Page - 79 - in Universities in Imperial Austria, 1848–1918 - A Social History of a Multilingual Space

Chapter 2 ♦  79 contacts in Vienna, seemingly certifying the prime importance of both qual- ity and the correct ideology. The differences in the handling of German language and literature are best highlighted by comparing Cracow and Innsbruck. In Galicia, where German was hailed by government media as a guarantor of cultural progress and an asset uniting this recent addition to the empire, the chairs in Cracow and L’viv were swiftly filled and refilled. In Innsbruck, in contrast, Joseph Novotny taught both Italian and German as a titular professor (i.e., neither tenured nor receiving a regular salary), although from 1854 only German was mentioned on the lecturers’ list beside his name. Only in 1858 did the ministry propose as a professor of German language and literature Ignaz Zingerle, a Merano-born gymnasium teacher and librarian, known for his collection of Tyrolean tales and his interest in the culture and ethnology of the province. Yet, even here, the ministry stated that it was hardly possible to find “an individual with the necessary scientific education for this discipline in Innsbruck among Habsburg scholars.”160 (Thun-Hohenstein appointed only two non-Habsburg professors in Innsbruck.) Initially, Franz Joseph rejected the proposal; a second proposal, accompanied by an illustration of the situation of literature studies in the monarchy, was accepted without delay.161 That the University of Innsbruck gained the chair so late is even more surprising if one considers that from 1854 the university had a chair of Italian language and literature. While appointments in Galicia occurred swiftly, they were not without their problems. The original nominee for Cracow, Karl Weinhold, asked after only a few months to be relocated from a city he considered to be culturally deficient (he had also lost a number of manuscripts in the city fire of 1850).162 Thun-Hohenstein swiftly appointed in his place a student of Exner, Bratranek. Although established and valued as an innovative scholar and as an Augustinian friar with the correct mind-set, Bratranek was never- theless atypical of the appointments for this chair. Not only was he openly Hegelian, but his work also concentrated not on the Middle Ages but on nineteenth-century literature, especially Goethe, and aesthetics. He and the philosopher Józef Kremer, who was working in Cracow, were the most fa- mous Hegelians at any of the Habsburg universities at the time, although both were conscious of the boundaries set by the ministry and accordingly rarely published their work.163 As the above-quoted pium desiderium from 1853 certifies, Bratranek was also a convenient appointment for the govern- ment in political matters.