William Tyler
The Empress Maria Theresa and Joseph II

William Tyler - The Empress Maria Theresa and Joseph II

- Thank you very much, and welcome to everybody from me as well. I was left with some questions left over from last week, quite a lot because we had to finish very promptly, and very kindly, Judy arranged for them to be sent on to me. And the preponderance of the questions that I didn’t have time to answer last week seemed to do with Habsburg family relationships. And so to answer some of those, I was asked who were Charles V’s parents? Well, they were Philip of Habsburg and the so-called Mad Joanna of Spain. Then I was asked, who were Mary Tudor’s parents? And they were Henry VII, and Joanna’s sister Catherine of Aragon. There’s a link there between the house of Hapsburg and the Tudors, if you like. I was asked about Mary Tudor and Philip of Spain’s children. Well, they had no children. Mary suffered from a false pregnancy. She was desperate to have a child so that the crown of England would pass to another Catholic. Such a child never appeared. Mary died childless. Philip returned to Spain, and although he wooed her sister, Elizabeth, Elizabeth wouldn’t have anything to do with him. And Elizabeth, of course, made the Protestant Anglican settlement here in England. And the fact of the matter is that had Mary and Philip had children, than the history of Europe, indeed the history of the world, would’ve been very different indeed. I was asked who Charles V’s wife was, who was Isabella of Portugal. She had nine pregnancies, but only three children lived into adulthood. One son only, Phillip of Spain, whom we just mentioned, and two daughters. Charles V also had four illegitimate children, most of whose mothers remain unknown.

So that deals with some of the questions about the family. Helen asked me about global trade. Italy was being fought over by the Habsburgs and the Bourbons of France, said Helen, because they wanted the Mediterranean trade. Well, that’s partly true, but in truth, the whole basis of trade now shifted from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic across the North Atlantic and down to the South Atlantic, and through to Asia. So it all changed, and it meant that the Atlantic seaboard countries became more important than Mediterranean ones. Hence, to begin with Spain and Portugal, followed by the Netherlands and England, and to some extent by France as well. I was asked by someone who, I’m sorry I didn’t write the name down, why taxation was inefficient in the Hapsburg Empire and they contrasted it with England and France. The French story is more complex, but the English story is very clear that the Hapsburg Empire was not a unified empire. England was entirely unified. And by that I mean not unified only in central government, but unified in local government, unified in law, and unified in taxation. It simply wasn’t the case with the Hapsburgs. There was no unified system for taxation across the various lands, and very little means of enforcing what taxation there was. So they were at a considerable disadvantage compared to England. I was asked what laws applied in Germany, that is to say in the Holy Roman Empire, part of the Hapsburg lands. And the truth of the matter is, there were endless different legal systems in Germany because each state, each independent city, within the Holy Roman Empire in Germany had its own legislation.

And it wasn’t until Bismarck united Germany in 1870 that we begin to see some form of a unification of all of those things in Germany. Incidentally, the same applied in France, and it isn’t until Napoleon, and the Napoleonic codes both civil and criminal, that we get into a more modern phase. England, however, by contrast, had laws had applied from north to south, east to west, and had done so before the Normans came, had done so in Saxon England, and our judiciary were on the move, so that you had judges who visited different parts of the country, all speaking as it were, from the hymn sheet, from London. And so there was a uniformity in England, which is very, very unusual in European, or in European terms, at least. So that’s my way of tidying up some of the questions. Last week, obviously I’ve been looking at the reign of Charles V, and we noted that that was the largest empire since that of Ancient Rome that Europe had had. We also noted that when he divided it, when he abdicated, then that remained the largest empire in Europe, with a slight hiccup with Napoleon. But in truth, it remained the largest empire until we reach the European Union, and all the arguments about how imperial is the European Union? How like Austria-Hungary is the European Union? And those arguments are reverberating, and of course they’ve reverberated a great deal in Britain, when we voted in a referendum to stay in or come out of the European Union in Brexit. We noted when we talked about Charles V, that his greatest achievements were not to keep the French and the Ottomans out his lands and territory. But his greatest challenge was presented by Protestantism, specifically Lutheranism in all his German domains.

And we came to the conclusion, or at least I came to the conclusion for you, that it ended in a rather bit of a stalemate, and that stalemate is important later when we look at the fact that it is Germany that unites, that Germany is united by Protestant Prussia, and not by Catholic Austria. And it could have been united by Catholic Austria, or could it? I mean, if you were doing a university course, that would be an essay after a future lecture. But suffice it to say, that Charles V through his own personality and intelligence, kept his lands together, and not invaded by the Ottomans the east, or the French to the west. But despite his strong Catholic beliefs, he was unable in Germany at least, to stop the spread of Lutheranism. The Protestant reformation across Europe in the 16th century was rather like the industrial revolution in the 19th century, in as much as it changed the nature of European society forever. No longer one homogeneous Catholic church, and no longer a rural society in the 19th century. But there’s another event which I’m looking at this, well for me this evening, or today for the rest of you, another event in the 18th century, which was of equal importance to the development of European culture, in particular, and that we call the Enlightenment. And as a shortcut, this is what one historian has, how one historian has defined the Enlightenment of the 18th century. He writes, “The Enlightenment of the 18th century was not only a crucial epoch, a sea change in human history, it was also vast moral, scientific and political movement. Intellectuals across Europe and the new world linked up in networks of friendship, projects, and debates, and began to free themselves of the authority of the church and to find a sense of their own vocation, a calling to change the world.” An intellectual movement. A scientific movement.

But also a political movement. And it’s the political aspects of it which were important for me today, because I’m going to talk about the reign of the Empress Maria Theresa and her son, the Emperor Joseph II. Both of whom lived through the Enlightenment, and both of whom to a greater or lesser extent were affected by the Enlightenment. Prior to the new political thinking unleashed by the Enlightenment, the majority of monarchs in Europe, with the noted exception of the British monarch, were absolute monarchs. They ruled without reference to anyone if they’d cared not to give reference to anyone. Whereas in Britain, by the 18th century, the king’s power is declining as the power of Parliament, in particular, the House of Commons, expands. And it’s a major difference, and that major difference into in the 21st century is one of the reasons behind Brexit, that British democracy is not the same as the Napoleonic democracy which spread across Europe, and it is his why, well, at least until the last few years, we could say that British and American democracy came from the same root, and owed little, it owed stuff to the Enlightenment, but please remember there were English and American intellectuals in the Enlightenment, and here and in the States, the Enlightenment was not, it did not owe quite so much as the rest of Europe did to the French, to the Frenchmen like Rousseau, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot, and so on. We had earlier than that, we had John Locke, an opponent of absolutism, when James II was on the throne.

Now Voltaire was very clear in his views about the political nature of the Enlightenment. First of all, Voltaire attacked the Pope who was perhaps the most unenlightened of, I do like speaking to Jewish audiences. I can’t be attacked the same this. That the Pope was perhaps the most extreme autocrat of all. Well, Voltaire thought so. “The Pope is the chief the Christians, he’s an ancient idol, worshipped now from habit. Once he was formidable even to princes, for he will depose them as easily as our magnificent sultans depose the kings Iremetia or Georgia. But nobody fears him any longer. Bishops, when assembled together, compose articles of belief. When they’re on their own, virtually their only function is to dispense people from obedience to the Christian law.” Not much love. And of course, when France has its revolution in 1789, it becomes a secular country. Remember, Catholicism is not the established faith in France as the Church of England is the established church here. And of course one element of the Enlightenment in the break with Britain, is there’s no established church in America either. That’s partly the Enlightenment. Voltaire also said of kings, and he’s particularly thinking of Louis XIV of France. “Moreover, the kings are great magicians,” says Voltaire, “He exerts authority even over the minds of his subjects. He makes them think what he wants. If there are only a million crowns in the exchequer and he needs two million, all he needs to do is persuade them that one crown is worth two, and they believe it.” So, the Enlightenment philosophers, or political philosophers if you like, condemn absolutism, but they do not necessarily want republicanism. Republicanism comes with the American Revolution, which is of a specific type and sort, and has to be seen in an English context. But the idea of republics really comes about with the French Revolution of 1789. Well, they weren’t thinking about that.

Most of them were thinking about following a British model of a constitutional monarchy, with a constitution, in European terms, a written constitution. Whereas the British is of course unwritten, and with a parliament, or Congress, or whatever words you want to use, but a parliament elected by the people, even if only by men, and even if only by a small group or number of men in a country. So the Enlightenment political philosophers challenge absolutism. They look at Britain, or the Europeans look at Britain as a model. You could argue that the Americans do as well. But instead the Americans are looking at the period of the 1650s when England itself was a republic. As I say, the English American situation is quite a separate and different one. But a new idea emerged amongst these absolutist monarchs. They don’t want to give up absolutism. They don’t want to give up power. They don’t want a written constitution. They don’t want elected parliament. And so what they do is to create a new philosophy and the new philosophy we know as enlightened absolutism. Now let’s think a minute, that’s nonsense. Absolutism is absolutism. It can’t be enlightened, can it? And the other phrase is even more odd, enlightened despotism. Well, I suppose some of us of my age particularly, well, I was going to say particularly the men, but I think it also applies to women.

We may have been at schools where the staff exhibited what they would’ve described as enlightened despotism on us. You are not to do that, William. I’m only punishing you for your own good. Now, bend over. Now, many of us experience that, I’m sure, when we were young. It’s still absolutism, but it’s for my good that I’m being caned, not for the satisfaction of the absolutist headmaster. Well, to me, at the receiving end of a beating it’s much the same thing. But they argued quite differently. They argued that they were doing the best for the people and this was a difference from the old absolutism where they simply did what they wanted to do. Now they’re thinking, what can I do for the people? P.S. as long as it doesn’t interfere with me. And that is a difference, and that is an important difference. Now the question is, of whether you can take, and this is a very interesting question in European terms, whether you can take Enlightened absolutism as a first step towards republicanism, or constitutional monarchy. Well, if we take the Russia of Catherine II, the answer is no. By the time of the penultimate czar, Alexander III of Russia, Nicholas II’s father, absolutism was as grim as ever it had been. If we take France for example, absolutism returned with Louis XVIII and Charles X, arguably also under Napoleon I before them. And it took a long time to reach republicanism. And in Russia, they haven’t reached a stage of a functioning democratic republic, or a functioning constitutional monarchy. And if we take the Hungarian part of Austria, then you might want to argue that they also have failed both with a constitutional monarchy, which was attempted after 1918, and with a republic, which has now failed again under Orban.

So maybe enlightened absolutism was a blind alley. Again, if you were doing a university course, that would be an essay for you to do. Enlightened absolutism proved to be a blind ally, but both Maria Theresa and Joseph II really thought, really thought that they could, they could manage this, they could do it. So Joseph himself said everything for the people, nothing by the people, I think, but what’s good for you, like teachers at school, we know what’s best for you, and you can’t have a view. Nothing by the people. This is the short introductory Oxford Series, Martyn Rady’s “Hapsburg Empire,” which is on my list I mentioned last week. And there’s a little piece here. “All the duties of people,” said, a contemporary, “All the duties of peoples and subjects may be reduced to the formula to promote all the ways and means adopted by the ruler for their happiness, by their obedience, fidelity, and diligence.” So enlightened absolutism is the phrase used to describe the reigns of Catherine, sorry, Catherine the Great, certainly in Russia, but in our terms, Maria Theresa and her son Joseph II. So let’s turn then to this extraordinary figure of Maria Theresa, one of the great female monarchs of Europe, often compared to Catherine of Russia or Elizabeth of England. Elizabeth I. Maria Theresa was born at the beginning of the century in 1717, to the emperor Charles VI, and his German wife, Elizabeth from Brunswick.

She was the eldest of Charles’s two daughters. Charles had no sons. In fact, Charles’s brother Francis, who had ruled before him, also only had daughters, not sons. And that’s why Charles ascended the throne. Not that they had the Salic law, the Salic law means women cannot succeed. But it was, as it were, an accepted view that women could not rule. And Charles VI was determined that his eldest daughter, Maria Theresa, should rule. Why did he do this? Why was he keen on this? Well, the last Hapsburg king of Spain, Charles II, had died in 1700. There was now a Bourbon on the throne in Spain, a grandson of Louis XIV, and Louis XIV’s France, and France in general, looks as though it could replace the Habsburgs as the great power in Europe. And he did not want Austria to be weak. And therefore he set about introducing legislation in 1713, which is called the Pragmatic Sanction. And the Pragmatic Sanction says, my daughter Maria Theresa is my heir. Pragmatic. And pragmatic because of the international politics of the situation, bot to let France get hold of Europe, if you like. And this is, this is again Rady’s book. This is a short description of of the Pragmatic Sanction. It’s just a sentence. “The Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 established the indivisibility of the Hapsburg lands and a single succession, including the rights of daughters to inherit.” So it’s still the same objective that Charles V had had, to keep the lands of the Hapsburgs together. Now, through no fault of their own, they’ve lost Spain. They’ve lost it in the war of the Spanish succession. The Bourbons are there, but they very cleverly begin to negotiate in Joseph II’s way, to pull the Spanish Bourbons out of their alliance with France, and into an alliance with Austria.

And in the end, France gained very little, by having Bourbons in Spain. But they didn’t appear to be so at the time. And that’s why Charles, father of Maria Theresa, wants Maria Theresa to succeed him. As it happens, she was the only woman ever to rule Hapsburg lands. Remember, I keep having to say Hapsburg lands, because they’re all these dotted bits across. What was she? Well, she was the sovereign of Austria, Archduchess of Austria, the sovereign of Hungary and Croatia. She was queen of Hungary, including Croatia. She was a sovereign of Bohemia, and Transylvania, Mantua, Milan, Galicia, the Austrian Netherlands, Belgium and Southern Holland, Palmer in Italy. And by marriage, she was the Duchess of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany, and Holy Roman Empress. From which she gets the title empress. But it was her husband, Francis of Lorraine, who became Holy Roman Emperor, because the Germans in the Holy Roman Empire, the electors would not elect a woman. So although her father managed to get her as Archduchess of Austria, and Queen of Hungary, and all those other Hapsburg lands to the east and into Italy, he could not magic her onto the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. Francis may have worn the trousers as Holy Roman Emperor, but make no mistake, Maria Teresa is the boss. She actually is the ruler, if not technically the sovereign. I don’t know how she ever had time to do it. She gave birth to 16 children. I don’t know if there’s any lady listening to me tonight who’s given birth to 16 children, if they have, they might comment on how they feel they could have run this massive empire. It’s extraordinary when you think about it.

Quite extraordinary. She really didn’t give power either to her husband, or after his death to her son, who became Holy Roman Emperor. She controlled both. And in terms of her own lands, her son was a co-ruler, but the son didn’t interfere with his mother. Maybe some of us have had mothers we would’ve been careful not to cross. But there was another reason. If mother, well, let’s say this, if there was a decision that went wrong, Joseph could always blame mummy for making the decision. It wasn’t me. In fact, I actually, he would let me know, advised against it, but she didn’t. You know what she’s like, she wouldn’t take my view. Very handy. Very handy way of learning how to take power without actually taking it, and having someone else. Of course, I mean it went well. This was entirely up to Joseph. So that’s an interesting relationship that Maria Theresa has, both with husband, and with her son. She herself had been allowed to attend council meetings. In British terms, it would’ve been the Privy Council, the court, from the age of 14 because her father wanted her to learn about the affairs of state. But he never discussed them with her. And when she, when he died and she inherited, she really was wet behind the ears. It’s always a problem with absolute monarchies. They don’t like to think of their own deaths, or prime ministers, or presidents for that matter. And they don’t want to groom a successor. I mean, the worst question you could possibly ask the present queen, were you to be dining with her, is do you think Charles will make a good king?

That is not the right question, as it would be not a right question to ask Biden, who does he think will be the democratic candidate in the next? You don’t ask those questions. People in power don’t want to think there comes time, just an aside, some of the greatest of leaders actually prepare for their succession, actually realise that something has to be done in who succeeds them. But often, the person they choose, they know in advance is inferior to them so that the judgement of history will be in their favour. When a Winston Church pushed Eden to succeed him, he’d actually said in private, I think Anthony will ruin himself within three years. Spot on. Well actually less than three years, but spot on. So you actually want someone to select someone who’s better, who they believe to be better than them, well you can’t do that in absolute monarchy, but you could at least train them as far as you could. But Charles did not train Maria Theresa. She learned on the job, if you like. She had to take to begin with, her father’s counsel, and she had to rely upon her husband. She said herself, “I found myself without money, without credit, without an army, without experience and knowledge of my own. And finally, also without any council, because each one of them wanted to wait and see how things would developed.” What she means by that is, “I say I give this woman a year, don’t you?” “Yes, absolutely old boy, don’t think she’ll last more than 12 months.” “Well, we better not get too close to her had we?” “No, no, no. I don’t think we should. I think I’m going to retire to my estates. I’m not feeling at all well, you know.” Was the attitude of the people around her. And you can see why. And then war came almost immediately. The war of the Austrian succession lasted eight years, 1740, to 1748. Why the war of the Austrian succession?

Because France thought this is an opportunity to challenge Maria Theresa as inheriting the Hapsburg lands, and her husband becoming Holy Roman Emperor. They challenged it. It’s part of France’s bid to be the European superpower of the 18th century. Consequently, Britain supported Austria, ‘cause the last thing the British ever want is for France to be a European superpower. And the Russians backed Austria as well. The war was fought not only in Europe, but actually in India. The French and the British are fighting over India. When peace finally came at the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, Maria Theresa was confirmed as Archduchess of Austria and Queen of Hungary. She’d come out, in that sense, diplomatically victorious. But the war is noticeable, or is not noticeable. The war is notable for a number of reasons. First of all, from a British point of view, the Battle of Fontenoy marked the last time that an English king led an English army into battle, in this case, George II. Second, the failure of the last Jacobite rebellion, 1745, 46, of Bonnie Prince Charlie, failed because the French were so focused upon the Hapsburg War in 1745, that they had no time to bother about the House of Stuart regaining the throne of England. Thirdly, the British, oh never, never, ever, trust the British. The British forced Maria Theresa to cede Silesia to Prussia. Why? Because the British wanted to make peace as it were, with Prussia, because they fear that Prussia might want to move in on Hanover. And Hanover of course is a British possession, George II of England being elector of Hanover.

So the British have an interest in Germany, a land interest, and in order to give a tidbit of raw red meat to Prussia, they gave Silesia. Now that’s important in future history because Silesia is a very important industrial area, as everyone knows, come the industrial revolution, for the development of a unified and united Germany. After the Austrian War of Succession, there’s a realignment. Britain has now allied itself with Prussia, and it remains allied to Prussia until 1914 in the first World War. Remember, it’s an Anglo-Prussian force that defeats Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815. And Austria is forced to have a relationship with France. And that emphasises the division in Germany with the rise of Prussia. And it marks the rise of Prussia. And that’s another story about German unification. And that’s not my story. But the important part here, is that Austria, forced by Britain, cedes Silesia to Prussia, and Britain allies with Germany. But war breaks out again in what we call the Seven Years War, 'cause it lasted seven years, from 1756 to 1763. And that war is fought in Europe, it’s fought in the Americas, and it’s fought in India. And as a result of that war, the British Empire is formed. That is to say Canada, the French are defeated by Quebec. And in India, Clive defeats the French at the Battle of Place, and India becomes British. So from a British point of view, it’s not what happens in Europe, even though we had armies in Europe, it what’s happened in North America, and what happens in India, that was of enormous importance. And for any American listening, you all know that George Washington learned his trade as a soldier as a colonel in the colonial regiments of the British army fighting the French in this Seven Years War.

The war finally came to an end, and Austria had been quite successful, supported by Britain, and had actually taken some Prussian territory. It was made to give it back, and it hoped to get Silesia in return. But Britain isn’t having anything to do with that. And Silesia remains with Prussia. And there is what historians call a balance of power, now in Europe. There’s a balance of power between France, Britain, Prussia, Austria, these big countries. Or Russia if you want, to put Russia into the frame as well, there’s a balance of power following the seven years war. There’s a recalibration, of not just European power, but world power. I’ve just mentioned Britain defeating France and India and in Canada. There’s a rebalancing of power. So Maria Theresa turns away from war and towards the issues of peace, and towards the issues of reform. In the light of Enlightenment thinking, she, well, first of all, she’s got to find money, because she needs to increase the army, and she needs to bring the army, the Austrian army, up to the mark. I mean, one of the stories of course when we get to 1914, 18 is the Austrian army is certainly not up to mark then, and it wasn’t when Maria Theresa took over. And so she has a united army. This is outside of Germany, the Holy Roman Empire, but also outside of Hungary. Hungary is always resistant. Budapest is resistant to rule from Vienna. They won’t have anything do it. And we will meet this division between Austria and Hungary within Hapsburg lands at a later date, with an attempt to solve the problem in the last decades of the 19th century under Franz Joseph, when Austria, the Empire of Austria, becomes the Empire of Austro-Hungary.

But at this stage, Hungary is still bloody minded, if you like, and remains bloody minded, right through to 1918 and beyond. Remember in the interwar years of the 20th century, Hungary was technically a monarchy, even though there was no monarch, because Admiral Hothy, once described by an American president as an admiral with no navy, and a regent with no king. But there is a difference. And this difference really emerges in a strong way. Maria Theresa herself was very pro-Hungarian, as was Franz Joseph’s wife, Cece. But Cece was interested because she liked the soldiers in colourful uniforms and tight trousers. Maria Theresa liked Hungary, because they didn’t question anything about her rule as a woman. She had to get the resources right to get the army right, because without the army right, she can’t do anything, because Austria is subject. If it doesn’t have an army to defend it, is subject to anybody, but in particular the French, wandering in as it were. So she sorts that problem out with financial reforms. We talked before I began about the difficulty of taxation. Yes, but a real attempt is made in Maria Theresa’s reign. And by 1780, the Hapsburg state revenue had reached 50 million Guild, and achieved its first balanced budget. Many countries would like to be able to say that in the 21st century. She was also quite modern in her reforms and in her approach. She embraced the concept of inoculation for smallpox. She even had her own children and herself inoculated. Well, once she tested it out, we have to say, on orphans, and newborn orphans, on orphans five upwards, and newborn orphans. She tested it out on them.

When they didn’t die, she had her children and herself inoculated. She’d have been jolly good with dealing with the anti-vaxxers today. She was convinced because smallpox was a real killer, a real killer. She also restricted the sale of poisons throughout the Hapsburg lands. And they had to be recorded by pharmacists. And that seems to me to be an important development. She turned to the law, and she tried to unify the legal system. However, that didn’t apply to the Holy Roman Empire lands in Germany, nor did it apply, surprise, surprise, to Hungary. But she made an attempt to do that. She was obsessed by the sexual morality of her subjects. She’s very religious, she’s very Catholic. She established a chastity commission. It sounds like the Taliban. To count down on prostitution, homosexuality, adultery, and sex between members of different religions. Ah, so she’s not tolerant then? No, she isn’t. She isn’t tolerant towards the Protestants that she ruled over, and of course she is intolerant towards the Jews. What she said in terms of Jews was this, “I know of no greater plague than this race, which on account of its deceit, usury and avarice, is driving my subjects into beggary Therefore, as far as possible, the Jews are to be kept away and avoided.” She was extremely anti-Semitic. I’m not saying anymore about it, not because it’s not important, it obviously is important, and it’s important to the subsequent history of the Hapsburg Empire, because Trudy is dealing with that in her next talk. And Trudy will go into much more detail.

And she’s able to over an hour, about the anti-Semitism within both Maria Teresa’s reign and the reign of Joseph II. She was also deeply anti-Protestant, but her view about Protestants was, they were Christian heretics, and therefore should be converted. They were put into work houses. If they converted, they could go back home again. If they weren’t, well, she had many of them transported to Transylvania. This is not, in that sense, a nice person, in any way. The son Joseph, regarded his mother’s religious policies as quote, “Unjust, impious, impossible, harmful, and ridiculous.” But he didn’t tell her that. But he does introduce an act of toleration when he comes to the throne. And there’s much more toleration shown to Protestants in particular, but also to Jews. And I’ll come to that in a moment when I say a little bit about Joseph in a second. But as I say, as regards to the Jews, wait 'til Trudy, who is the expert, not me, on that whole issue of the antisemitism of the period. But then remember, remember that we get the anti-Semitism deep in Austria. And it doesn’t need me to remind all of you tonight that Hitler was not German, but Austrian. She was also against, and interestingly, she was also against the Pope. She didn’t want control from the Vatican over the church. She wanted a state church rather like in England, but in her case, a Catholic state church. And if you like, you could compare what she was trying to do with the Catholic church in Austria with what the Hanoverian settlement had done with the Anglican Church in England.

And that’s another good essay topic, if you were doing essays in a university, that I might set you to write. So she’s anti, and she’s very anti Jesuits. The Jesuits really did not like her. So she’s anti lots of people. Why? Because she’s still in her mind, and in practise more often than not, an absolute monarch. And she’s right. And I bet if you pushed her, she would’ve said, because God has taught me I’m right. And the issue of religion, all the religions within the Hapsburg lands, is a recurring feature all the way through until 1918. And you can say within the European Union in the 21st century, the issue of religion, or the culture that Protestantism and Catholicism has developed separately also lies at the problem, at the base of a lot of problems, within Europe. Prussian-led Germany, Protestant. Catholic France. Or, secular France, take your pick. But she did a great deal for education. Now, if we’re British, perhaps I should say if you are English, we know that Germany, both, first of all, Prussia, and then the German Empire, and the Weimar Republic, had a far better educational system, particularly for example, in Germany with technical education, than we ever managed to achieve in England. And indeed was still suffering from the difference between the German emphasis on education, particularly technical education, and the British lack of emphasis on education. And it’s still persistent classical education in Britain. All the anti-Eaton stuff in Britain against, against Boris Johnson, who himself is a classist. I have to say, I don’t think a particularly good one. But that’s an aside, I shouldn’t have said that. But Maria Theresa took education seriously.

She even permitted non-Catholics to attend university. And she introduced secular subjects such as law. And her reign sees the decline of theology as an important university and school subject. She also set up specific institutions post-school to prepare officials for working in the civil service. Something that we have constantly failed to do in Britain, but of course the French do to great success. Very important, because education continues to advance in Hapsburg lands, right through to 1918. I remember visiting on a holiday, cruising along the Croatian coast, visiting a small walled town, and seeing a pre-1914 building, which was because I’d seen pictures, and I knew what to look for, was an adult education institute. And I went to have a look. And it was a primary school. Yeah, I know it was a primary school now, but it was, but it was an adult education institute prior to 1914. And right across the Hapsburg Empire, they developed education wisely, both technical education, but also having some of the very best adult education that existed, and some of the earliest in the Austria-Hungarian Empire. And that’s impressive. So, education began to take off under Maria Theresa. Let me move on, and answer the question of her legacy. She is considered today in Austria to be a great ruler. Why shouldn’t she be? She reigned for 40 years, and her reforms did indeed transform Austria from a backwater of Europe, into a major European power that, leave the Holy Roman Empire slightly out of this, because we see now a developing, innate, I don’t like the word innate, we see a developing empire from Vienna, eastward.

And that, and southwards, east and south, from Vienna. And those Austrian lands, she managed to move towards a modern world. So at the end of the 19th century, if you were well-heeled and British, well-heeled, and well, extra well-heeled, you had money, an American, then Vienna was the place you wanted to go. Sophisticated. Sophisticated Vienna. But she isn’t truly an enlightened woman because her views of religion were stuck in some previous mediaeval Catholic age, anti-Protestant, anti-Jewish, and anti-Pope. It’s all odd. And then Joseph succeeds. Well, the problem is with Joseph, he was rather over enthusiastic with the Enlightenment, and he didn’t carry people with him, which is the other difficulty of leadership. You’ve got to carry people with you. And Joseph went too fast too soon. In fact, one historian says that his reign descended into a comedy of errors. I think that’s harsh. He married Isabella of Parma. He is, of course, Catholic. But as I said to you just now, he introduces a patent of tolerance in 1781, providing a limited guarantee of freedom of worship. And he looked to create unity, not to having a Catholic church, a Catholic state church, to which everyone belonged. He sought to create it in another way, which was equally difficult. He wanted to make everyone German. Well, good luck with that in Prague. Good luck with that in Poland. And very good luck with that in Hungary. He attempted to impose German, the language, as a unifying factor. And it really didn’t work. It really didn’t work. People resented it. And this is the ongoing Hapsburg problem. Leave the Holy Roman empire on one side, and think about the Austrian lands themselves, Hungary, Croatia, into Italy, Poland, Galicia, all these places, Czech, Bohemia, and so on. These places were never welded into one country. By 1914, it was clear they could never be, unless you had some degree of federation.

Had World War I not come, had Franz Joseph died before he actually did die, then there might have been a chance. There might have been a slim chance that they could have converted the Austria-Hungarian empire into a federal state. And they argue today, historians of the Austria-Hungarian empire, that that’s exactly what the EU has achieved. Well, you can take your own view about that. One of the things that Joseph pushed through was emancipation of the peasantry. They should be paid in money, not in goods. And he officially abolished serfdom in 1781, serfdom had long disappeared in England, but serfdom, where a man, woman, child even, is tied to one particular piece of land. They can’t leave. It’s little better than slavery, is abolished throughout their lands in 1781. He also abolished, for a short period of time, the death penalty. Joseph is a truly enlightened despot, but he’s still a despot. The thing he needed to do, with hindsight, of course, is to construct a constitution. And a constitution that was a federal constitution, that would enable Hungarian lands, Polish lands, Czech lands, Italian lands, all to be part of one empire controlled by Vienna, but not to try and make everywhere like Vienna with German as the language, was never going to work. But he had some success. It’s true, in centralization of things like taxation, he rationalised government, yet he does do a number of positive things. But the end of the day, the problems I discussed earlier with Charles V, remain at Joseph’s own death. Education continues. Now, there’s a problem that education, if education reaches further and further down in society, and people read books, and go to talks, political talks, then from below rises up power to challenge the absolutism.

So education is a positive, but it has for the ruler, a negative impact. Why do you think dictators controlled curriculum? Something that worries Americans, and worries Britain’s as well, is government interference in curriculum. Government interference in what books are taught. I mean, books in English are taught. One has to be very careful, says he as an educator. But once you educate people, they can think for, that’s what every educator, whether they’re educating four year olds or 94 year olds, wants people to think for themselves. I never want any of you to think like me. God help you. I want you to think for yourselves. But if you think for yourselves, you don’t only challenge me, but you challenge all those as the Anglican Book of Common Prayer says, “All those put in authority over you.” Prime ministers, presidents and everything else, we have a right in a democracy, and we have a right to be educated, and an education that gives us the skills to challenge political leadership. It’s just as important as press freedom. I’ll get off my hobby horse. So, Joseph goes further than his mother, and we have to wait to see what happens, except of course we know what happens. And we know that what bursts on the scene in 1789 is the French Revolution. And what bursts on the scene in the late 1790s is Napoleon Bonaparte. And the ideas that the Enlightenment transformed by Bonaparte’s military, and introduced across Europe, change Europe forever. And they seriously affect, they seriously affect the Hapsburg Empire, the Holy Roman Empire’s got rid of by Napoleon for a start. But ideas in Italy, and in the Balkans take root, because of Napoleon, because of France, because, so the reforms made by Maria Theresa and Joseph II are not sufficient bulwark against these new ideas of the French Revolution.

What is amazing, what is truly amazing, is that somehow or other the Hapsburgs managed go on for another century from 1815 to 1918. That’s what’s amazing. Not that they did, not that they were to collapse in 1918, but that they should have collapsed in something like, well, certainly in 1848, when they had to flee Vienna and seek sanctuary in Russia because of the rising up of people who are educated. Joseph dies in 1790, a few months after the French Revolution. He himself said his epitaph should read, “Here lies a ruler, who despite his best intentions, couldn’t realise any of his plans.” That’s, I find that deeply moving. “Here lies a ruler, who despite his best intentions, couldn’t realise any of his plans.” And had he managed the trick, which no one managed, to unite the Hapsburg lands into one coherent state, the history of Europe would’ve been very different. Very different. After Joseph died, there were many monuments put up to him. In the First Republic of Czechoslovakia in 1918 they were all torn down, not because of his tolerance of different religions, not because he eased censorship, not because of his many reforms in education. They tore it down because of his policy of Germanization and centralization. They tore it down for that reason.

This is my conclusion for this little talk this evening. Joseph’s reforms were, in my opinion, mostly exemplary. Yet they did not deal with the underlying problem of the Hapsburg lands. They remained precisely that, lands and not a nation. The imposition, or attempted imposition of central taxation and religious toleration, and the use of German, could not paper over the cracks. The Hapsburg empire, let alone the Holy Roman Empire over which they ruled, were no longer by the end of the 18th century, fit for purpose. Just over half a century after Maria Theresa and from Joseph’s reforms, Franz Joseph became the Habsburg ruler and never solved the problem up to his death in 1916, in the middle of the first World War. Then the empire finally collapsed. Austria became a very small alpine country stranded with an imperial capital in Vienna. And that’s the story we have to continue on another Monday evening. So I’ll stop there. Thank you very much for listening.

• [Judi] Thank you, William. Do you have time to go over some of the questions?

• Yes, I do. Hang on.

• [Judi] Great.

Q&A and Comments:

• It’s not an emu on my tie. It’s an Oxford dodo. It’s the Oxford dodo in the museum at Oxford. Yeah, that’s very, yes. And, if I didn’t make that clear, I’m happy to do so.

This is Marion who said the Enlightenment was also fueled by great letter writing between thinkers, intellectuals, and artists. True. And some of those, of course, and this is where it becomes very interesting, are women. And so we have women, I was born in Bristol, and a hundred yards from my parents’ home was the home of Hannah Moore, who was an enlightened woman who brought education down to minors in Somerset, and who was a friend of actors like Garrett. And she was a great adult educator. And I feel very proud to have been born in the same area, and lived in the same area as as Hannah Moore. So she was just one of the women.

Rosalyn, I think many men would agree with this. Rosalyn says, with regard to absolutism, my sister said she always ran her household as a benign dictatorship. Yeah, lots of men listening tonight will say, I know exactly that.

Q: Enlightened despotism, is it benevolent dictatorship?

A: Yes, it is. It’s precisely that. It’s oxymoronic.

Q: Were you caned often?

A: I’m pleased to say no.

Q: Perhaps these monarchs took their absolute enlightenment from Plato and his wise king?

A: No, no they didn’t. No, no, no, they didn’t. You are right about Plato in the wise king bit. But no, they didn’t.

Q: Is enlightened absolutism a step towards democracy in China? Asked Michael Goldberg.

A: Michael, that’s a very good question. Why do you think I can answer that? I thought a minute, is enlightened absolutism a step towards democracy in China? And I think the answer has to be no. My, well, sorry. I think my answer would be no. And I suspect that China, like all empires, because as you well know, China is an empire with very many different ethnicities and languages, and let alone religions in it. It is likely to split apart, it will have an internal eruption, and out of it, who knows what will happen.

This is interesting from Mike Dahan, before the French Revolution, Louis XVI gave the assembly the right to rule, but rumours, false news, and lack of bread, following the women market traders walking to Versailles, and the king coming to Paris led to the revolution. The falsification of facts. Well, truth is the first thing to suffer in revolutions and in war. And truth is, I hope, I bet some of you listening are politicians. I know one politician who’s listening, but truth is often a rare commodity amongst politicians.

Yeah. Well, Linda, you are right, Linda, you’re right. Enlightened absolutism, rule for thee, and not for me. Seems to me that nothing has changed much in all these centuries. Now that is important. And it’s important in America and Britain particularly where we have populist leaders. I’m not sure whether you count Biden in that, but we, in Trump and Johnson, and we have problems with our democracy.

Q: Is our democracy in Britain and in America any longer fit for purpose?

A: And that’s a difficult question. Enlightened absolutism is what I think every leader would, I always feel de Gaulle is enlightened absolutism, and and that’s why the Constitution of the Fifth Republic was drafted in the way that it was. Whereas Churchill was very aware of that danger. And it’s why every week, in every week of the war, if he was in England, he went to the House of Commons to be questioned and challenged. But then de Gaulle and Churchill are rather different than Trump, Biden, and Johnson. I think FDR picked Truman as an inferior who couldn’t compete with him.

And that says, Eli. I’m sure you are right. I’m sure that’s right. They do. Particularly people of, yeah, I mean Truman was, well sometime, I don’t know, I don’t want to get involved in FDR Truman who is, who is the greater or who is not. But I think you’re right. Surely Prussia is much further north, Silesia much before it’s- Yes it is. But remember, Germany is all in little pockets, so they have different pockets in different places. Prussia, like Austria, was not a contiguous realm. Who did the French have in mind take over the Hapsburg- God knows, themselves presumably, or a marriage of convenience, whatever. But they were after becoming the superpower, one of the ways of looking at English history is that England has never favoured a superpower on the continent of Europe. Thus, it defeated Spain at the Armada. They defeated France finally at Waterloo. And it was part of the defeat of Germany twice in the 20th century. And some would argue that is one of the reasons it withdrew from Brexit, it withdrew from Europe with Brexit. That’s a difficult, but there is an argument to be made along those lines. Not particularly one that I would want to make.

Q: Mike Deharm, what did she do for educating women?

A: Very little is the answer to that. No, very little.

Q: When did Hapsburg Austrian University allow women to study?

A: I’m always reluctant to give an answer when I’m not entirely sure. I want to say early 20th century, and I’m probably right, but I may well be wrong. I don’t know. German, not Latin. Maria Theresa wanted German as well.

This is an interesting point from Christopher, still existing today, the Teresianum is an elite private boarding and day school governed by the laws for public schools in Vienna. It was founded in 1746 by Maria Theresa. An Austrian Countess friend of mine’s son went there. Great.

Q: How would you compare Maria Theresa, Elizabeth, and Catherine the Great?

A: I don’t know that you can. In terms of legacy, Elizabeth left the best legacy. She left a United England, she left a entrepreneurial England. Now the unity didn’t stand, but the unity over a period of time stood after the English revolution. But, it’s the entrepreneurial side of her reign. And Maria Theresa, Catherine the Great, Catherine the Great, Catherine the Great, Maria Theresa’s achievements are lost.

Q: Is this the Emperor Joseph associated with the Jerusalem synagogue in Prague? Says Bernard.

A: One of you, well, Trudy will answer that. I’m not going to say because, again, I could well be wrong. There’s no point telling you something and I may be wrong. Trudy will answer that question. And if she doesn’t, you can ask her at the end of her talk.

Oh, that’s a much more difficult question. And you’re all asking difficult questions tonight. How come French was the official language of the international educated world in the 18th and 19th century controlled by the Hapsburgs, and German, or never English. In the 19th century, England controls the world, but it was always French. It was considered the language of diplomacy. And I don’t know why.

No, I haven’t read “The Nature and Purpose of Public Instruction,” Peter, therefore my beliefs aren’t inspired by that. Thank you for people who said you enjoyed it. Yeah.

Oh, very good point, Karen. I now understand the background against which much of the music Mozart, et cetera, was created. If you look at the Enlightenment in different places, different countries, that is, it has a different expression. In France, it’s the philosophers. In England, which isn’t a philosophical country, particularly, it has significant changes in attitude. And somebody asked about women. Yes. And I mentioned Hannah Moore. I could have mentioned others. Mary Wollstonecraft. It has an impact on women in England, in Britain.

Q: Why did Maria Theresa allow her daughter Marie Antoinette, to Mary Louis XV?

A: For the sake of peace. It’s a political marriage. These marriages, Louis the XVI, as somebody said, sorry, I’ve read the question. Louis the 16th. It’s because of a political marriage in the hope of peace. That’s why. The daughters were just married off. It’s dreadful to think, when Mary Stewart, who married William of Orange, she was married to him at the age of 15. And she was in tears because she was going to be married off to this older man, and the wife of the king, that is her stepmother, Mary, the wife of James II second said, but my dear, I didn’t know a word, I didn’t know anything about England when I came, and I’ve been very happy in England. And she said, but you weren’t born here, and I was, and I don’t want go. Fantastic answer.

Carl Luga was a student at the school, says, Trudy, oh, thank you Trudy. And that’s a fantastic, as you said, fantastic cross reference. And you’ll be talking about Carl Luga. Napoleon spread French and driving on the right. Well, yes, he did spread, he did spread French. Yes. And it’s, yeah, I think absolutely right. Thank you, thanks for people making nice comments. I’m not going to comment on any of them. It is nice to read them.

Yes, Adrianne, you are absolutely right. Maybe the impact of the Enlightenment in England was the growth of scientific inquiry, Newton, invention of the steam engine, industrial revolution. Yes, absolutely. Spot on. Absolutely right. As Trudy just says, all these things intermingle. One of the good things about adult education is that we can bring in things from outside what we are particularly talking about. And you can see links. The problem with school and university history teaching is everything’s seen in blocks. This term we’re doing Maria Theresa and Joseph II, next term we’re doing Hitler and the Nazi. And, no, no, no, no, no. It’s, you’ve got to have a sense of chronology. If you do not understand where we have come from, whoever we might be, you have no chance of understanding where we, whoever we might be, are intending to go. If you don’t understand the American Civil War, you can’t understand America in the 21st century. If you don’t understand the immigration the immigration into Britain post 1945 from the Commonwealth, then you cannot understand why the empire is now such a burning question. You’ve got to understand, where we are is built upon where we’ve come from. Yes. Speaking of French as Eddie, the Viennese and Hungarians prided themselves on their French, used French expressions even in German. An umbrella was a parapluie, and a sidewalk was the French term. Not only that, but also Romania was French speaking. Oh, I think I’d probably come to the end there. Yeah.

• [Judi] Thank you William. I didn’t want to interrupt you. That was a session. Thank you so much, William, and we’ll see you next week. And thank you to everybody you joined us with this evening. Wherever you are. Take care everybody.

• Bye-bye. Bye-bye.

• [Judi] Bye-bye.