Undesirable Puzzles
There was a great article in last month's GQ* (the 45th anniversary issue) about Pernkopf's Anatomy, perhaps the most comprehensive, detailed and artistic work on anatomy ever published. Eduard Pernkopf employed eleven out-of-work artists over the course of almost thirty years to produce this remarkable work. Every anatomical detail is said to be made alive by the precision and imagination of the artists. It is truly the standard by which all other works are measured. Even today there are doctors that consult the work before surgery and insist that no equal has been produced. Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of the story. Pernkopf was a loyal Nazi in 1930s Austria and participated in the purging of Jewish students and faculty at the University of Vienna, where he was a professor before the invasion and the president after. Many of the artists signed their work with swastikas or other signs showing their loyalty to Hitler. There is speculation that some of the cadavers illustrated are concentration camp victims.
Currently, the Anatomy is out of print and there are no plans for future editions. When so much good can come of the work, shouldn't it be made available for reference? On the other hand, the ends certainly do not justify the means and the work's publication may support that by inference. Quite the dilemma. What does it mean when something of such significance and beauty comes out of such an atrocious crime? To use a less grave example, if Nabokov had written Lolita from an inappropriate or illegal personal experience, should that stand as a mark against the work? I'm sure there are numerous examples of this, some that we're aware of and some that will never be know, but does the context in which a classic is produced ultimately make a difference?
* Note: In what may be my first of many defenses of GQ, let me say that despite all its flaws, there is some genuinely interesting intellectual writing inside the plastic packaging. Until the money comes along for my subscription to the New Yorker, it'll have to do. Unfortunately, GQ's online presence is minimal, so I can't link to anything. I apologize.