii–xlviii), The Mission of a Future Slav- ic Academy, the Patriotic Dreams of a Slav, and Autobiography (Kopitar 1977: 7–51, 67–86; 1857: 1–14, 34–39, 61–70). The recurrent theme is an apologia for the Slavs, who were gen- erally underestimated by German scholars (except for Schlözer, Herder, Humboldt, and Grimm—Ko- pitar’s authorities or correspondents). Through a combination of Slavic, Austrian, and Carniolan-Slo- venian patriotism, he attacked such prejudices, glorifying the demographic and cultural power of the Slavs and bemoaning the East–West Schism, which had torn the Slavs apart in terms of religion and alphabet. Because they had no nation-state, the Slavic peoples remained fragment- ed and pushed into a subordinate position together with their “di- alects.” Kopitar aimed to connect the Slavic peoples via a uniform alphabet (which would revive the key significance of Cyril and Methodius) and elevate them to the level of respected nations through Slavic philology, grammat- ically cultivating the vernaculars, educating people, modeling → He conceived of it as a parent institution that would coordinate the development of the Austrian Slavs’ national revivals at the theoret- ical, normative, and implementational level under his supervision and along the lines of Herderian cultural nationalism.6 In performing work as a censor, he followed his ideas of organizing the Slavic studies and literary life of those Austrian nations whose literature he was ordered to review. In the role of a censor, he persistently supported Vuk Karadžić’s efforts, but on the other hand he condemned the journal Letopis Matice Srpske (Annals of the Serbian Society) for sympathizing with Russia and glorifying Orthodoxy (Kernc). Publication of Kopi- tar’s reports would most likely “reveal the censor’s ideological, aes- thetic, cultural, political, and especially tactical moves through which he largely achieved what he wanted” (Pogačnik 1977: 83). Through his geopolitical interpretation of Karadžić’s philological and literary activ- ity, Kopitar sought to disable Karadžić’s (Serbian) opponents: he high- lighted the fact that, by cultivating Serbian as spoken by the common folk, Karadžić reduced the role of linguistically artificial Slavo-Serbian literature, thereby moving the Serbs away from Russian influence and bringing them closer to linguistically similar Catholic South Slavs subordinate to the Habsburg crown (cf. Ivić: 183–185, 198–201, 204, 223, 266, 268, 278–281). Kopitar had a reputation as a monstrum scientiarum (Pogačnik 1978: 172)—that is, an authoritative and polemic, yet unselfish, polyglot lin- guist that strove to culturally unite the national revivals of the Austrian Slavs following the example of the Greek city-states and their com- mon alphabet, and remove them from Russian influence (cf. Pogačnik 1977: 87–88; 1978: 61–63, 90; Vidmar 2018b: 387, 389–390). He sought to consolidate Vienna, where he worked as the curator of the imperial library, in the role of the capital of Slavic studies and Austro-Slavism. 255 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands → on rich folk litera- ture, and promoting Slavic cultures among renowned Euro- pean scholars. ← FIG. 3 Kopitar’s witty letter to Žiga Zois from 1810 describing his first assignment as a censor of Slavic books—the banning of a Czech religious work that “doesn’t deserve print” (“typum non meretur”). In devising his cultural plan, Kopitar—a former protégé of Sigmund Zois—had in mind the role of his native Carniola throughout. Through his Carantanian–Panonnian theory of the origin of Old Church Slavic, he sought to demonstrate the centrality of the Slovenian language in the broader Slavic environment. There are two Enlightenment or pre-Romantic ideologemes that distinguish Kopitar from the Romantic concept promoted in Carnio- la by Čop and Prešeren: that peasants were the uncorrupted bearers of a nation and its standard language, and that the South Slavs were 256 MARKO JUVAN ▶ Censorship and the Literary Field 7 Kopitar translated around two thou- sand poems from Karadžić’s collection, provided extensive commentary on them (Kopitar 1944–45: 3–127), sent his phil- ological translations to Jacob Grimm and Goethe, and later provided advice for the 1835 German translations by Therese Albertine Luise von Jacob (pen name Talvj; cf. Pogačnik 1977: 31–32). In one of his official letters, Kopitar referred to Karadžić as “the Illyrian Homer, Ossian, etc.” (Kopitar 1944–45: 127; cf. Ivić, 223–224). 8 Kopitar advocated Schiller’s naive poetry. Thus, for example, in 1819 he was thrilled by Václav Han- ka’s collection of Old Czech poetry (later identified as a forgery), in which he identified naturalness, authentic naivety, lyric grace, and epic grandness comparable to Homer and Ossian (Kopitar 1944–45: 143–147). 9 The description of the censorship war relies on the sources listed in Footnote 3. lagging behind in development. According to Kopitar, the Slavs made up for lagging behind “historical nations” with their childlike authen- ticity following the example of Homeric Greece. The cultivation (Bil- dung) process therefore had to begin among peasants and rely on their cultural tradition (Pogačnik 1977: 86–91; 1978: 89–90). Imbued with this ideology, Kopitar played the roles of a translator, reviewer, mediator, and promotor of Serbian folk poetry; he presented this in Wiener Jahr- bücher der Literatur (Vienna Annals of Literature) and caused Jacob Grimm and Goethe take interest in it.7 Goethe even used Serbian epic folk poetry as one of the bases for developing his idea of world litera- ture (Juvan 2012: 96–97, 113). Just like Goethe, Kopitar, who originated from Zois’s Enlightenment circle, also favored folk poetry, Greek and Roman classics, Classicism, and Ossianism, and he opposed German Romanticism (cf. Pogačnik 1977: 65–67, 102, 151–152). He interpreted the ideal of Classical Greece via pre-Romantic concepts of a natural folk genius. He disliked Prešeren’s Romanticism, which understood the model of Classical Antiquity differently. It perceived it as the basis for developing modern, self-reflective classics (following Schiller’s ty- pology of sentimental kind), historically open toward the intertextual backgrounds of ancient and modern world literature.8 In 1833, a public conflict developed between Kopitar’s and Čop’s cir- cles, escalating into the “alphabet war” and a background “censorship war” over the publication of the fourth volume of Krajnska čbelica (cf. Paternu: 232ff.).9 As an imperial censor in slavicis, Kopitar caused no problems with the first and second volumes of this almanac, even though it is clear from his correspondence that he regarded Prešeren, the main contributor, a poor, self-centered poet, and other contri- butions as not on par with (Serbian) folk poetry. Because he want- ed to draw Čop into his own Slavic plans and Čop, in turn, tried 257 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands to persuade him to treat attempts at Carniolan secular poetry favorably, Kopitar was initially indulgent toward Krajnska čbelica. He did not even deign to comment on Prešeren’s satire “Nova pisarija,” even though it ridiculed Matevž Ravnikar’s utilitarian-purist literary endeavors, Metelko’s reformed alphabet, and Kopitar’s own cultural program (Prešeren referred to it with the burlesque metaphor rovtarske Atene ‘hillbilly Athens’). However, in 1832 Kopitar used his Viennese authority to influence Čop, whom the Ljubljana Governorate charged with censoring the third volume of Krajnska čbelica. Čop counted on possible reactions from Kopitar and his supporters, and he pursued the interests of his own literary group in the interplay of forces within the emerging literary field while at the same time creating an impression of loyal objectivity in line with his duty as a censor. Even before submitting his affirmative censorship report on the third volume of the almanac, he thus convinced the disgruntled France Prešeren to withdraw his literary satires, including “Apel in čevljar” (Apelles and the Cobbler) which attacked Kopitar’s sense of aesthetics (Žigon 1926: 253–254). Čop used a similar tactic in 1833 as a censor of the fourth volume of Krajnska čbelica. He submitted a report with the verdict imprimatur omissis deletis to the Ljubljana Governorate, allowing the almanac to be printed under the condition that Prešeren’s lascivious adaptations of folk love poems be deleted, as well as his ballad “Ponočnjak” (The Carouser), which played ambiguously with Catholic sexual moralism. However, the Lju- bljana book reviewer Jurij Pavšek filed an official complaint, criticizing Čop for being unreliable and demanding the almanac be re-censored due to Prešeren’s inappropriate poems and the anti-church barbs in the translation of Gottfried August Bürger’s humorous ballad. The volume was thus sent to the head police-censorship office in Vienna and from 258 MARKO JUVAN ▶ Censorship and the Literary Field there to Kopitar, who got hold of Krajnska čbelica right at the outbreak of the alphabet war. In the newspaper supplement Illyrisches Blatt (Illyrian News), Čop published and commented on the translation of a review of Krajns- ka čbelica published in 1832 by the Romantic poet František Ladislav Čelakovský in Prague. Čop employed a well-known tactic to champion Krajnska čbelica and its main contributor, France Prešeren: he support- ed the still-emerging Slovenian literary initiative using the argument presented by an internationally renowned man of letters. In the Prague journal Časopis Českého museum (Journal of the Czech Museum), Čelak- ovský praised Prešeren and ironicized the Slovenian grammarians and FIG. 4 → The fourth vol- ume of Krajnska čbelica, 1833. 259 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 10 For more on Kopi- tar’s views on Prague as a competitor to Vienna, see Po- gačnik (1977: 36). Metelko, the alphabet reformer backed by Kopitar. At the same time, he patronizingly expressed the desire for Prague to become the center of Slavic reciprocity (cf. Juvan 2014). By praising Prešeren, ridicul- ing the Metelko alphabet, and disparaging Slovenian grammarians, Čelakovský undermined Kopitar’s renown as the Viennese patriarch of Slavic studies.10 Infuriated with Čelakovský and Čop’s polemics against the Me- telko alphabet, in April 1833 Kopitar wrote a short censorship report on Krajnska čbelica (cited in Kidrič 1928: 186) for Josef von Sedlnitzky, the head of the imperial police-censorship office at that time (Marx: 37–44). He began the report by expressing doubt in Čop’s opinion that the almanac was intended for educated bilingual or multilingual strata. With fake moralism, which would befit a provincial clerk rather than a Viennese cosmopolitan, he criticized the allegedly sensual poems and declared two of Prešeren’s romances “repulsive.” Just like the overly tense reviewer Jurij Pavšek, he believed a new translation of Bürg- er’s innocent “Der Kaiser und der Abt” (The Emperor and the Abbot) might upset the Carniolan clergy. Some other sections, such as parts of Prešeren’s “Glosa” (Gloss), might also come across as invectives in Carniola, which was up to the local censor to decide. Kopitar’s final judgment was that Krajnska čbelica had to be thoroughly corrected based on his comments and resubmitted to the local censor. Kopitar’s annotations in the revision copy of Krajnska čbelica re- flect condescending linguistic-stylistic, aesthetic, and moral judg- ments, which were not the censor’s prerogative (cf. Grafenauer: 32–70). In terms of their intention, these statements, along with the censorship report, constituted a destructive literary and linguistic criticism frag- mented into allusive glosses. By using them, Kopitar displayed him- self as an authority superior to the provincial almanac contributors, 260 MARKO JUVAN ▶ Censorship and the Literary Field 11 For example, Kopitar criticized the allegedly barbaric Sloveniza- tion of names from Classical Antiquity, the incorrect use of inflec- tions and other gram- matical mistakes, inaccurate citation of sources, paradoxes in the poems, hints at indecencies, and copying the popular author of trivial literature Heinrich Clauren, ironized Prešeren’s signature Dr. Preshern as a sign of vanity, claiming that even the Roman poet Ovid did not flaunt his doctoral title, and so on (Grafenauer: 32, 34, 35, 40, 41, 44). See also Slodnjak (1984: 129–130). provided them with patronizing advice, and ironically directed them onto the right path. Most of Kopitar’s Latin remarks included linguis- tic and stylistic edits, through which he showed off his Classical and philological erudition, and the dominance of cosmopolitan taste over the impoverished refinement of Prešeren and other Krajnska čbelica contributors.11 Among other things, Kopitar’s annotations ironized Prešeren, denied his talent as a poet, and reproached him with being immoral and poorly educated, bragging about his doctoral title, and overestimating himself. By attacking his rivals in the role of a censor, the Viennese scholar of European renown sought to enhance his di- minishing influence in Carniola, undermining the function of France Prešeren as a prominent literary actor. Prešeren’s symbolic capital be- gan to accumulate in the 1830s, especially thanks to Čelakovský’s praise, which gave him renown in the Slavic world. However, the Slavs were Kopitar’s area of interest, and he did not envisage Prešeren as a name that should become famous across Europe. In addition, in his review, Čelakovský not only elevated Prešeren to the level of the Slavic Parnas- sus, but also ridiculed Carniolan linguists in front of the Slavs as a whole and compromised Kopitar’s profile as a renowned Slavic specialist. After the Metelko alphabet was banned through an imperial decree, which meant that Kopitar’s side in the alphabet war had been defeated, the editor of Krajnska čbelica, Miha Kastelic, resubmitted the rejected volume of the almanac to the Ljubljana review office in January 1834. The accompanying letter, which Čop and Prešeren allegedly helped write, rejects all of Kopitar’s comments, undermining his authority be- fore the crown (cf. Kidrič 1938: cccxiv–cccxvi): it draws attention to the fact that Kopitar had overstepped his authority as a censor and taken on the role of a literary critic—and a biased one due to his involve- ment in the alphabet war, to boot. When the letter reached Sedlnitzky 261 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands in Vienna, together with the report from the local censor Andrej Goll- mayer, the imperial police and censorship office granted an imprimatur to the almanac, advising Kopitar to follow the established procedures in the future. After being defeated in the alphabet war, Kopitar thus also lost the censorship battle. The alphabet and censorship wars were local, but they had a wider context. Under Čop’s leadership, Kopitar’s compatriots did not follow his revival plan for the Slavic nations within the monarchy, which realistically backed the Slovenian-speaking rural class as the foun- dation for the gradual development of a nascent nation. Instead, Čop and Prešeren looked to the German concept of Romantic cosmopoli- tanism (advocated by the Schlegel brothers), for which, however, the audience and the social basis for accelerated literary development first had to be created in Carniola. Čop’s and Prešeren’s idealistic intent was to cultivate their native language and literature via world literature, and to utilize bilingual urban intellectuals as the basis for the emerging national community. Their idea was that by creating an autonomous literary field Slovenian literature would stop lagging behind on the periphery and catch up with more developed European environments in poetry. Kopitar’s realistic cultural concept reincarnated in the lit- erary program and practice of Fran Levstik may have initially proved more successful (Pogačnik 1977: 118–129), but it was Čop’s and Prešer- en’s idealistic concept that ultimately became canonized and defined the Slovenian national ideology (cf. Dović). ❦ 262 MARKO JUVAN ▶ Censorship and the Literary Field References Bachleitner, norBert, 2017: Die literarische Zensur in Österreich von 1751 bis 1848. Vienna: Böhlau. Čop, matija, 1833: Nuovo discacciamento di lettere inutili, Das ist: Slowenischer ABC-Krieg: Eine Beilage zum Illyr. Blatt. Ljubljana: Kleinmayr. Čop, matija, 1983: Pisma in spisi. Transl. Janko Moder, ed. Janko Kos. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. darnton, roBert, 2014: Censors at Work: How States Shaped Literature. London: British Library. doviĆ, marijan, 2017: Prešeren po Prešernu: kanonizacija nacionalnega pesnika in kulturnega svetnika. Ljubljana: LUD Literatura. Foucault, michel, 1981: The Order of Discourse. Trans. Ian McLeod. Untying the Text. Ed. Robert Young. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 51–78. Foucault, michel, 1979: What Is an Author? Textual Strategies. Ed. J. V. Harari. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 141–160. GraFenauer, ivan, 1911: Iz Kastelčeve zapuščine: Rokopisi Prešernovi, Kastelčevi in drugi. Ljubljana: Katoliška bukvarna. iviĆ, aleksa, 1926: Arhivska gradja o srpskim književnim i kulturnim radnicima: 1740–1880. Belgrade: Srpska kraljevska akademija. juvan, marko, 2012: Prešernovska struktura in svetovni literarni sistem. Ljubljana: LUD Literatura. juvan, marko, 2014: Kritika in prevod kot prostora medliterarnosti: Čop, Čelakovský in Prešeren. Recepcija slovenske književnosti. Ed. Alenka Žbogar. Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete. 183–189. 263 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands juvan, marko, 2018: Literatura kot politika. Literatura 30, 319–320. 98–123. kernc, eleonora, 2013: Kopitar, Jernej (1780–1844). Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: SAZU, ZRC SAZU, 2013. [https://www. slovenska-biografija.si/oseba/sbi287315]. kidriČ, France, 1911: Iz prvih časov slovenske umetne pesmi. Veda 1, 2. 155–168. kidriČ, France, 1928: Dvoje Čopovih pisem Kopitarju, rokopisna ocena Čbelice IV iz 1834 in drugo. Časopis za slovenski jezik, književnost in zgodovino 7, 1–4. 173–194. kidriČ, France, 1938: Prešéren: 1800–1838: Življenje pesnika in pesmi. Ljubljana: Tiskovna zadruga. kopitar, jernej, 1808: Grammatik der Slavischen Sprache in Krain, Kärnten und Steyermark. Ljubljana: Korn. kopitar, jernej, 1857: Barth. Kopitars kleinere Schriften sprachwissenschaftlichen, geschichtlichen, ethnographischen und rechtshistorischen Inhalts, 1. Ed. Franz Miklosich. Vienna: Beck. kopitar, jernej, 1944–45: Jerneja Kopitarja spisov II. del: Srednja doba, doba sodelovanja v “Jahrbücher der Literatur”: 1818–1834. Ed. Rajko Nahtigal. Ljubljana: SAZU. kopitar, jernej, 1977: Jernej Kopitar, Matija Čop: Izbrano delo. Trans. Janko Moder, ed. Janko Kos. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. kos, janko, 1979: Matija Čop. Ljubljana: Partizanska knjiga. kranjc, janez, 1996: Cenzurni predpisi, veljavni za Kopitarja kot cenzorja. Kopitarjev zbornik. Ed. Jože Toporišič. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 523–534. marX, julius, 1959: Die österreichische Zensur im Vormärz. Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik. 264 MARKO JUVAN ▶ Censorship and the Literary Field paternu, Boris, 1976: France Prešeren in njegovo pesniško delo 1. Ljubljana: Mladinska knjiga. plato, 2003–06: The Republic. Trans. Paul Shorey. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. poGaČnik, jože, 1977: Jernej Kopitar. Ljubljana: Partizanska knjiga. poGaČnik, jože, 1978: Bartholomäus Kopitar: Leben und Werk. Munich: Trofenik. slodnjak, anton, 1984: Kranjska čbelica. Anton Slodnjak: France Prešeren. Ed. France Bernik. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. 100–143. slodnjak, anton, 1986: Pisma Matija Čopa 1. Trans. Anton Slodnjak, Breda Slodnjak. Ljubljana: SAZU. toporiŠiČ, jože, 1981: Kopitar – Prešeren – Čop. Obdobje romantike v slovenskem jeziku, književnosti in kulturi. Ed. Boris Paternu. Ljubljana: Filozofska fakulteta. 389–408. vidmar, luka, 2018a: Avtorji in bralci prepovedanih knjig na Slovenskem v zgodnjem novem veku: Libri prohibiti iz zbirke Narodne in univerzitetne knjižnice. In vendar so jih brali: Prepovedane knjige na Slovenskem v zgodnjem novem veku iz zbirke Narodne in univerzitetne knjižnice. Ed. Urša Kocjan. Ljubljana: NUK. 9–59. vidmar, luka, 2018b: Kopitar, Jernej. Encyclopedia of Romantic Nationalism in Europe 1. Ed. Joep Leerssen. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 387–391. Wiesner, adolph, 1847: Denkwürdigkeiten der Oesterreichischen Zensur vom Zeitalter der Reformazion bis auf die Gegenwart. Stuttgart: Adolph Krabbe. žiGon, avGust, 1903: Nekoliko stvari izpod Čopovega in Prešernovega peresa. Zbornik znanstvenih in poučnih spisov 5. Ljubljana: Slovenska matica. 89–154. 265 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands žiGon, avGust, 1926: Krajnska Zhbeliza v cenzuri. Dom in svet 39, 1–4. 154–159, 215–221, 251–254, 281–286. žiGon, avGust, 1930: Prispevek o dobi (K Zhbelizi IV.: 1833). Dom in svet 43, 9–10. 304–308. 266 MARKO JUVAN ▶ Censorship and the Literary Field Povzetek Slovenski literarni zgodovinarji so razpravljali o delovanju avstrij- ske državne cenzure na Kranjskem v predmarčni dobi prek sheme konflikta med genialnim narodnim pesnikom Francetom Prešernom in moralistično provincialnimi predstavniki posvetne in cerkvene oblasti. Namesto da bi tej pripovedi dodajal nadaljnje variacije, si pri- čujoči članek vzame za izhodišče paradoks habsburškega cenzorja. Ta je po eni strani orodje imperialnega nadzora mišljenja, a obenem izobražen, usposobljen strokovnjak, ki nastopa kot senca modernega literarnega kritika. Cenzura je javni diskurz ne le filtrirala, temveč tudi strokovno in/ali estetsko vrednotila in z vsiljevanjem svojih hie- rarhij literarnih del, tem, stilov ali zvrsti poskušala estetsko vzgajati občinstvo, pisateljem pa oblikovati avtorsko funkcijo. V obdobju Metternichovega absolutizma, sicer zloglasnega zara- di policijske represije, je institucija cenzorja doživela neko nehote- no, a pomembno spremembo: postala je individualizirana, opirala se je na cenzorjevo subjektivno estetsko presojo ter na njegov simbolni kapital in trenutna razmerja moči na literarnem polju. Primer tega je cenzura pesniškega almanaha Krajnska čbelica, ki sta jo opravila Matija Čop in Jernej Kopitar v tridesetih letih 19. stoletja. Na Kopi- tarjevo cenzuro sta vplivala njegov razsvetljensko-predromantič- ni literarni okus in izjemna filološka erudicija, še bolj pa njegova avstro-slovanska in herderjevska strategija narodnega preporoda Slovanov, ki je estetski in individualistični visoki literaturi namenila le podrejeno vlogo. Tako je Kopitarjevo kulturno načrtovanje sredi t. i. slovenske abecedne vojne prišlo navzkriž s Prešernovim in Čo- povim romantičnim univerzalizmom, ki je povzdignil pomen poe- zije za zgodnje nacionalno gibanje. Kopitarjeva cenzura predstavlja 267 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands individualizacijo antiromantične cenzure kot protiutež romantični individualizaciji pisatelja. Marko Juvan Marko Juvan is a senior researcher at the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies and a professor of literary theory at the Uni- versity of Ljubljana. His recent publications on genre theory, intertextuality, literary geography, Slovenian Romanticism, and world literature include History and Poetics of Intertextuality (2008), Literary Studies in Re- construction (2011), Prešernovska struktura in svetovni literarni system (The Prešeren Structure and the World Literary System, 2012), Hibridni žanri (Hybrid Genres, 2017), and Worlding a Peripheral Literature (2019). ❦ Marijan Dović ▶ marijan.dovic@zrc-sazu.si Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 Slovenska literatura in cesarska cenzura po letu 1848 SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal ISSN 1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online) VOLUME 26 (2021/I), pp. 268–295 DOI 10.13137/2283-5482/32517 269 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands slovenian literature, haBsBurG monarchY, 1848–1914, censorship, laWsuits aGainst the press, andrej einspieler, Fran levstik, jakoB aleŠovec, janez trdina, ivan cankar slovenska literatura, haBsBurŠka monarhija, 1848–1914, cenzura, tiskovne pravde, andrej einspieler, Fran levstik, jakoB aleŠovec, janez trdina, ivan cankar This article examines how Slovenian writers, dramatists, journalists, and publishers dealt with the post-1848 censorship in the Habsburg Monarchy. In contrast to the preventive censor- ship characteristic of the pre-March period, the retroactive (post-publica- tion) censorship that prevailed after the suppressed 1848 revolution used a different modus operandi: relying on a network of prosecutors and courts, it controlled print in retrospect, often seizing print runs, launch- ing lawsuits against the press, and imposing heavy fines. This analysis focuses on the cases of the Carinthi- an publisher Andrej Einspieler, the prosecution of nationalist literati in Ljubljana (Fran Levstik, Miroslav Vilhar, Jakob Alešovec, and Janez Trdina), the imprisonment of authors and publishers, and, finally, the notable case of Ivan Cankar. Razprava raziskuje, kako so se slo- venski pisatelji, pesniki, dramatiki, novinarji in založniki soočali s cenzuro v Habsburški monarhiji po letu 1848. V nasprotju s preventivno cenzuro, značilno za predmarčno obdobje, je retroaktivna cenzura, ki je prevlada- la po zatrti revoluciji leta 1848, ubirala drugačne poti: zanašala se je na mrežo tožilcev in sodišč, tisk pa je nadzoro- vala za nazaj, pogosto zasegla naklade, sprožala tiskovne pravde in nalagala visoke globe. V analizi je poudarek namenjen primerom koroškega založ- nika Andreja Einspielerja, preganjanju nacionalističnih literatov v Ljubljani (Fran Levstik, Miroslav Vilhar, Jakob Alešovec, Janez Trdina) in zapira- nju avtorjev in založnikov, na koncu pa je podrobneje preučen zanimiv primer Ivana Cankarja. 270 MARIJAN DOVIĆ ▶ Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 The revolutionary year of 1848 was an important watershed in the de- velopment of censorship practices in the Habsburg Monarchy. In some- what generalized terms, it could be said that this period saw a transition from the predominant preventive (pre-publication) censorship, which characterized the first century of secularized imperial censorship, to ret- roactive (post-publishing) censorship, which largely marked (naturally with many special features) the period leading to the First World War and the monarchy’s dissolution. If the seemingly complex censorship regime (changes in legislation; differences between books, periodicals, and theater; and local special features) during the pre-March period is observed from a distance, it can be conceived as a relatively compact unit.1 The secular control network established during this time was characterized by the follow- ing: pre-publication censorship (control before the text was printed), centralization (the head office in Vienna and a network of provincial offices), comprehensiveness (in principle, censorship covered all types of printed material: not only books and magazines, but also pamphlets, illustrations, and even shop signs and tombstones), restrictiveness (espe- cially the licensing system, which distinctly disfavored Slavic-language periodicals), economic constraints (newspaper taxes or stamp duties and security deposits), and severe penalties. These characteristics certain- ly belong in the domain of repressive state control and represent the fundamental role of the censorship institution: the “watchdog” of the regime, its monarchic and ecclesiastical elite, social order, public morale, and so on. Nonetheless, it cannot be overlooked that during that time censorship performed at least one more function: in the spirit of the Enlightenment, it was also conceived as the guarantor of quality and professionalism. This dimension was reflected in the proactive work of censors (improving texts, similarly to how reviewers and editors 1 Cf. Bachleitner (12–13). See also Bachleit- ner’s and Juvan’s arti- cles in this issue. 271 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands of research texts do so today) and with greater forbearance toward in- novative scholarly works.2 The post-revolution period saw notable changes in this area. This ar- ticle examines how Slovenian men of letters (writers, poets, playwrights, journalists, publicists, printers, publishers, and theater directors), who had previously dealt with imperial censorship in the (predictable) en- vironment of preventive censorship (Dović: 244–262), coped with these changes. The retroactive censorship measures enforced through the repressive judicial apparatus often proved to be even harsher: publish- ers were heavily fined or forced to discontinue periodicals, and ardent nationalist authors, such as Fran Levstik, were persecuted, with Miro- slav Vilhar and some other editors even ending up in prison. Besides nationalism and liberalism, however, leftist (anarchist, socialist, and communist) ideas and associations became another increasingly mo- mentous problem of the regime; to suppress them, a full spectrum of the repressive apparatus was engaged.3 The overview concludes with the notorious case of Ivan Cankar, a ma- jor Slovenian author of the period, suspicious for his overt socialist ten- dencies, who not only saw his poetry collection Erotika (Eroticism) burned by Ljubljana Bishop Anton Bonaventura Jeglič at the turn of the twentieth century, but whose career was heavily affected by state censorship in 1910, when the staging of his play Hlapci (Servants) was prohibited. suPPresseD revoLution anD retroactive censorshiP after 1848 During the March Revolution, a white flag with the inscription Preßfreiheit 1780 ‘1780 freedom of the press’ was raised below the statue of Joseph II at Josefsplatz (Joseph Square) in Vienna. The bronze monarch’s successor 2 Cf. Darnton’s analysis of French censorship before the revolution (23–86). As Bachleitner argues in this issue, this aspect of censor- ship, which was based on Enlightenment concepts, became less important after the French Revolution. 3 In contrast to many other European coun- tries, this tendency seems less relevant for Slovenia from the viewpoint of cen- sorship. However, the notorious 1884 trial against France Železnikar (cf. Fischer 1983: 163–169) or Rudolf Golouh’s accounts of the leftist press in Trieste after 1905 (Golouh 1966) indicate that this question requires further research. 272 MARIJAN DOVIĆ ▶ Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 at that time, Emperor Ferdinand I, was forced to declare the abolition of (pre-publication) censorship, and despised Minister of Police Josef von Sedlnitzky had to leave office. In an instant, this triggered an incredible explosion and liberalization of the press. However, the revolution was brutally suppressed that same year (cf. Judson). In 1849, a new press law was adopted, which abolished pre-publication censorship for printed materials (but not theater); however, it remained essentially repres- sive. The role of censorship offices was assumed by the institution of the state prosecutor and the judicial apparatus, and preventive censorship was replaced by retroactive censorship. Bans were replaced by confis- cations, and the threat of criminal sanctions hovered over authors, ed- itors, publishers, printers, and even sellers. The threatened sanctions, which were also often in fact imposed and enforced, were severe: they FIG. 1 → White flag with the inscription “Preß- freiheit 1780” below the statue of Joseph II in Vienna during the 1848 revolution. 273 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands included large fines, imprisonment, and the loss of office and other priv- ileges (Cvirn: 18–31). Just like in the first half of the century, censorship legislation and practices continued to change between 1848 and 1914, and therefore the censorship landscape of that time was not completely uniform. The 1850s were characterized by a stricter policy that threw newspapers back into a pre-publication censorship regime. Jury courts were introduced, but their organization and role continued to change; in addition, the authori- ties also interfered with the media system’s dynamics through a proactive policy (i.e., systematic establishment of pro-regime mouthpieces). How- ever, even after the thawing of relations and the liberalization in the early 1860s (e.g., the press law of 1862), the effectiveness of control was ensured by a well-founded fear of severe sanctions, the principle of simultaneous liability, which extended criminal sanctions from authors and editors down the production and distribution chain, and uncertain judicial inter- pretation of the law. A loose definition of “libel and slander” and “breach of the peace” was what may well have kept periodicals—at least the ones that actually managed to break through the barrier of nettlesome security deposits—on a short leash more effectively than preventive censorship. The result of this landscape of fear was also significant uniformity, especially in the political media. These were the circumstances in which the Slovenian writers and pub- lishers laying the foundations of modern national literary culture operated. the nationaL MoveMent in carinthia: anDrej einsPieLer, stimmen aus innerösterreich, anD slOvenec As shown by the cases selected, Slovenian writers’ major encounters with retroactive censorship in the second half of the nineteenth century 274 MARIJAN DOVIĆ ▶ Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 can be categorized under nationalism. Starting in the early 1860s, the impetus that the Slovenian national movement (by then already fully articulated in the United Slovenia program) gained during the revolu- tion continued to be hindered by the reality of the monarchy’s repres- sive apparatus. The first major censorship intervention was recorded in Carinthia, where the Slovenian priest, publisher, and ethnic leader Andrej Einspieler had been publishing the German-language news- paper Stimmen aus Innerösterreich (Voices from Inner Austria) since 1861; this was “the first periodical that represented Slovenian interests among the Austrian public” (Pirjevec). The trial against Einspieler, who was also a provincial deputy, had a distinctly political connotation because it was the direct result of Einspieler’s consistent advocacy of the equality of Slovenian: “Because of his editorial comments on the letter by the priest Simon Muden from Windisch Bleiberg regarding the operations of the Carinthian provincial assembly, on April 22nd, 1863 the Klagenfurt court sentenced him to a month’s imprisonment for inciting ethnic hatred; in addition, he had to forfeit his security deposit of sixty guldens and pay the legal expenses, and he was removed from the provincial deputy’s office” (Cvirn: 33). The sanctions imposed were extremely severe: the “father of the Carinthian Slovenians” ended up behind bars at the Maria Luggau mon- astery prison, his term as a provincial deputy was revoked, and he had to pay a substantial fine. The blow Einspieler suffered was so heavy that on May 1st, 1863 he discontinued the newspaper, which at that time was already being published as a daily. The relentless nationalist refused to give up: he returned to the Kla- genfurt newspaper arena two years later and began publishing the Slo- venian newspaper Slovenec (The Slovenian, 1865–1867). However, during the year that also saw the establishment of Austria-Hungary, several 275 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands press lawsuits were brought against him due to his newspaper’s oppo- sition to dualism, revelations of government pressures on Carinthian Slovenians, and so on. Nationalism was especially problematic: even the Carniolan (sic!) provincial governor complained to the authorities in Graz that Slovenec promoted “ultra-Slovenian” hatred against the German cultural element. The paper’s editor Janko Božič was initial- ly sentenced to two months of strict imprisonment, but he was later granted a pardon. However, the strong (German) pressure on the Kla- genfurt printer Ferdinand Kleinmayr, who refused to print Slovenec any longer, ultimately forced Einspieler to halt the project (Cvirn: 33–37). Hence, it could be argued that the censorship pressure ruthless- ly suppressed Slovenian media life in Carinthia. Within the broad- er context, such developments were not really special: suppressing national(ist) media became one of the priorities of Austrian censor- ship up until the monarchy’s dissolution. The rebellious Czech media were attacked the most. According to Janez Cvirn, in 1899 the number of police interventions in the monarchy reached its inglorious peak: as many as 3,408 confiscations of newspapers were recorded, with writers, editors, and publishers constantly ending up behind bars (Cvirn: 40–41; Olechowski). fran Levstik, MirosLav viLhar, anD the LjubLjana nationaList newsPaPers The first major censorship scandal took place in Ljubljana at approxi- mately the same time as the Carinthian trial against Einspieler’s Stim- men. It was triggered by the newspaper Naprej (Forward), which was published by Miroslav Vilhar and edited by the Slovenian writer Fran Levstik, who was also its main contributor. In the early 1860s, the FIG. 2 ↑ Front page of Ein- spieler’s Klagenfurt newspaper Stimmen aus Innerösterre- ich (1861–1863). 276 MARIJAN DOVIĆ ▶ Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 conditions for publishing a political newspaper were still unfavorable because both the Ljubljana chief of police, Leopold Bezdek, and the provincial governor Karl Ullepitsch strongly disfavored the Slovenian press. Nonetheless, on September 23rd, 1862 the state minister Anton von Schmerling approved Vilhar’s request to publish a political news- paper. Under Levstik’s fervent hand, Naprej operated in a nationalist spirit, advocating ethnic rights and the equal use of Slovenian in offices, churches, and schools. It remained under police scrutiny throughout, and already during the first year of its publication it became seriously entangled in two lengthy press lawsuits. The first was triggered by the article “Misli o sedanjih mednarodnih mejah” (Thoughts on the Cur- rent Ethnic Borders) published in February 1863 (nos. 14–16) in the form of an anonymous letter from Carinthia. Its author still remains FIG. 3 → Front page of the newspaper Naprej, which was published by Miroslav Vilhar and edited by Fran Levstik; the front page of the issue of February 20th, 1863 also features the article on ethnic borders. 277 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands unknown today because Vilhar refused to reveal his name during the trial; for example, Anton Slodnjak even assumed the letter was written by Einspieler, but Levstik’s name also came up among the possible authors (or at least coauthors). The problematic nature of this article of course lay in its main thesis that “the current ethnic borders must be changed and interlinguistic border stones—that is, border stones between peoples that speak different languages—must be installed” (Levstik 1959: 41; see also 354–365). This was a politically radical the- sis: in the spirit of the nationalist premise that territorial and ethnic borders should coincide, Naprej explicitly demanded “that the hostile networks of obsolete ethnic borders be removed from Slovenians and interlinguistic borders be established instead” (Levstik 1959: 43). The second text that ended up in the pincers of the Ljubljana judicial apparatus was Levstik’s article “Kaj se nekterim zdi ravnopravnost?” (How Is Equality Perceived by Some?) published in May 1863 (no. 42). What was problematic about it was definitely its acerbically articulated demand for using Slovenian in official correspondence. However, the trial did not focus directly on the article’s content, but involved a libel and slander lawsuit—that is, a typical defamation lawsuit between a journalist and a (political) notable: specifically, the district governor Johann Pajk recognized himself in the article and felt personally in- sulted. Vilhar and Levstik were initially found guilty, but the lawyer and later Ljubljana mayor Etbin H. Costa ultimately saved them from being sentenced (Levstik 1959: 100–102, 364–366). The first lawsuit involving the article on “ethnic borders” had a dif- ferent outcome: Vilhar and the head of the Eger print shop, Anton Klein, were charged with a breach of the peace. The printer was acquitted of all charges, whereas the publisher of the newspaper Naprej was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment and had to pay a substantial fine 278 MARIJAN DOVIĆ ▶ Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 (forfeiting a security deposit of three hundred guldens). Vilhar’s appeal was unsuccessful: he had to serve his sentence at the Žabjak prison in Ljubljana over the summer of 1864 and, just like Einspieler before him, he was removed from the office of provincial deputy. Vilhar may have been able to compensate for this severe blow at least at the sym- bolic level: he portrayed his martyrdom for the national cause in a pho- to that soon became iconic. Namely, a photo featuring Vilhar behind bars was taken by the traveling photographer Ferdinand Bognar, who at that time was being held at Žabjak for forging banknotes. The wife of an imprisoned officer smuggled the photos from the prison to France Kadilnik, the owner of the reading club’s tavern, who then sold them under the counter for the “national cause.” The entire matter ended in a grotesque manner: the police confiscated the photos because the photographer’s name was not provided on the back, and in December 1864 Vilhar, the officer’s wife, and Kadilnik were even given minor fines (Levstik 1959: 324–344). In 1865, Vilhar published the poetry collection Žabjanke in Zagreb. In it, he rationalized his painful experience as a prisoner. In the quat- rain “V mirni hiši” (In a Peaceful House), he also predicted that in (pris- on) cell number seven there will surely be “no deputy or editor” (Vilhar: 26). He could not have been more mistaken. The next unwilling guest took up residence at Žabjak thanks to the unyielding Fran Levstik: his article “Unsere Deutsch-Liberalen” (Our German Liberals) published in the German-language newspaper Triglav on June 6th, 1868 caused its editor Peter Grasselli to spend five weeks behind bars (Levstik 1961: 44–51, 251–258). Only a few months later, Levstik wrote the feisty ar- ticle “Tujčeva peta” (The Foreigner’s Heel) in the newly established main Slovenian political newspaper Slovenski narod (Slovenian Nation; September 22nd, 1868), thanks to which its editor Anton Tomšič ended 279 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands up in court. Tomšič was able to avoid imprisonment (albeit barely) using skillful defense rhetoric, but he was heavily fined (Levstik 1961: 34–39, 469–480). Interestingly enough, the author of Martin Krpan and Popotovanje od Litije do Čateža (A Journey from Litija to Čatež), and undoubtedly the central figure of censorship conflicts in Carniola during the 1860s, was never imprisoned himself. In his incriminated article “The Foreign- er’s Heel,” Levstik wrote the following, among other things: “A horrible furor teutonicus has always raged against us, as it still does whenever it feels we want to be the masters in our own house” (Levstik 1961: 35). Press lawsuits against Slovenian periodicals may have in fact formally ← FIG. 4 AND 5 Photo of Miroslav Vilhar behind bars at the Žabjak prison in Ljubljana taken by Ferdinand Bognar (1864) and the introductory poem from Vilhar’s “prison” poetry collection Žabjanke (1865). 280 MARIJAN DOVIĆ ▶ Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 addressed “breaches of the peace” or libel and slander, but the trial records are clearly imbued with a different primary motivation: the authorities’ fear of the growing power of national movements. In this regard, the censorship operations during that time can also be legiti- mately viewed through the lens of Levstik’s line of argument. jakob aLešovec anD the annoying brencelj During the 1870s, the satirical illustrated newspaper Brencelj (The Gad- fly; published between 1869 and 1875, and again between 1877 and 1885) seemed to have been involved in press-related conflicts most persis- tently. Its owner, publisher, and main contributor was Jakob Alešovec, a pioneer of Slovenian “sensational journalism” or yellow press. This newspaper’s merciless and stinging articles consistently targeted Ger- manophiles and Germans. Because of its caricatures, it was subject to regular court confiscations.4 The most controversial case was the bizarre “dog lawsuit” of 1871. A Slovenian (with the last name Križaj) struck the dog of a German tailor named Riester because it charged toward his own dog. Alešovec’s cynical comment on the affair in his article “Pes in sodnik ali kako se je gospod Čuček spekel” (The Dog and the Judge, or How Mr. Čuček Got Burned”) led to the confiscation of the fourteenth issue of Brencelj. The polemic continued by Alešovec straightforwardly attacking the court clerk, named Čuček. He criticized him for displaying ethnic bias in adjudicating on the dispute between the two dog owners (“It matters whether you hit a Slovenian’s or Ger- manophile’s dog”), called him a Germanophile that betrayed his na- tion because his career as a judge was more important to him (“also changes his mind together with his job and attire”), finally concluding 4 As Goldstein (72–112) has amply demon- strated, censorship of newspaper carica- tures was one of the major battlefields for freedom of speech in nineteenth- century Europe. 281 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands that “nobody can respect a judge that makes a ridiculous decision” (Globočnik: 177). In contrast to Levstik’s accuser Pajk—who could have barely found any support for a successful defamation lawsuit in the incriminated article “How Is Equality Perceived by Some?”—in this case the court clerk had grounds to feel insulted. The trial before a jury ended with Alešovec being sentenced to two months’ imprisonment at Žabjak, starting on October 6th, 1872. The mischievous editor also published a caricature in Brencelj portraying two guards pushing him into the Žab- jak prison, while Riester and his “mutt” are watching and commenting on the scene gleefully from the side. Just like Vilhar, Alešovec converted his experience into literary discourse: he wrote a satirical poem enti- tled “Risterjev pes” (Riester’s Dog), in which he piled up Germanized administrative jargonisms in a farcical manner. He furnished it with thirteen excellent caricatures and published it in the booklet Ričet iz Žabjeka (Clinkers from Žabjak, 1873), together with other material on his imprisonment. Alešovec continued his forced battles with cen- sorship, causing Brencelj to be confiscated over and over again. Every time it was confiscated, he would publish the same caricature: two guards carrying the confiscated copies out of his office, with the person- ified “Gadfly” watching them helplessly (Globočnik: 175–180; Alešovec). Even though it may seem from a distance that the stories described have a somewhat comic connotation, it needs to be taken into account that whoever fell victim to censorship during that time certainly had no reason to laugh: imprisonment is a radical and extremely intimate encroachment on an individual’s life and social profile. It was especially editors that ended up behind bars due to retroactive censorship en- forced through the judicial apparatus. In addition to those mentioned above (Einspieler, Vilhar, Grasselli, and Alešovec), Ante Beg, the editor 282 MARIJAN DOVIĆ ▶ Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 of the Celje newspaper Domovina, was also sent to jail in 1900, and the threat of imprisonment hovered over Anton Tomšič, Gašpar Martelanc, the editor of the satirical newspaper Jurij s pušo (George with a Gun), and even Anton Korošec. After 1848, the focus of retroactive censorship clearly moved toward political newspapers, and one of its pressing objectives was to protect the monarchy against disintegration along nationalist lines. In this form, censorship was losing its role as a quality guarantor, which it played during the pre-March period to a certain extent, and it only continued to be a repressive body of the regime. The high fines strength- ened the fear, which already abundantly fed self-censorship during the pre-March period, and uncertainty extended from authors and editors FIG. 6 AND 7 → Cover of Alešovec’s booklet Ričet iz Žabjeka (1875) and illustration from the satirical poem “Risterjev pes” published in it, showing two guards confiscat- ing the latest issue of Brencelj; the illustra- tion became the symbol of Alešovec’s constant conflict with censorship. 283 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands all the way to printers and colporteurs. Such an environment was ex- tremely challenging especially for political newspapers, which were subject to constant confiscations. Josip Jurčič, the editor of Slovenski narod at that time, thus commented in the mid-1870s that he would have almost preferred the return of pre-publication censorship: [The Saturday issue of Slovenski narod] was again confiscated, this time because of its opening article “Borba Jugoslovanstva” (The Battle for the Yugoslav Cause). — The Sunday issue of Slovenski narod was also confiscated by the state prosecutor because of the letters from Cerknica and Split, and because of two short items in the war reports section. — Such freedom of the press is unbearable, may censorship return, we would prefer that! The sections that were not confiscated were reprinted today, which is why the news and telegraphs are de- layed. (Jurčič: 6) janez trDina’s taLes, the Lower carnioLan “tax coLLector,” anD the vienna ParLiaMent In the 1890s, somewhat different (not journalism, but literary) con- flicts were triggered by Janez Trdina. Trdina is a canonized Sloveni- an writer today, but during his time he was considered just another radically nationalist enfant terrible. In 1881, Trdina, a forcibly retired high-school teacher, began publishing his Bajke in povesti o Gorjancih (Tales and Stories of the Gorjanci Hills) in the newspaper Ljubljan- ski zvon (The Ljubljana Bell), which was edited by Fran Levec. Trdina incorporated increasingly more current events clad in folklore into these tales. Thus in 1883, he severely attacked the icon of Carniolan 284 MARIJAN DOVIĆ ▶ Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 German identity in his famous story “Kresna noč” (Midsummer Night), which was published serially: he branded the late nobleman and poet Anton Auersperg a merciless feudalist and “the most oppressive tax collector” (Sln. kmetoder), who used liberal poetic flummery to conceal his twisted nature. His literarized anti-German and anti-Germano- phile political endeavors soon triggered the first attacks against him and Levec, especially in the German press. Later, accusations against him grew increasingly stronger because Trdina’s anticlericalism also troubled the Slovenian clergy. Thus, in December 1886, under the hand of its catechist Josip Marinko, the Novo Mesto high school prohibited its students from reading Ljubljanski zvon—of course precisely be- cause of the writings of their fellow town resident, Trdina. In March 1887, Trdina’s literarized memoirs caused the first major scandal. Due to alleged vulgarities in his column “Hrvaški spomini” (Croatian Mem- oirs) in the newspaper Slovan (The Slav), Josip Marn launched a severe clerical attack against the two publishers of the newspaper, which was edited by Anton Trstenjak. Ivan Hribar and Ivan Tavčar ultimately backed down, and the newspaper was discontinued. Meanwhile, the situation with Trdina’s tales also started becoming increasingly complicated. The accumulated discontent extended be- yond Carniola: on May 9th, 1887 the lawyer and deputy Moritz Weitlof opened a discussion on the (Slovenian) school system in the Vienna parliament. He argued that the Germans in Carniola suffered great in- justice and hostility, primarily citing Trdina’s passages from Ljubljanski zvon as proof. The matter would not die away because severe attacks by the German press on Levec’s newspaper continued in 1888. Levec found himself in a difficult situation: he had applied for the position of a school inspector, which was vital for his livelihood (and for which he needed political approval), while at the same time he was exposed 285 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands to tiring and continuous attacks from the Slovenian clergy. Therefore, he himself began to softly “censor” Trdina’s publications: in July 1888 he published his last tale, entitled “Kocaneža,” even though Trdina would have gladly supplied more texts to him. Ultimately, Levec was appointed a school inspector, but already in January 1889 he was summoned to the Carniolan provincial president to defend himself as the editor of Ljubljanski zvon. On March 23rd, the matter was again discussed in the Vienna parliament: this time the campaign was initiated by (Carinthian) Baron Armand von Dumre- icher with the support of German nationalists, whereby Dumreicher again used, as Logar commented, “false quotes from Trdina’s tales” to prove his case (Trdina 1955: 378). In the parliamentary discussion of March 26th, Dumreicher was presented with well-grounded coun- terarguments by the Slovenian deputy Fran Šuklje, who had success- fully opposed the attacks two years earlier. Nonetheless, another blow from the Slovenian community followed soon afterward: on April 20th, ← FIG. 8 AND 9 Moritz Weitlof and Armand von Dumre- icher: the two Austrian deputies that brought the issue of Sloveni- an nationalism and Trdina’s tales to the state parliamentary level in 1887 and 1889. 286 MARIJAN DOVIĆ ▶ Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 5 Cf. Janez Logar’s com- ment in Trdina (1954: 366–377; 1955: 367–382). Anton Mahnič launched a serious attack against Trdina and Levec in the newspaper Rimski katolik (The Roman Catholic), abundantly citing the immoral passages from Trdina’s tales. Moreover, on April 24th, Levec was attacked by Josip Marinko in the newspaper Slovenec (The Slove- nian); Marinko was appalled by the fact that the editor of a scandalous newspaper could perform the function of a school inspector. Levec had most likely had enough of the blows coming from both the German liberal and Slovenian clerical press. Even though no ex- plicit censorship interventions were actually made in Trdina’s case, the end of the story speaks for itself: Trdina stopped publishing his works for a full fourteen years, and the talented Fran Levec stopped editing Ljubljanski zvon in 1890 once and for all.5 ivan cankar: froM burneD erOtika to banneD staging of hlapci Cankar’s Erotika (Eroticism) may well occupy an emblematic place in the emergence of the so-called Slovenian moderna at the end of the nineteenth century: not so much because it was its most remarkable product, but because its publication brought about a reception scandal. Cankar’s poetic debut was published at the end of March 1899 in one thousand copies by the Ljubljana printer and publisher Otomar Bam- berg. Immediately after the poetry collection was published, Ljubljana Bishop Anton Bonaventura Jeglič had all the available copies (allegedly around seven hundred) purchased and burned. By April 9th, 1899, Cankar had written a letter to his brother Karel, describing the en- tire affair as a “disgrace” and “medieval stupidity” (Cankar 1967: 257). It soon became clear to him that the bishop was unable to effectively eradicate the poems or remove them from the public, and that he might 287 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 6 However, the strength of less formalized modes of censorship in general should not be underestimated— as was experienced, for example, by Can- kar’s friend Zofka Kve- der, a pioneer feminist writer. Her literary debut, the short-story collection Misterij žene (The Mystery of a Woman, 1900) was unanimously bashed by both conservative and liberal press (cf. Mihurko Poniž). have actually done him a favor. Cankar was protected by copyright law and there was a provision in the contract he concluded with Bamberg specifying that the author would again have the rights to his poems if a sold-out edition was not reprinted by the same publisher within three years. The ambitious young writer was certainly able to make good use of the unexpected publicity from his burned work and the harsh polemic between the clericals and liberals; of course, the latter readily seized the opportunity to make fun of the “inquisitional” men- tality of their opponents. Thus, Cankar soon began preparations for a reprinted edition of his now notorious poetry collection. In the summer of 1901, he nego- tiated the reprint of Erotika with the publisher Narodna Tiskarna as well as with Bamberg. However, because the original publisher demanded that Cankar exclude the “incriminated” poems, the poet ultimately opted for Lavoslav Schwentner and obtained reprinting rights from Bamberg. Cankar managed to come out of this confronta- tion unbowed: on August 21st, 1901 he wrote the following in a letter to his, from then onward, loyal publisher Schwentner: “But all those [poems] that the bishop considered scandalous shall remain” (Can- kar 1968: 273). The bishop’s notorious intervention cannot really be described as censorship in the strict sense because there was no longer a re- pressive state apparatus standing behind it.6 In this story, Jeglič comes across as more of a censorship caricature or a castrated censor without real executive power than an omnipotent inquisitor. However, that does not mean official imperial censorship was no longer a threat in the early twentieth century. Cankar was able to experience its full power in theater: most painfully at the end of 1909, when he was preparing his play Hlapci (Servants) for staging and printing. Schwentner printed 288 MARIJAN DOVIĆ ▶ Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 7 The legislation itself was based on the ten- dency to restrict the access of the uneducat- ed to the “threatening” theater, which can be traced to the late eighteenth-century ideas by Sonnenfels and Hägelin (cf. Bachleitner: 239–244). 8 As Robert Justin Gold- stein has demonstrated in a brilliant compara- tive analysis, limiting the access of the lower classes (the poor in general and workers in particular) to potentially harmful ideas was a major con- cern of virtually every censorship system in Europe throughout the nineteenth centu- ry; thus, remarkable attention to theatre, opera, caricature, and later film comes as no surprise (Gold- stein: 196–199). 9 Cf. Ugrinović: 70–87; analyzed are the official documents in bundles 5–9 from the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia. the play without any problems because (pre-publication) book cen- sorship had no longer been in place since 1848, whereas in theater the situation was completely different: there effective censorship before and during staging was in place until the monarchy’s dissolution. Its practice was based on the outdated Bach theater order (Theaterordnung) of 1850;7 this greatly hindered the development of Slovenian theater in the second half of the nineteenth century and influenced which plays were staged well into the twentieth century.8 The Archives of the Republic of Slovenia do not contain a detailed re- cord of the censorship of Cankar’s Hlapci, but the early-twentieth-cen- tury censorship practice can be reconstructed from other cases, such as the prohibited staging of the play Tugomer.9 A closer look at bu- reaucratic documents reveals that the censorship procedures were conducted by the police department at the provincial presidency (the clerk Wratschko), which (also) issued decisions based on two external expert reviews. With regard to Cankar’s Hlapci, only an opinion by An- ton Funtek written in German has been preserved; in it the reviewer is appalled by the anticlerical tendentiousness and immorality of the play. Unfortunately, no records have been preserved in relation to the famous sixty-two problematic sections mentioned in the Cankar’s fol- lowing cynical “account”: Award offered. I have been informed that the government censorship has accused sixty-two paragraphs in my play Hlapci of posing a threat to public peace and order. I will pay one imperial gold ducat to whoever accurately marks these sixty-two paragraphs for me. The censorship office and its advisory council are not eligible. Ljubljana, January 20th, 1910 (Cankar 1969: 152) 289 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Cankar’s expectations that he would already see Hlapci on stage in Ljubljana in December 1909 thus came to naught. The provincial government procrastinated its decision and even sent the play for assessment to the Vienna government censorship advisory council. Cankar actively fought for his play to be staged; he even announced a public reading at the town hall and tried to facilitate the play’s staging in Trieste. Following the censorship advisory council’s recommenda- tion, he removed the text from the procedure himself, so that its stag- ing was only prohibited in Carniola. However, the playwright’s bold attempts to stage the play in Trieste or even at the famous Prague Na- tional Theater fell through. Hlapci was only staged in 1919, after its author had already died and the monarchy in which it was created had been dissolved. *** The cases discussed above elucidate the diverse practical implications of post-1848 imperial censorship regulation as experienced first-hand by Slovenian writers, playwrights, editors, and publishers. On the one hand, they demonstrate that the transition from the preventive censor- ship paradigm to the predominantly retroactive one—during that time these two paradigms dominated the practices of literally all continental censorship systems—triggered important changes in the patterns (and quantity) of media and literary production, but on the other hand it did not significantly change the atmosphere of control. In the new environment, the connection to the function of ensuring quality, which to a certain extent was typical of the pre-publication censorship re- gime (especially its early Enlightenment “paternalist” stage), no longer applied. Retroactive censorship primarily remained a repressive 290 MARIJAN DOVIĆ ▶ Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 government mechanism to subdue any kind of opposition (especially nationalist, but also socialist), and its focus on individual punishment only increased fear and further stimulated self-censorship. ❦ 291 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands References aleŠovec, jakoB, 1873: Ričet iz Žabjeka, kuhan v dveh mesecih in zabeljen s pasjo mastjo. Ljubljana: author. Bachleitner, norBert, 2017: Die literarische Zensur in Österreich von 1751 bis 1848. Vienna: Böhlau. cankar, ivan, 1967: Zbrano delo 1. Ed. France Bernik. Ljubljana: DZS. cankar, ivan, 1968: Zbrano delo 2. Ed. France Bernik. Ljubljana: DZS. cankar, ivan, 1969: Zbrano delo 5. Ed. Dušan Moravec. Ljubljana: DZS. cvirn, janez, 2010: “Naj se vrne cenzura, ljubša bi nam bila”: Avstrijsko tiskovno pravo in slovensko časopisje (1848–1914). Cenzurirano: Zgodovina cenzure na Slovenskem od 19. stoletja do danes. Ed. Mateja Režek. Ljubljana: Nova revija. 13–44. darnton, roBert, 2014: Censors at Work: How States Shaped Literature. London: British Library. doviĆ, marijan, 2020: Slovenski literati in cesarska cenzura: izbrani primeri iz 19. stoletja. Cenzura na Slovenskem od protireformacije do predmarčne dobe. Ed. Luka Vidmar. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. 243–286. Fischer, jasna, 1984: “Čas vesolniga socialnega punta se bliža”: Socialna in politična zgodovina delavskega gibanja v Ljubljani od začetkov do leta 1889. Ljubljana: ZSMS. GloBoČnik, damir, 1999: Nekaj slovenskih karikatur in nekaj gradiva o cenzuri 1869–1941. Zgodovinski časopis 53, 2. 169–194. 292 MARIJAN DOVIĆ ▶ Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 Goldstein, roBert justin, 1989: Political Censorship of the Arts and the Press in Nineteenth-Century Europe. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Golouh, rudolF, 1966: Pol stoletja spominov: panorama političnih bojev slovenskega naroda. Ljubljana: Inštitut za zgodovino delavskega gibanja. judson, pieter m., 2016: The Habsburg Empire: A New History. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard UP. jurČiČ, josip, 1875: Domače stvari. Slovenski narod 8, 208. September 14. 6. levstik, Fran, 1959: Zbrano delo 8. Ed. Anton Slodnjak. Ljubljana: DZS. levstik, Fran, 1961: Zbrano delo 9. Ed. Anton Slodnjak. Ljubljana: DZS. mihurko poniž, katja, 2003: Drzno drugačna: Zofka Kveder in podobe ženskosti. Ljubljana: Delta. olechoWski, thomas: Die Entwicklung des Preßrechts in Österreich bis 1918: Ein Beitrag zur österreichischen Medienrechtsgeschichte. Vienna: Manz. pirjevec, avGust, 2013: Einspieler, Andrej (1813–1888). Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: SAZU, ZRC SAZU. [http://www.slovenska- biografija.si/oseba/sbi179691] trdina, janez, 1954: Zbrano delo 6. Ed. Janez Logar. Ljubljana: DZS. trdina, janez, 1955: Zbrano delo 7. Ed. Janez Logar. Ljubljana: DZS. uGrinoviĆ, ana, 2001: Cenzura in prepoved gledališča: Diplomska naloga. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani. vilhar, miroslav, 1865: Žabjanke. Zagreb: Miroslav Vilhar. 293 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Povzetek Od sredine 18. stoletja do prve svetovne vojne se je cenzura tudi v hab- sburški monarhiji trdno vzpostavila kot osrednje orodje sekularizira- nega državnega nadzora nad tiskano, a tudi govorjeno besedo. Marčna revolucija v tem razvoju zaznamuje pomembno prelomnico: medtem ko do marčne revolucije leta 1848 prevladuje preventivna (pred)cenzura, drugo polovico obravnavanega obdobja obvladuje zlasti retroaktivna (po)cenzura. S cesarsko cenzuro so se nenehno srečevali tudi slovenski »možje peresa«: pisatelji, pesniki, dramatiki, novinarji, publicisti, tiskarji, založniki in gledališčniki. Medtem ko so se v predmarčnem obdobju ta srečevanja odvijala še v polju razmeroma predvidljive preventivne cenzure (od Linharta, ki se leta 1791 pritožuje nad cenzorskimi črtanji v Versuch einer Geschichte, do sodelavcev Krajnske čbelice, ki duhovito preigravajo cenzurna pravila, Prešeren pa zaradi Miklošičevega posega iz svojih Poezij umakne »Zdravljico«), so bili trki s cenzuro po (zadu- šeni) marčni revoluciji bistveno drugačne narave. Retroaktivna cen- zura, ki se je pretežno uveljavila po letu 1848, je namreč izbrala nov modus operandi: naslonjena na mrežo tožilcev in sodišč je nadzirala tisk za nazaj, pogosto plenila naklade, sprožala tiskovne pravde ter avtorjem, urednikom, založnikom in tiskarjem nalagala visoke globe. Kot kaže analiza izbranih značilnih primerov, so v praksi takšni mehanizmi že v 60. letih 19. stoletja prisilili koroškega založnika An- dreja Einspielerja, da je opustil dva časopisna projekta (Stimmen aus Innerösterreich, Slovenec). Sodni aparat je preganjal tudi nacionalistične literate v Ljubljani (Fran Levstik, Miroslav Vilhar in Jakob Alešovec), kar je včasih privedlo celo do zapornih kazni (Einspieler, Vilhar, Alešo- vec, Peter Grasselli idr.). A kot se je mogoče prepričati iz primera Janeza 294 MARIJAN DOVIĆ ▶ Slovenian Literature and Imperial Censorship after 1848 Trdine, je cenzura lahko ubrala tudi manj eksplicitne poti. Pregled sklene primer Ivana Cankarja, ki je s svojim pesniškega prvencem Erotika (1899) izzval ljubljanskega škofa Antona B. Jegliča, da je kupil in požgal večino izvodov prvega natisa. A medtem ko na prelomu stole- tja glavni predstavnik lokalne Cerkve vendarle ni več mogel preprečiti pojavitve problematičnih pesmi v javnosti, je uradna cesarska cenzura Cankarja (na gledališkem področju je predcenzura ostala v veljavi) močno prizadela s prepovedjo drame Hlapci (1910). Provokativno delo avtorja, ki je bil oblasti sumljiv zaradi socialističnih nazorov, ni moglo priti na oder vse do leta 1919, ko sta bila mrtva tako njegov pisec kot tudi monarhija, ki je prepovedala njegovo uprizoritev. Cenzura je torej tudi v pomarčni dobi pomembno določala območje sprejemljivega in dovoljenega v medijskem in literarnem sistemu. Med- tem ko je predrevolucionarna cenzura ob varovanju političnega režima (dvora, države in Cerkve) do neke mere delovala tudi kot nadzornik kakovosti publikacij, je v drugi polovici vse bolj postajala represivno sredstvo za ustrahovanje in dušenje politične opozicije in za omejevanje nacionalističnih tendenc v večnacionalni monarhiji. 295 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Marijan Dović Marijan Dović is an associate professor and senior research fellow at the ZRC SAZU Institute of Slovenian Literature and Literary Studies (Ljublja- na). In addition to writing four books in Slovenian, he recently published National Poets, Cultural Saints: Canonization and Commemorative Cults of Writers in Europe (Brill, 2017, with Jón Karl Helgason). He has coedited thematic volumes on literature and censorship, publishing, book history, the spatial turn in literary studies, and literature and music. His major publications in English address Romanticism, European cultural na- tionalism, national poets and “cultural saints,” the literary canon, systems theory, the interwar avant-garde in the Balkans, and the theory of au- thorship. He is the editor-in-chief of the comparative literature journal Primerjalna književnost (2016–) and a coeditor of the book series Studia litteraria (2018–). ❦ urška Perenič ▶ urska.perenic@ff.uni-lj.si Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana (1891–1904) Literarna cenzura in Dramatično društvo v Ljubljani (1891–1904) SLAVICA TERGESTINA European Slavic Studies Journal ISSN 1592-0291 (print) & 2283-5482 (online) VOLUME 26 (2021/I), pp. 296–322 DOI 10.13137/2283-5482/32519 297 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands dramatic societY, provincial presidencY oF carniola, censorship materials, slovenian theater, ivan tavČar, anton trstenjak, karel BleiWeis- trsteniŠki, Fran milČinski, micro-historical approach dramatiČno druŠtvo, deželno predsedstvo za kranjsko, cenzurni dokumenti, slovensko GledaliŠČe, ivan tavČar, anton trstenjak, karel BleiWeis trsteniŠki, Fran milČinski st., mikrozGodovinski pristop This article examines documentary materials of the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana from the period between 1891/92 and 1903/04 that are held in the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia. The approach is informed by Ginz- burg’s micro-historical method, which suggests reading documents “against the grain” and underlines the impor- tance of materials’ differing prove- nance. Two types of documents are included in the censorship materials, which were created by individuals in subordinate roles and by those in government structures. One type is requests from the Dramatic Soci- ety to stage plays in Slovenian, and the other is grants of permission for productions from the Provincial Presi- dency of Carniola, which was in charge of theater censorship. An analysis reveals that at the beginning of the twentieth century the censorship apparatus’s power had not yet waned, but in fact had increased, and the time of depoliticized censorship had not yet arrived. Prispevek obravnava dokumentar- no gradivo Dramatičnega društva v Ljubljani, ki ga hrani Arhiv Re- publike Slovenije in je nastalo med leti 1891/1892 in 1903/1904. Pristop se navdihuje pri Ginzburgovi mi- krozgodovinski metodi, ki predlaga branje dokumentov »proti namenu« in opozarja na upoštevanje različnih provenienc gradiva. Cenzurno gradivo namreč zajema dve vrsti dokumentov, ki so jih ustvarjali posamezniki iz po- drejenih plasti in iz oblastnih struktur. Eno so prošnje za podelitev koncesij za prirejanje predstav v slovenščini s strani Dramatičnega društva, drugo so dovoljenja za uprizarjanje s strani Deželnega predsedstva za Kranjsko, ki je vodilo cenzuro dramsko-gledališ- ke dejavnosti. Analiza cenzurnih virov pokaže, da na prehodu iz 19. stoletja v 20. stoletje moč cenzurnega aparata še vedno ni slabela, ampak se je morda celo okrepila, in da čas za depolitizacijo cenzure še ni napočil. 298 URŠKA PERENIČ ▶ Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana Theater censorship—which was quite unsystematic until the mid-eight- eenth century, largely having to do with only individual bans—be- gan to be centralized under Maria Theresa and Joseph II (from 1750 to 1790), which went hand in hand with the school system reforms. This also increased control over theater performances in the Austrian lands. Because of the impact that plays had on the audience, the rul- er—who acted as a sort of moral guardian (among other things, she was interested in the proper lifestyle of actors)—refused to apply the same censorship criteria to plays as for printed books. The main figure of theater reform and censorship during the Enlightenment was the university professor Joseph von Sonnenfels, who was among Maria Theresa’s main planners and advisors.1 Thus in 1770, theater censorship was introduced (independently of book censorship). Franz Karl Hägelin served as the theater censor between 1770 and 1804. He decided on the suitability of plays for staging, ensuring that nothing that could offend the ruling elite appeared on the monarchy’s stages (Bachleitner 2010: 71–75; 2017: 41–93). In the decades that followed, the status of the theater in the abso- lutist monarchy did not change significantly. Due to the power of the censorship apparatus, Bachleitner defines the monarchy of Francis I (1792–1835) and Ferdinand I (1835–1848) as a police state. Absolutist rule grew stronger after Napoleon’s defeat, and the “alertness” of the state apparatus in Austria was further enhanced after the French July Revolution of 1830, which led to an intensified conservative policy. Against this backdrop, censorship was politicized, increasingly turning into an instrument of oppressing undesired (political) ideas. It was discontinued for a short while in 1848, until the adoption of the Bach Theaterordnung ‘theater order’ in 1850 (Bachleitner 2010: 75–91; 2017: 93–146). Alongside minor amendments, this order also served as the 1 See also Štih, Simoniti, and Vodopivec (2008). 299 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands main basis for literary censorship in Slovenia, which directed and controlled the Slovenian theater in the pre-March period until the dissolution of the monarchy. A pioneer achievement in research on theater censorship in Slovenia during the last decades of Austria-Hungary was Ana Ugrinović’s bach- elor’s thesis Cenzura in prepoved gledališča (Censorship and the Theater Ban; AGRFT, 2001). Most interesting for this article is the third part of her thesis (46ff.), which contains a historical overview, and its sub- sections, 8, 9, and 10 (64ff.), which cover the pre-March period until 1900. Ugrinović made an inventory of the “evidence material” from the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia; specifically, she lists Bundles 5, 6,2 7, 8, and 9, which she believes are key to studying theater censor- ship in Slovenia (Ugrinović 2001: 70). She then focuses on a detailed examination of Bundle 9, which contains licensing clauses for staging plays covering the period from 1906 to 1914, and she presents in detail selected plays and their journey onto the stage (including Jurčič and Levstik’s Tugomer). At the end of the thesis, she appends a few doc- uments that she refers to in the main text and serve as illustrations. This article focuses on different, somewhat earlier documentary material from the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia that to date has not been examined in detail nor analyzed using a micro-historical approach (see especially Ginzburg 2006, 2010). Through close reading of a narrowly delineated segment of historical sources, this article explores the asymmetric communication between the Dramatic Socie- ty’s committee and the Provincial Presidency of Carniola (Deželno pred- sedstvo za Kranjsko), which carried out literary censorship of plays staged by this first Slovenian theater. The article also identifies certain less well-known aspects of the Dramatic Society’s operations and sheds new light on those already known through “reading against the grain,” 2 She states that Bundle 6 contains licenses from 1894 onward, but licenses already slightly older than that can be found in it. These are discussed in this article—that is, licenses from 1891/92 onward. 300 URŠKA PERENIČ ▶ Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana especially regarding information from the same segment of censor- ship sources that were created by the members of the Dramatic So- ciety and, in this sense, leave a historical trace (e.g., the names of the leading figures within the society, individual pieces of information on staging plays, and data from financial reports). The Dramatic Society was established in Ljubljana in 1867, but its foundations extend back to the mid-nineteenth century (1848– 1851),3 when various political and cultural societies were active (in- cluding the Slovenian Society in Ljubljana), and the 1860s, when national reading societies flourished in Slovenia. Within the context of reading societies and their evening social events as their predom- inant feature, drama and theater activity was becoming increasingly prominent (for more details, see Perenič 2012). The capacity of the reading societies was soon exceeded, and this stimulated amateur but ambitious drama enthusiasts to establish their own professional organization, which from 1867 to 1892 paved the way for the Ljubljana Provincial Theater (and later the National Theater, established in 1918). Based on the findings to date about the history of the Slovenian theater and its long journey from an amateur theater (performances under the aegis of national reading societies) via a semi-professional theater (the establishment of the Dramatic Society as the first stage of the Slovenian theater’s professionalization)4 to a relatively highly professionalized theater in 1892 (a special milestone was achieved when the society moved onto the stage of the Provincial Theater), and the preserved censorship documents, theater censorship—which re- lied on the notorious 1850 Theaterordnung—only began to be seriously enforced (as late as) the “watershed” year of 1892. This implies that the performances—especially those held by reading societies as part of their evening social events as well as by the later Dramatic Society, 3 Before the era of the reading societies, similar societies, which also existed in Trieste, Gorizia, Graz, Klagenfurt, and Vienna, not only promoted the reading, collection, preserva- tion, and distribution of newspapers and books, but also culti- vated dramatic and theater activities and staging performances for the purposes of the societies (Perenič 2010: 185–205; 2012: 365). 4 For example, in 1869 the society established a drama class or school. 301 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands which, for nearly a quarter of a century, staged plays in a leased read- ing society hall, making them semi-public—were primarily conceived as a nationally affirmative and nationally agitational activity, whereas this could hardly be considered a form of organizing a Slovenian theater.5 In other words, with restored parliamentary life during the constitutional period, which was introduced by the February Patent after the October Diploma, societies (including reading societies) had to adhere to the laws governing them. These required that, when a society was established, its bylaws (only) had to be submitted to the responsible district governor’s office, which suggests that requests to stage individual plays were also sent to this office. Hence the as- sumption that these societies and consequently the first Slovenian theater, which used “society” in its name, were exempt from the rules and provisions of the Theaterordnung and theater censorship, which were only able to control the Slovenian theater from 1892 onward, when suitable (legal) bases (the Dramatic Society acquiring a perma- nent building and ultimately changing its name to “theater”) were created for it. Therefore, limiting the research material to the period from 1891/92 to 1903/04 was not a coincidence. In 1892, the Dramatic Soci- ety moved its performances from the reading society’s premises onto the stage of the newly founded Provincial Theater, which also meant a more expedient organization, a permanent stage and ensemble, and so on. This further accelerated its professionalization. The year 1903 is relevant because it was then that, especially through a decree by Prime Minister Ernest von Koerber, the first measures indicating a relaxation of the still strict theater censorship were adopted. The batch of censorship materials examined, dating to the period in which the Theaterordnung began to be clearly enforced, includes 5 Filip Kalan writes along similar lines, comparing the Sloveni- an and Croatian theat- er activity in the 1860s; the latter was already considerably profes- sionalized, whereas within the Slovenian context the profession- alization process took considerably longer, also because of the marked ethnic and agitational purposes of the performances (1980: 457). 302 URŠKA PERENIČ ▶ Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana requests from the Ljubljana Dramatic Society and the permissions granted for productions, together with censorship instructions, from the Provincial Presidency of Carniola (Landespräsidium für Krain), which are held by the Archives of the Republic of Slovenia in Boxes 165 and 1666 (Bundles 5 and 6). They also contain various other documents issued by the censorship office, forms, and records on banned plays.7 The first document in the archival censorship materials analyz- ed is a request by the Dramatic Society to be granted permission for staging plays in Slovenian in the 1891/92 season. At that time, these plays were still performed at the seat of the Ljubljana national reading society, which from 1862 to 1892 was located in the house of the Souvan family on what was then Schellenburg Street (today’s Slovenia Street, FIG. 1 → An 1891 request from the Ljubljana Dramatic Society addressed to the Provincial Presidency of Carniola to be granted permis- sion to stage plays in Slovenian in the Ljubljana reading society’s hall at the Souvan home during the 1891/92 season. 6 SI AS 16, Box 165. 7 Censorship materials are also stored in Boxes 167, 168a, 168b, and 169. Due to their volume and different content, they must be examined separately. It should be mentioned that the scope of the research material also had to be reduced due to the epidemic, which prevented access to all the material. 303 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Slovenska cesta) in Ljubljana (Andrejka 2013), which served as an im- portant meeting place for Slovenian cultural figures.8 The request was signed by Ivan Tavčar, a lawyer in Ljubljana and the society’s chair from 1886 to 1902 (Boršnik 2013), and Anton Trstenjak,9 a publicist and theater historian, who served as the society’s secretary from 1884 to 1886 and again from 1889 to 1893 (Koblar 2013b). Both Trstenjak and Tavčar were (co)founders, members, and supporters of several other national institutions (e.g., the Ljubljana reading society, the Sokol gym- nastics society, the writers’ club, and the Slovenian Society), in which representatives of “Old” and “Young Slovenians” (i.e., conservatives and liberals) were actively involved, working to develop the national culture. A great cooperative spirit born out of subordination to the ← FIG. 2 Permission from the Provincial Presiden- cy of Carniola for staging plays from September 1891 to the end of March 1892; a copy was also sent to Ljubljana Mayor Peter Grasselli. 8 Franz Xaver Souvan also converted an ad- dition to his house into a bowling alley, cafe, and dance hall (ibid.), which means that the reading society was at the heart of social life. 9 His main work is Slovensko gledališče (Slovenian Theater, 1892) published for the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Dramatic Society. 304 URŠKA PERENIČ ▶ Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana provincial government on the one hand and efforts to fulfill national interests on the other is also testified to by the censorship sources examined, which helped mitigate the (political and worldview) op- positions between the two camps.10 The subordination to the censorship office mentioned above left a strong imprint in the documents. In its requests, the society addresses the provincial presidency with expressions revealing respect, polite- ness, loyalty, and seemingly exaggerated, yet most likely conventional submission (e.g., “the undersigned most loyal society” and “conde- scend”), which, on the one hand, can be attributed to the type of doc- ument addressed to an official body, whereas, on the other hand, the carefully selected words indicate the applicants’ dependence on the “generosity” of the provincial president working with the state admin- istration. The provincial presidency approved the society’s committee request of September 29th, 1891 for the running theater season, which was to last until March 31st, 1892.11 It issued permission that, according to the standard procedure, was sent to the Ljubljana town hall; Peter Grasselli was the mayor at that time.12 When the above, relatively modestly formulated written permission by the provincial presidency sent to the “famous [Dramatic Society] committee, allowing it to stage Slovenian plays at the hall of the Lju- bljana reading society”13 is compared with later permissions, it can be determined that the later ones are much stricter in their wording, more extensive, and, first and foremost, more precise, citing, nearly in entirety, the Theaterordnung, censorship instructions, major orders by the provincial presidency, and relevant regulations of the state and town police. This makes the hierarchical superiority of the presidency, defined through its responsibility for theater censorship, even more evident. For example, such are the permissions for the 1892/93 and 10 These were published primarily as part of the more liberal political orientation of the Young Slovenian faction, especially with regard to the development of news- papers, and voting for the December Constitution, whereas in broader national life the relations between the two camps were cooperative. 11 It is evident from the documents that theater seasons lasted seven months, from September to the end of March. 12 Grasselli was the first ethnically conscious Slovenian mayor; he was on the Dramatic Society’s committee and also served as the society’s chair and vice-chair during the first years of its operation (Uredništ- vo SBL 2013). 13 SI AS 16, Box 165: permission for the 1891/92 season. 305 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands 1893/94 seasons.14 The stricter legal wording can most definitely also be attributed to the fact that from then onward the Dramatic Society staged plays at the Provincial Theater, which could seat a larger audi- ence (than the reading society’s hall). This meant that this audience could no longer be as “unified” and hence, from the censors’ viewpoint, it had a greater potential for dissent. Here it should be added that the representatives of the German theater also had to obtain permissions for staging German plays at the Provincial Theater in the same way. A lucky coincidence led to the discovery of two applications by German theater directors in the batch of documents examined: the first one was written in 1898 by Franz Schlesinger (director from 1897 to 1899) and the other in 1900 by Berthold Wolf (1900–1909).15 Thus, in the permissions granted to the Dramatic Society for two consecutive seasons the presidency first draws the “famous” commit- tee’s attention to (a) the provisions of the Theaterordnung of November 25th, 1850 and then separately to (b) the orders by the provincial pres- idency of October 28th, 1882. Regarding the first point above, the two Slovenian permissions cite the decree issued by the interior ministry on November 25th and published in the official gazette of the Austrian Empire on November 30th, 1850. This decree introduced the theater regulations known as the Theaterordnung.16 According to Norbert Bachleitner, the 1850 regula- tions did not differ much from those that had been in force before. In fact, most pre-1848 regulations continued to apply for all the prov- inces because the motives for censors’ interventions practically had not changed over time. Production had to be controlled throughout and always approved in advance. The documentation shows that in fact the clerks had to first approve an individual season, and, over the course of the season, the applicants or theaters had to send the original text 14 SI AS 16, Box 165: permissions for the 1892/93 and 1893/94 seasons. 15 The Provincial Theater used a two-tier system, in which the Slovenian and German theaters shared the stage until 1911, when the German theater obtained its own building. For comparison and more on the (co)operation of the German and Slovenian theaters at the Provincial Theat- er, which from 1894 sought to divide the evening performances between themselves as equally as possible, see Sandra Jen- ko (2017: 52). 16 “The order from the interior ministry of November 25th, 1850,” which set out the “theater regulations,” was published in Dežel- ni zakonik in vladni list za kranjsko kronovino (Provincial Code and Government Gazette for the Crownland of Carniola). 306 URŠKA PERENIČ ▶ Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana on which an individual performance was based to the censorship com- mittee at least three days before the performance. The main guidance in censorship practice continued to be the 1795 memorandum by Franz Karl Hägelin, who served as a theater censor between 1770 and 1804, deciding on the “aesthetic quality” and “suitability” of works.17 The only change was connected with the power of control over theaters, which from then on was in the hands of provincial governors in agreement with the advisory committee. However, when this committee was dis- solved in 1881, this power was returned to the police (Bachleitner 2010: 74, 91–92, 101). This is also reflected in the material examined here. The nine articles of the theater order,18 which directed the (pro- gram) operations of the Dramatic Society, specified the following: plays FIG. 3 → First page of the decree implementing the Theaterordnung, with three of the nine articles on obtain- ing permissions for staging plays and the rights arising from these permissions. 17 See Bachleitner’s arti- cle in this issue. 18 Cf. Ugri- nović (2001: 64). 307 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands could only be staged in premises designated for this activity and with previously obtained permission; permissions for individual plays could exceptionally be granted by the district or town governor (or even the head of the police); permission applied to the specific applicant (e.g., society) only, and new permission did not have to be obtained for plays that had already been performed with prior permission in a crown- land’s capital (meaning that they could be performed in theaters of other towns within that same crownland). In addition, the regulations also covered the method of staging, with an emphasis on the set, props, and actors’ costumes, which were not allowed to include anything that was considered publicly immoral. Special emphasis was placed on safety, which was to be provided for by special guards during the play. The Theaterordnung, signed by Bach in his own hand, concluded with an ar- ticle setting out sanctions for violations, which included a fine (from fifty to five hundred guldens) and imprisonment (up to three months). The provisions’ restrictiveness indicates a tendency to maintain control over the drama and theater culture or prevent any dissidence that might have threatened public peace and order and national security. It can be established that the Theaterordnung continued to govern the status and program orientation of national theater cultures as late as the end of the nineteenth century (cf. Batušić et al. 2017). As argued by Ana Ugri- nović, the turn of the century “unfortunately failed to constitute, in any form, a turn or break in censorship” (2001: 69), which controlled the increasingly professionalized Slovenian theater, as well as the German theater. The Theaterordnung continued to apply well into the twentieth century (Bachleitner 2010: 101), with certain provisions also remaining in force in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Regarding the second point above (the orders by the provincial presidency), a different type of references in the permissions granted 308 URŠKA PERENIČ ▶ Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana to the Dramatic Society covered the 1882 orders by the presidency or, specifically, the police and fire safety regulations.19 Key among the police regulations are the surveillance provisions, according to which the society had to pay two guldens and seventy kreuzers for surveil- lance services and reserve two seats for the state police and one seat for the town police in the theater hall. The amount of the surveillance fee remained the same over the course of the ten years covered by the research material,20 which also applies to all the other provisions. What an important limitation the censorship regulations consti- tuted for the Society’s operations can be gathered by examining fur- ther censorship materials or, specifically, the committee’s request for a license in early September 1894. The applicants were aware of their FIG. 4 → Permission from the provincial presidency for the 1893/94 theater season, with referenc- es to the police and fire safety regulations, and the Theaterordnung. 19 Drawing attention to the fire safety regulations, which would be interesting to examine in terms of technical standards and capacities, certain- ly also reflects the fear and discomfort related to the experience with the fierce fire of February 1887 that destroyed the Theater of the Estates. 20 The fee only changed after the First World War (Ugri- nović 2001: 71). 309 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands position in relation to the provincial office as the center of power; hence, for example, they mention that it “goes without saying” that the police, theater, and fire safety order, and especially the laws govern- ing societies and the press, must be adhered to, adding that they had already reserved two stall seats for the Austro-Hungarian government surveillance officers. By inspecting this document closely, a careful reader interested in literary history can also notice an increased genre diversity in the society’s repertoire. The request to obtain permission for the given season namely announced that several types of plays and operas would be staged (i.e., tragedies, dramas, comedies, farces, burlesques, mu- sicals, operettas, and even a ballet).21 In addition to Tavčar, the re- quest was signed by the fairly or completely unknown Josip Lokar from Vega Street (Vegova ulica) in Ljubljana, who took responsibili- ty for the Dramatic Society’s performances. The 1900 census reveals that Lokar was a landowner and innkeeper born in 1851 and residing ← FIG. 5 Request from the Dramatic Society for the 1894/95 theater season sent to the provincial presidency by Ivan Tavčar and a landowner from Ljubljana, Josip Lokar, who thereby took responsibility for the society’s performances. 21 It is evident from the material that the presidency first approved the running theater season. One would think that it also approved the annual list of plays simultane- ously submitted by the society, but that would be mere speculation because no such lists can be found. How- ever, based on later documents (specifical- ly, from 1903 onward) it can be presumed that the censors obtained individual texts for inspection and approval at least three days before the performance. 310 URŠKA PERENIČ ▶ Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana at house no. 10 on the street. This foregrounds seemingly unimpor- tant individuals that helped shape the Dramatic Society’s history and through whom fragments of its unknown past are being revealed. Another such individual was Ivan Kavčič, who signed the request for the 1896/97 season together with Ivan Tavčar,22 thereby taking respon- sibility for the society’s performances. According to the 1900 census, Kavčič was an attendant at the town hall born in 1847 and residing at Town Square (Mestni trg) no. 27 in Ljubljana. Alongside the two, the request was signed by Anton Funtek, who helped the Dramatic Society primarily as a translator,23 but later became a censor. The two requests in this bundle are followed by permissions for the 1895/96 and 1896/97 seasons, revealing what initially seems to be a bland communication between the society and government officials (the sources examined mention a certain Wratschko), who seek to control the applicant primarily through regulations. In addition to decrees and orders from the 1850 Theaterordnung, the two permissions refer to the orders from the provincial presidency of November 26th, 1892 and Acts 30/3 1888 (no. 33) and 20/7 1894 (no. 168) of the provincial code (these include state and town police regulations). Added newly to all this is a provision referring to the amount of the police surveillance fee; if an event lasted for more than four hours, the fee for surveil- lance officers and guards was higher. These data are very informative because they reveal the emphasis placed on the information about the implementation of censorship regulations by the police authorities, which thereby enforced the state’s monopoly power. This is followed by the Dramatic Society’s request to “be granted a li- cense for staging Slovenian plays and operas at the provincial theater” dated September 20th, 1895,24 which differs slightly from the others. In it, the society’s chair, Ivan Tavčar, extensively informs the censorship 22 SI AS 16, Box 166: permissions for the 1895/96 and 1896/97 seasons. 23 Worthy of mention is Teharski plemiči (The Nobles of Teharje), an opera by Benjamin Ipavec, for which Funtek wrote the libretto based on Ferdo Kočevar’s Mlinarjev Janez (Janez from the Miller Farm). The work was published in 1890 as part of the collection Slovenska Talija (The Slovenian Theater), and it pre- miered in 1892 at the Provincial Theater. 24 SI AS 16, Box 166: permission for the 1895/96 season. 311 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands committee of the society’s financial affairs or expenses, which differs from the requests sent in other years. This information not only pro- vides insight into the business aspects of managing the society (e.g., the amount of money spent on hiring actors and singers, the average costs of one performance, salary or remuneration by profession, role in the ensemble, and so on), but also reveal its organizational structure. Ba- sically, the entire composition of the actors’ or theater ensemble at the time can be gathered from it. It is not clear why Tavčar decided to add a financial report to the request, but it seems he wanted to indirectly inform the presidency about how the Slovenian theater was developing (and becoming professionalized) and building its own identity, which was also reflected in the structure of its ensemble.25 ← FIG. 6 First page of Ivan Tavčar’s request for granting the Dramatic Society a license for the 1895/96 season (right, transcribed by the author). 25 The report lists the salaries of certain actors, costs of re- hearsals (prompter and stage manager), and remunerations for writers, transla- tors, and composers. 312 URŠKA PERENIČ ▶ Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana 26 SI AS 16, Box 166: permissions for the 1897/98 and 1898/99 seasons. 27 SI AS 16, Box 166: permissions for the 1899/1900, 1900/01, and 1902/03 seasons. 28 Tavčar’s withdrawal could be explained by his more intense focus on his political career within the liberal National Pro- gressive Party (he and Ivan Hribar began heading it as early as 1894). In addition, he had been the man- ager and editor of the newspaper Slovenski narod since 1887. 29 Thanks to Štefan Vevar for his helpful tip in decoding Blei- weis-Trsteniški’s sig- nature on the request. Ivan Tavčar turned to the Carniolan censorship office two more times after that in his capacity as chair: in 1897 and 1898.26 In his re- quest of September 22nd, 1897, he was applying for a license for the period from October 1st, 1897 to April 1st, 1898, pledging that the society would strictly adhere to the Theaterordnung. The fact that the censor- ship office remained as strict as before is evident from its reply to the society, which, in addition to the obligatory reference to the Bach 1850 Theaterordnung, also cited the 1892 orders by the provincial presidency. In the permission for the 1897/98 theater season, the clerks added a new reference to the provisions of the 1880 and 1894 provincial code con- cerning workers’ health and accident insurance; any disease or accident at work would be handled by an accident insurance company in Trieste. Even though Tavčar officially chaired the Dramatic Society until 1902, from 189927 onward communication with the censorship office was taken over by vice-chair Karel Bleiweis-Trsteniški, who soon suc- ceed Tavčar as chair.28 Hence on September 18th, 1900, Bleiweis-Trs- teniški29 and Fran Milčinski Sr., who at the time was serving as the society’s secretary, asked the censorship office to urgently approve their request because the first performance was already scheduled for September 22nd. Taking into account the power relations and previous requests, such “urging” on the side of the Dramatic Society was unusu- al; in addition, it can be noticed that the request for license is purged of (excessive) expressions of politeness and submission. This could partly be attributed to the tactlessness of both committee members and partly to the fact that from 1899 to 1901 Milčinski was the head of the Slovenian theater at the Provincial Theater (Koblar 2013a). It is evident from the permission received that the request was processed on Sep- tember 19th and already dispatched the next day, September 20th, 1900. Alongside the official orders from the Theaterordnung and the provincial 313 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands code (on the fire safety and police order, to which subsequently a note was added regarding the insurance of theater staff) cited in several places, the permission also includes a reference to the order regarding the use of Austrian army uniforms on stage: “[I]n this regard, I would like to stress that the use of Austrian army uniforms and similar sym- bols of honor on the theater stage is only allowed if no prominent changes visible at first glance are made to them.”30 The delicacy of this issue can be explained with the role played by the army: it defended and represented the state’s ideology. After that, in their permission for the 1903/04 season, the clerks added a copy of a decree issued by the Austro-Hungarian interior ministry, which included two provisions. The first one referred to the ← FIG. 7 Permission granted by the Provincial Presidency of Carn- iola to the Ljubljana Dramatic Society for staging plays with a note added on using Austrian army uni- forms on stage. 30 The socie- ty’s request of Sep- tember 18th, 1900. 314 URŠKA PERENIČ ▶ Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana 31 Bleiweis-Trsteniški lodged requests for a license twice that year (in July and Au- gust). See SI AS 16, Box 166: permission for the 1902/03 season. responsibility of the theater censorship enforcer (primarily the police commissioner), who was to ensure, in agreement with the theater director, that any parts in the “theater piece” that might prove prob- lematic for staging be deleted or altered. The second provision con- cerned the deadline for submitting plays to the provincial presidency: they were to be submitted at least three days before the performance. It is difficult to explain why at the beginning of the twentieth century the censorship office felt the need to further tighten its regulations. However, based on the dates on the requests submitted by the society, it can be assumed that the applicants filed them at the last minute or right before the start of the season, thereby placing the censor- ship office, which sought to maintain public peace and order through theaters, under pressure. Another reason for the tightened measures, through which the censorship authorities sought to both keep the ac- tors on stage on a short leash and maintain control over the audience, could have been the fear in view of the planned increase in theater pro- ductions after the theater moved to a permanent building. In addition, on July 21st, 190331 Karel Bleiweis-Trsteniški informed the censorship office that from then onward the society planned to stage plays three times a week alongside occasional afternoon Slovenian performances on Sundays and holidays. One can imagine what a beneficial effect the fresh decree (Verord- nung) by Prime Minister Koerber (cf. Bachleitner 2010: 92) of April 1903, which he sent to all provincial governors, must have had on the tight(ened) censorship conditions, at least in principle. The Dramatic Society immediately had it translated into Slovenian. Koerber was aware that an absolute abolition of censorship was impossible for the time being (even though he indicated the possibility of its abolition in his decree), but he clearly strove for its relaxation. What was key 315 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands was his request for censorship committees to be established at indi- vidual provincial offices to evaluate plays and performances. They were to be composed of administrative and judicial clerks in charge of enforcing theater censorship and members educated in literature, such as playwrights and theater critics (he also mentions teachers), who had to be fluent in the language that the work was written in. This means that the provincial office was only able to adopt a final decision once it received a report from the censorship committee. If a ban was issued on a play, an appeal could be filed with the interior ministry.32 On the one hand, “pure lust” still had to be expunged from both the stage and social life, and nothing that was prohibited by the penal code was permissible (e.g., it was not allowed to offend the imperial dynasty, attack religious truths, or do anything that might provoke general dis- pleasure). However, on the other hand, Koerber very clearly supported the view that the stage cannot be inaccessible to discussions on diverse topics. This includes social issues and issues concerning economic and cultural development. Especially the inclusion of qualified clerks and individuals educated in literature on the censorship committee was a clear attempt to gradually depoliticize censorship, whose primary tasks were to ensure, without prejudice to literature and within the laws, appropriate staging of plays, to sanction any unacceptable inci- dents, and to help control and maintain safety. However, even at the beginning of the twentieth century, Koer- ber’s 1903 decree, which was supposed to remove political elements from censorship, and which clearly recognized both the altered living conditions and the emancipatory status of literature, seems nothing but a feint. Closer reading of censorship documents, especially the permissions issued by the provincial presidency, point more to an op- posite tendency—that is, to further strengthening strict and direct 32 The materials exam- ined to date do not reveal whether this type of procedure was ever effectively used in Ljubljana. 316 URŠKA PERENIČ ▶ Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana censorship in order to prevent any criticism of the government. This is, first and foremost, confirmed by the clear references to the applicable provisions on the one hand and the addition of ever new restrictions (from statutory deadlines for submitting works via changes in the police surveillance to using costumes on stage), which encroached on the operations of theater and evaluated it according to ideological and political criteria, rather than art and esthetic ones. The Theater- ordnung continued to apply even at the beginning of the twentieth century, accompanied by strict fire safety and police regulations, and especially the provisions of the laws governing societies and the press. Through a close inspection of censorship sources on a smaller scale, this article shows how written communication between the Dramatic FIG. 8 → First page of the Dra- matic Society’s trans- lation of the 1903 decree33 issued by Ernest von Koerber. 33 SI AS 16, Box 166: permission for the 1902/03 season. 317 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Society and the provincial presidency took place within the framework of these regulations. The expressions of politeness observed especially on the side of the Dramatic Society and the nearly express approvals on the side of the presidency might suggest that this communication was balanced and not complex. However, the communication partners were anything but equal. Even though the censorship documents follow a standard form, they reveal both the superiority of the presidency— which affably grants the applicant the permission each time, while maintaining official distance by adhering to the legal regulations and clearly pointing to them—and the subordinate status of the Dramatic Society, which pledges in writing to respect and implement these reg- ulations, and ultimately in no way implies a dissident stance. The members of Dramatic Society also entered certain interesting and seemingly unimportant information into the censorship docu- ments, which leave traces of the society’s history. These were not only important actors within the Dramatic Society, but also important in- dividuals in terms of the history of the censorship institution. This information includes individual data from requests referring to staging plays (e.g., information about an increased number of visiting perfor- mances at the Provincial Theater or the expansion of the genre reper- toire) or data on the society’s business operations (e.g., the financial report), which provide insight into the economic and organizational aspects of the Dramatic Society’s operations, and ultimately testify to the developing organizational structure, growth, and profession- alization of the first Slovenian theater. ❦ 318 URŠKA PERENIČ ▶ Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana References Allgemeiners Reichs- Gesetz- und Regierungsblatt für das Kaiserthum Österreich. CLIV. Stück. Ausgegeben und versendet am 30. November 1850. 454.: Verordnung des Ministeriums des Innern vom 25. November 1850. 1976–80. [http://digital.onb.ac.at/OnbViewer/ viewer.faces?doc=ABO_%2BZ180475206 andrejka, rudolF, 2013: Souvan. Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: SAZU, ZRC SAZU. [http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/ rodbina/sbi594540] ARS [Arhiv Republike Slovenije], SI AS 16, Boxes 165 and 166. Prošnje Dramatičnega društva in dovoljenja Deželnega predsedstva za Kranjsko 1891/92–1903/04. Bachleitner, norBert, 2010: Die Theaterzensur in der Habsburgermonarchie im 19. Jahrhundert. LiThes 3. 1–105. Bachleitner, norBert, 2017: Die literarische Zensur in Österreich von 1751 bis 1848. Vienna: Böhlau. BatuŠiĆ, nikola et al., 2017: Theatergeschichte Österreichs. Vienna: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. BorŠnik, marja, 2013: Ivan Tavčar. Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: SAZU, ZRC SAZU. [http://www.slovenska-biografija.si/ oseba/sbi686990] Deželni zakonik in vladni list za kranjsko kronovino (Landes-Gesetz und Regierungs-Blatt für das Kronland Krain. XXXV. Stück, II. Jahrgang). Ljubljana: Rozalija Eger. GinzBurG, carlo, 2006: Faden und Fährten: Wahr, Falsch, Fiktiv. Berlin: Wagenbach. GinzBurG, carlo, 2010: Sir in črvi: Svet nekega mlinarja iz 16. stoletja. Transl. Tomaž Jurca. Ljubljana: Studia Humanitatis. 319 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands jenko, sandra, 2017: Nemško gledališče na Slovenskem. Uprizoritvene umetnosti, migracije, politika: Slovensko gledališče kot sooblikovalec medkulturnih izmenjav. Ed. Barbara Orel. Ljubljana: ZIFF. 47–64. kalan, Filip, 1980: Problemi in paradoksi na slovenskem odru ob prelomu stoletja. Dani Hvarskoga kazališta: Građa i rasprave o hrvatskoj književnosti i kazalištu 7, 1. 455–492. koBlar, France, 2013a: Milčinski, Fran. Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: SAZU, ZRC SAZU. [http://www.slovenska-biografija. si/oseba/sbi368473] koBlar, France, 2013b: Trstenjak, Anton. Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: SAZU, ZRC SAZU. [http://www.slovenska-biografija. si/oseba/sbi726644] pereniČ, urŠka, 2010: Preizkus uporabnosti modela: Kulturno življenje v društvih sredi 19. stoletja in njihova vloga pri oblikovanju literarnega polja. Empiričnosistemsko raziskovanje literature: konceptualne podlage, teoretski modeli in uporabni primeri. Ljubljana: Zveza društev Slavistično društvo Slovenije. 185–205. pereniČ, urŠka, 2012: Čitalništvo v perspektivi družbenogeografskih dejavnikov. Slavistična revija 60, 3. 365–82. Štih, peter, vasko simoniti, and peter vodopivec, 2008: Slovenska zgodovina. Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino. trstenjak, anton, 1892: Slovensko gledališče: Zgodovina slovenskih gledaliških predstav. Ljubljana: Dramatično društvo. uGrinoviĆ, ana, 2001: Cenzura in prepoved gledališča. [Bachelor’s thesis.] Ljubljana: Author. 320 URŠKA PERENIČ ▶ Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana uredniŠtvo sBl, 2013: Grasselli, Peter, vitez. Slovenska biografija. Ljubljana: SAZU, ZRC SAZU. [http://www.slovenska-biografija. si/oseba/sbi212753] 321 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands Povzetek Prispevek obravnava dokumentarno gradivo Dramatičnega društva v Ljubljani, ki ga hrani Arhiv Republike Slovenije. Gre za gradivo ožjega obsega, nastalo med leti 1891/1892 in 1903/1904. Način obravnavanja se navdihuje pri Ginzburgovi mikrozgodovinski metodi, kjer je po- memben predlog za branje dokumentov »proti namenu« in opozorilo o upoštevanju različnih provenienc gradiva. Cenzurno gradivo na- mreč zajema dve vrsti dokumentov, ki so jih ustvarjali posamezniki iz podrejenih plasti in iz oblastnih struktur. Eno so prošnje za podelitev koncesij za prirejanje predstav v slovenščini, s katerimi se Dramatično društvo obrača na c.-kr. Deželno predsedstvo za Kranjsko, drugo so do- voljenja za uprizarjanje s strani urada predsedstva, ki je vodil cenzuro dramsko-gledališke dejavnosti. Od branja proti namenu, s katerim so cenzurni dokumenti dejansko nastali in zahteva analizo navidezno malopomembnih podatkov, ki so se v dokumente vpisovali »nekon- trolirano« (npr. imena glavnih akterjev v društvu, posamični podatki o prirejanju predstav, navedbe iz finančnih poročil), si obetamo sveža spoznanja o (u)pravnih, gospodarskih in organizacijskih vidikih de- lovanja te prve gledališke ustanove na Slovenskem. Analiza cenzurnih virov, ki natančno dokumentirajo komunikacijo med Dramatičnim društvom in deželnim predsedstvom, razkriva, da na prehodu iz 19. stoletja v 20. stoletje moč cenzurnega aparata še vedno ni slabela, am- pak se je morda celo okrepila. Na to predvsem kaže ravnanje s strani predsedstva, ki svoj superiorni položaj vzdržuje s še vestnejšim ok- lepanjem zakonskih predpisov in jasnim kazanjem nanje. Prav tako se uradniki poslužujejo vedno novih restrikcij (npr. glede policijskih pristojnosti pri nadziranju predstav, okrog rabe gledaliških kostu- mov na odru), čemur je treba dodati zahtevo po strogem spoštovanju 322 URŠKA PERENIČ ▶ Literary Censorship and the Dramatic Society in Ljubljana požarnih predpisov, predpisov policijskega reda, društvenega in ti- skovnega zakona. Eno redkih svetlih točk bi utegnila predstavljati Ve- rordnung ministrskega predsednika Ernsta von Koerberja, ki bi zlasti z osnovanjem cenzurnega sveta, sestavljenega iz kvalificiranih urad- nikov in literarno izobraženih članov, omogočala postopno iztrganje gledališča iz političnih okovov. Vendar je tudi jasno, da čas, ki bo raz- rahljal in slednjič odpravil cenzuro, še ni napočil. Urška Perenič Urška Perenič is an associate professor of Slovenian literature at the Sloveni- an Department at the University of Ljubljana. She specializes in the theory and methodology of empirical literary studies, and she has carried out several empirical projects. Her research focuses on literary life, narrative prose, and (female) bilingual authorship of the nineteenth century and first half of the twentieth century. She also does research in spatial literary studies. Among her recent works are a book and textbook on empirical studies of literature, a facsimile edition with commentary on Luiza Pesjak’s Beatin dnevnik (Beata’s Diary), the first Slovenian diary novel, and an annotated edition of letters by the Slovenian writer Boris Pahor. She has organized several conferences and (co)edited conference papers. 323 SLAVICA TERGESTINA 26 (2021/I) ▶ Habsburg Censorship and Literature in the Slovenian Lands sLavica tergestina volumes usually focus on a particular theme or concept. Most of the articles pub- lished so far deal with the cultural realm of the Slavic world from the perspective of modern semiotic and cultural methodological approaches, but the journal remains open to other approaches and methodologies. The theme of the upcoming volume along with de- tailed descriptions of the submission deadlines and the peer review process can be found on our website at www.slavica-ter.org. All published articles are also available on-line, both on the journal website and in the University of Trieste web publication system at www.openstarts.units.it/dspace/handle/10077/2204. slavica tergestina is indexed in: • erih European Reference Index for the Humanities [2008/2011–2015] • erih Plus [since 2015] • Directory of Open Access Journals (doaJ) • Class A journal by by the Italian Evaluation Agency of University and Research (anvur) ISSN 1592-0291 9771592029007 26