Diskussion:Carl von Rokitansky

Tscheche oder Österreicher

We can discuss about the nationalities here, but it is useless. We could go on and on about his name being czech and about the etnicity of his parents, the start of his studies in Prague and the majority of his work being done in Wien etc. He was a great european scientist indeed. To reflect the multinational identity of scientists of that time, both nationalities should be mentioned in the article, or better omitted at all and replaced with "european". Added POV tag to make this issue clear.

Don't remove the tag before you discussed anything. Your comment suggesting that because Bohemia belonged to Austria everybody born in Bohemia before 1918 should only be called "austrian" is unbelievable.

I would like to answer with an abstract. e-mail: felicitas.seebacher@uni-klu.ac.at

22nd International Congress of History of Science Beijing, July 24 – 30, 2005 International Union of History and Philosophy of Science – Division History of Science Symposium: International Networks, Exchange and Circulation of Knowledge in Life Sciences, 18th to 20th Centuries Organizers: Prof. Dr. Brigitte Hoppe – Germany Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sona Strbanova – Czech Republic Dr. Nicolas Robin – France

Abstract: "No ‚National Feeling’ in Science!“ Bohemian Professors at the University of Vienna Medical Faculty: Mediators in National and International Networking in the Habsburg Empire

The medical faculty of the University of Prague, "stepping-stone to Vienna" as the Irish ophthalmologist William Robert Wilde formulated in 1843, was for the medical faculty of the University of Vienna its main partner for scientific cooperation in the Habsburg Empire and at the same time its greatest rival. Medical professors who were trained in Vienna taught at the University of Prague and Prague sent its outstanding medical professors to Vienna. For medical students in Prague – according to the Habsburg historian Jean Bérenger – to pursue a career in Vienna was regarded as the ultimate recognition at this time. After 1830 the Bohemians Count Anton Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky, cabinet-minister of the Habsburg Monarchy and Baron Ludwig von Türkheim, Court Commissioner for Medical Studies, began in Vienna to promote particularly talented young men from Bohemia such as Joseph Škoda, Ferdinand Hebra and Carl Rokitansky. In his study “Austria: Its literary, scientific and medical institutions. With notes upon the present state of science” Wilde confirmed the dominance of Bohemian medical students and young doctors in Vienna. "Not only are the Bohemian or Slavonian race the most zealous cultivators of medicine, but in talent and reputation they far surpass the others, and form a large majority of the professors". However, it has not yet been fully researched how much the Habsburg Monarchy valued this intellectual potential or whether they regarded it as a future threat. According to their autobiographies these young Bohemian doctors were indeed confronted with considerable resistance. Precisely because of this, Rokitanky, meanwhile the leading liberal pathologist in Vienna, not only succeeded in establishing a scientific and political network in Vienna but also in creating an expansion of medical knowledge to all universities of the Empire, of Europe and America which led to international recognition of the Vienna Medical School. Because of his international approach, seldom for the time, and his leading positions in academic institutions, Rokitansky, living in the multicultural city of Vienna, defined his own nationality neutrally as "Austrian". At the beginning of the rise of national conflicts in the Monarchy he could therefore not be captured either by the intellectual nationalism of the Germans or the Czechs at the Universities of Vienna and Prague. He realised that the international reputation of the sciences, particularly medicine, could by threatened by the rise of nationalism. The ideology of national thinking in sciences of the German pathologist Rudolf Virchow was regarded with mistrust by his Austrian colleague. In 1862 Rokitanky already warned in his brochure "Contemporary Questions relevant to the University" of any national consolidation of studies which would result in a division of the "solidarity of science". "The more intensive national feelings are", he added, "the less success an academic institution will have". The Sciences as an "international undertaking" should preserve the consciousness of unity in the "academic world" confirmed the historian, Friedrich Paulsen fourty years later, when academic nationalism had reached already its first peak. In the midst of progress – despite escalating conflicts – Czechs as well as German scientists still believed that the preservation of humanity was the most important goal in medicine.

Literatur

Die Literaturliste ist länger als der ganze Artikel und sollte auf das wesentliche gestrafft werden. --ahz 18:34, 11. Jan. 2007 (CET)

Ich hab ein Zitat mit Einzelnachweis eingebaut - und jetzt ist der restliche Text dahinter verschwunden - Was hab ich falsch gemacht? Irrubaic.

Die Literaturliste ist immer noch erschöpfend lang, aber der ARtikel ist OK. Vermutlich haben die Nachfahren hier ganze Arbeit geleistet (warum auch nicht?) --Cholo Aleman (Diskussion) 08:49, 3. Jan. 2015 (CET)

von oder nicht von

Ist nicht, auch da er Österreicher war, das Lemma "Carl Rokitansky" angemessener? --Georg Hügler (Diskussion) 06:24, 5. Jan. 2023 (CET)

Bei der Liste Wiener Persönlichkeiten scheint die Verwendung des "von" im Lemma erst ab Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts seltener vorzukommen, daraus ließe sich orakeln, dass bei Personen, die den Namen/Adelstitel bereits im fortgeschrittenen Alter hatten, bevor der Adel in Österreich abgeschafft wurde, die Verwendung des adeligen Namens akzeptabel ist (vor allem dann, wenn sie unter diesem Namen bekannt(er) sind). Bei Rokitansky sehe ich da also eigentlich kein Problem. Viele Grüße --Invisigoth67 (Disk.) 19:20, 5. Jan. 2023 (CET)