Page - 133 - in Universities in Imperial Austria, 1848–1918 - A Social History of a Multilingual Space

Chapter 3 ♦  133 The situation in 1910 clearly shows that Vienna was the preferred place for specialization. Here, for example, geology was divided from paleontol- ogy, systematic botany from plant anatomy and physiology, and English philology from English language and literature, while full professorships were established for mineralogy, musicology, pedagogy, and German- language history, in addition to German literature. In 1910 the philosophical faculty at the University of Vienna presented in its lecture catalogs full professors in thirty-eight disciplines and associate professors in twenty-two. Twelve disciplines taught by associate professors were not covered by full professors. In contrast, Graz had only twenty-four full professorships and eleven associate professorships (six of whom taught disciplines not cov- ered by full professors), Innsbruck had seventeen full professorships and ten associate professors (five of whom taught disciplines not covered by full professors), and Cracow had twenty-six full professorships and thirteen associate professors (seven of whom taught disciplines not covered by full professors). Cracow also included agricultural studies.184 While most of the disciplinary areas that were different at provincial universities than in Vienna were more general, a few can be considered to be specializations. For example, in Cracow there were associate professors for anthropology, economic history, the history of natural sciences, and experimental psychology and theory of science; in Innsbruck there was a professorship for the history and culture of the ancient Orient. The other di- vergences in disciplines resulted from local conditions: Italian language and literature in Innsbruck, Slovenian philology in Graz, Ruthenian language and literature in L’viv and Cracow, and böhmische/Česká (Bohemian/Czech) history and Czech language and literature in Prague. At the formal level, it was almost impossible to rise from under the shadow of Vienna. Considering that most institutional innovation apart from that at the central university took place at universities deregulated through language (and power), the reforms had interesting theoretical im- plications. While networks of supervision and comparison tightly linked the German-speaking universities, with the University of Vienna seeking to sustain its superiority and centrality, this power structure was less coherent in Galicia or at the Czech University in Prague, where diversification fol- lowed different paths. Since institutional and disciplinary innovation was supervised by the ministry, in most cases originating from Vienna and later from other universities according to their respective status (Cracow, Graz, and Prague and, finally, Innsbruck, L’viv, and Chernivtsi), “peripheral”