Depicting censorship practices in Austria 1751 to 1848 is a monumental undertaking. Maybe that is why no previous attempt has been made. The study under review here is significant in size and content. Practically everything one would want to know about censorship in the Habsburg Monarchy is now available in this user-friendly volume. The author, a noted Viennese comparatist, has distinguished himself in several subfields of literary and socio-cultural history. His previous research and editorships have seemingly served as preparation for this multifaceted, interdisciplinary undertaking. A short review can only hint at its enduring value.

H. H. Houben remarked long ago that censorship is part and parcel of cultural history (Polizei und Zensur [1924]) and Dieter Breuer later pleaded specifically for literary historians to engage with its history (Geschichte der literarischen Zensur [1988]); Wolfram Siemann claimed soon thereafter that they had, in fact, done so (in John A. McCarthy, ed., Zensur und Kultur [1995]). Bachleitner follows logically in their footsteps. His stated purpose is to present an encompassing, literary-sociological rendering of censorship in Austria from 1751 to 1848, along with its historical background and ramifications. By highlighting the censor's role as both gatekeeper of established norms and occasionally as advocate for change, he argues that censorship practice bears the mark of a permanent dialectic between conservative and progressive forces. Censorship is both a tool of repression and a positive instrument for nurturing self-directed, informed citizens, he writes, echoing the “ten theses” that Siemann set forth in Zensur und Kuktur.

Dealing less with authorial issues, Bachleitner focuses fully on monarchs, commissions, individual censors, specific works, and publishers, thus offering more than Houben's anecdotal “Längs- und Querschnitte,” the subtitle of his 1926 book. His study is in line with Breuer's and Klaus Kanzog's calls for a more encompassing history and phenomenology of censorship (Reallexikon der deutschen Literaturgeschichte [1984]), but still mindful of Beate Müller's view in Zensur im modernen deutschen Kulturraum (2003) that a “comprehensive comparative study” would amount to hubris because thought control is essentially regional. The argument for the authoritative status of canonical authors such as Goethe and Schiller, resonant in the present reviewer's emphasis on “Autoren nicht Autoritäten!” in the edited volume Zensur und Kultur, is not a concern here.

Thorough research undergirds this volume; it is visually evident in the extensive footnoting and the thirty-page bibliography. Noteworthy is the clear distillation of the material into compelling stories, organized in six chapters centered by year on transformational moments in the Austrian territories: 1751, 1772, 1781, 1790, 1803, and 1810. The censorship protocols, decrees, guidelines, and reports reproduced in the appendix document these temporal anchor points. Chapter 1 grounds the ensuing empirical studies in a metacritical framework. It draws on censorship research and on sociocultural studies (e.g., those of Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Stephen Greenblatt, and Fredric Jameson). The latter raise the question of “old” versus “new” censorship, i.e., official ploys to control public discourse, as opposed to the intertextuality and hermeneutical nuance inherent in speech acts. Breuer highlighted them in “Stand und Aufgabe der Zensurforschung” as desiderata, as did Kanzog in “Textkritische Probleme der literarischen Zensur,” both published in“Unmoralisch an sich …” Zensur im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert (1988). The model for Bachleitner's theoretical approach appears to be Müller's introduction to her 2003 volume (for which he served as the publisher's editor). There one finds essentially the same history-as-narrative and reader-response related ideas. But he barely mentions her and does not refer to Breuer's or Kanzog's plans for future directions.

Chapters 2 and 3 present the history of overt efforts to control print media, first in the service of Enlightenment under Maria Theresia, Joseph II, and Leopold I (1751-1791), then with regard to repression under Franz II/I and Ferdinand I (1792-1848). Chapter 4, with sections by Petr Píša, Michael Wögerbauer, and Daniel Syrovy, shifts the focus to the Kingdom of Bohemia and to the Lombardo-Venetian areas, which deviated from Vienna. Chapter 5 chronicles theater censorship primarily after 1795, elucidating the respective roles of the Polizeihofstelle, the Oberstkämmereramt, the state chancellery, and the emperor. Samplings of censored works include Schiller's political, and Shakespeare's morally “unsuitable,” plays. Chapter 6 offers thirty-eight case studies, ranging from periodicals to works of the Classic-Romantic period, French and English prose narratives, theater, and Vaudeville pieces. Because few documents explaining a censor's decision survived the 1927 fire in the Wiener Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, reasons for rejection have to be reconstructed using Franz Karl Hägelin's Denkschrift of 1795 as guidelines. A short conclusion offers suggestions for further research, e.g., on forbidden images, musical pieces, parlor games, and the period 1848-1918.

The overriding concern throughout this study is for formal forms of censorship, i.e., the “hard” mechanisms of “pre-, post-, and re-censorship”: submissions, monetary punishment, confiscation, border control, inspections of publishing houses, evaluation of private collections. Censorship designations ran the gamut from admittitur to transeat, permittitur, erga schedam conceditur, and damnatur. A sixth category was added in 1803 for manuscripts deemed to be worthless: typum non meretur.

Whereas censors traditionally sought to influence collective mentality with respect to religion, politics, morality, and, later, honor, Enlightenment secularization occasioned a relativizing of norms that led to greater emphasis on individual morality and rights of self-determination. Hermeneutic acts of deciphering rose to the fore, further complicating state thought control. Bachleitner thus readily concedes that the implementation of censorship is too complex to be described in a simple narrative, which is why he urges teams of future researchers to examine censorship practices in all former territories of the Habsburg Monarchy (Chapter 4 provides a model for doing this). The Czech language and the lack of knowledge about Bohemia were a challenge for the censors in Vienna. Similarly, an adequate understanding of censorship practices in the Lombardo-Veneto region from 1768 to 1848 has to account for differences between Milan and Venice, and between the views of publishers and authors, along with those of the censors and the enforcers.

What is particularly new in all this is Bachleitner's use of rich detail. Much is already known, for example, about Gerhard van Swieten, the founding father of censorship practice and the veritable archetype of the censor. We learn here that he not only oversaw the censorship commission, but also handpicked its original members (whom Bachleitner also profiles) and established guidelines for reviewing books and manuscripts. His shorthand notebook of commission meetings, which had been indecipherable, is decoded here. Franz Karl Hägelin's role in theater censorship is detailed. His Denkschrift (1795), intended to guide Hungarian censors, is of inestimable value for future research because it was adopted throughout the empire. Bachleitner also provides new, detailed information about how individual publishers, such as Georg Philipp Wucherer, fared at the hands of the Viennese censors.

We also learn more about other censors. Infamous for being an overly correct official, Josef Graf Sedlnitzy, the “Streicher-Graf,” offers, for example, a prime example of censorship attitudes during the Vormärz, when any hint of constitutionalism, radical liberalism, or revolutionary sentiment was anathema. His paranoia extended to fiction that he deemed worthless, and his reputation among authors was dismal. The historian Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall considered him to be mentally impaired and, like other writers, intentionally inserted egregious statements to distract him from other parts of the text. Bachleitner's fuller characterization of archetypical censors underscores the various factors affecting the exercise of censorship. Last but not least, the book's visually appealing statistical tables of censored books, authors, publishers, and places of publication are especially noteworthy.

There is little in this otherwise authoritative volume about informal forms of censorship: internalized attitudes, or interventions by spouses, advisors, editors, and societies. There is hardly a word about self-censorship. Yet, by detailing the negative reactions of censors to theater and literary pieces, Bachleitner provides useful second-hand information relevant to the importance of self-censorship. In sum, Bachleitner offers an accomplished and innovatively “encompassing” history of Austrian censorship from 1751 to 1848. Lucidly structured, richly detailed, and imminently readable, this book represents a major contribution to the history of theater and mentality, as well as to censorship studies. It deserves wide recognition.