Enlightened Despotism and the Enlightened Despots

As with other forms of absolutism, enlightened absolutism locates sovereignty in the person of the
monarch rather than in the nation or the people, as is the case in constitutional monarchies and
republics. The power and legitimacy of a 17th-century absolute king derived directly from God, the
creator of the universe. In 18th-century enlightened absolutism, rule by divine right was replaced by rule
according to NATURAL LAW, the law that supposedly governed the natural world and human beings.
Natural law recognized God as the indirect source of royal power since this law was one of God’s
creations, but an absolute monarchy based on natural law was less intimately connected to the sacred
order than was a divine rights monarchy. One of the consequences of this change was the ability to
define the essence of a state in other than religious terms, thus making the establishment of religious
TOLERATION possible even in the absence of a constitutional SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
ENLIGHTENED MONARCHS also justified their rules by claiming that they stood above all sociopolitical
factions, ruling not as the spokesperson for any specific group but, according to Frederick II, as “the first
servant of the state.” Underlying this argument was the assumption that the monarch’s powers were not
arbitrary but based on the common good, a theory embodied in practice by the use of leading
enlightened figures instead of members of the traditional ruling elite as ministers to kings and queens.

Like 17th-century absolutists, enlightened absolute monarchs favored policies that strengthened their
states. They tried to streamline bureaucracies, subdue unruly subjects, reform taxation structures, and
build strong militaries. Traditional absolute rulers such as Louis XIV in France based their actions on
theories of MERCANTILISM and reasons of state, not on universal, egalitarian principles. They saw their
subjects as sources of labor and wealth and as means to the end of state glorification, not as individuals
endowed with RIGHTS by the natural order of the universe.
By comparing taxation policies in the two types of absolute monarchies, it is possible to see how
enlightened principles affected royal policies. European states in the 17th and 18th centuries rested on a
social system of privilege that exempted the nobility and other groups from various forms of taxation.
While traditional absolute monarchs and their ministers tended to work within this system of privilege,
enlightened monarchs and ministers tried to establish new principles for tax policy, based on enlightened
universalism and egalitarianism. One result was an increase in proposals to tax all subjects, no matter
their social rank. A second was a spate of proposals designed to rationalize the tax system by reducing
the number of taxes and simultaneously spreading the tax burden over the population.
The Hapsburg Empire provides another instructive example of the effects of enlightened absolutism in a
state: the distinction between cameralism and enlightened absolutism. Maria Theresa’s long reign
(1717–80) saw two separate periods of reform, the first governed primarily by cameralist principles and
the second guided by a combination of cameralism and Enlightenment ideas. The First Theresian Reform
radically restructured the administration of the monarchy and extended tax liability to noble lands, thus
allowing the Hapsburg state and its people to recover from the devastation of the WAR OF THE
AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION. Conceived and implemented by Count Friedrich Wilhelm Haugwitz with Maria
Theresa’s blessing and support, the Austrian monarchy was strengthened, centralized, and enriched in a
process that extended some prosperity even to peasants.
The Second Theresian Reform unfolded while Maria Theresa ruled Austria jointly with her son Joseph II.
Guided by the reformer Wenzel KAUNITZ and inspired by Joseph’s enlightened egalitarian principles, this
reform introduced changes intended specifically to alleviate the suffering of peasants and commoners by
limiting the privileges of the nobility. New laws reduced the number of days of obligatory labor (robot)
that a lord could demand from his peasants; a new system of public schools expanded the availability of
education; and domestic experiments by Milanese reformers made Hapsburg-ruled Lombardy an
international symbol of enlightenment. Within the state government, the
Bureaucracy was regularized and a system of entrance exams instituted to ensure that competent,
knowledgeable people rather than merely well-connected aristocrats could enter government service.
Thus, reform under enlightened absolutism redefined the relationship of the monarchy to its subjects,
even while continuing to strengthen the state.

Frederick the Great (Prussia)

The German states appeared to be the most fertile ground for enlightened absolutism. German
philosophes remained closely tied to the existing order, looking to the individual states and to the church
for reforms. They were less critical of the state than their French Counterparts. For Immanuel Kant
(1724-1804), the Enlightenment meant the liberation of the individual intellectually and morally, but not
politically or socially. The individual should think critically, but also obey.

Thus, by mid-eighteenth century, there had already developed in Germany, a political awareness
concerning the theory of enlightened government. A group of writers known as the ‘cameralists’ came
up. Including important theorists such as J.H.G. von Justi, Joseph von Sonnenfels, Seckendorff and von
Hornigke, the cameralists favoured an absolutist government based on the principles of the
Enlightenment. It is in this intellectual and political climate, that we note the rise of Frederick II.

Frederick, or “old Fritz,” was renowned among his European contemporaries as a model of successful
enlightened despotism He was a brilliant military strategist and tactician, an energetic, capable state
administrator, and a patron of the arts and sciences. He was also an amateur philosopher, poet, flutist,
composer, and music critic. He left major legacies as the ruler of PRUSSIA and many creations in the
arenas of his amateur interests. He is remembered today as both an illustrious example of the Prussian
soldier-king and as an 18th-century incarnation of the ideal of the PHILOSOPHER KING.

Frederick was the son of King Frederick William I of Prussia and of the Hanoverian princess Sophia
Dorothea. The relationship between Frederick and his father was marked by enormous tensions that
stemmed primarily from sharp differences in temperament, values, and ideas about the nature of
rulership. Frederick William represented the traditional German Protestant ideal of the king as a
benevolent and absolutely powerful father to his subjects. A devout Calvinist, he approached his tasks
with a zealous attention to detail and with an intolerance of frivolity. The young Frederick seemed to
embody precisely what his father despised, for Frederick preferred to spend his time reading philosophy
and literature, playing the flute, or writing poetry rather than hunting, practicing military drills, and
drinking. Deeply interested in enlightenment philosophy and looking up to the French philosophes, he
had even begun to correspond with Voltaire and d’Alembert.

But this conflict of personalities only partially explains the tension between the two men. The young
Frederick also participated in the schemes of his Hanoverian mother and the English-Hanoverian faction
at court. This faction wished to see Prussia align itself with ENGLAND and Hanover, rather than with its
traditional ally, AUSTRIA. To achieve the desired alliance, negotiations were being carried out behind
Frederick William’s back. Young Frederick personally made some contacts and definitely favored the idea
of marriage with an English princess.

The combination of personal conflict with his father and political intrigue proved so explosive that in
1730 the future Frederick the Great tried to flee from Prussia, only to find himself captured,
court-martialed, and imprisoned by his enraged father. The episode resulted in at least a superficial
public reconciliation between father and son. Frederick began to dedicate himself to learning the
business of governing a state. He began to exercise the political imagination that would mark his
subsequent years as Prussian king.

In 1733, Frederick was married to a member of a minor German princely family, Elizabeth Christine of
Brunswick-Bevern, for whom he never cared and whom he systematically neglected. In the following
year he saw active military service for the first time. In the later 1730s, in semiretirement in the castle of
Rheinsberg near Berlin and able for the first time to give free rein to his own tastes, he read voraciously,
absorbing the ideas on government and international relations that were to guide him throughout his
life. These years were perhaps the happiest that Frederick ever experienced.

On May 31, 1740, King Frederick William died. Frederick immediately assumed the throne and plunged
into war with Austria by grabbing Silesia. The act precipitated the larger European war known as the
WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION (1740–48). In pursuing his Silesian aims, Frederick showed that his
vision of Prussia’s position in Europe consisted of one in which Prussia would operate as a major power
to counterbalance the HAPSBURG EMPIRE. He also showed that he considered territorial
aggrandizement necessary for the establishment of secure Prussian borders. People began to call
Frederick, “the Great.” The fighting finally ended only in 1748. It confirmed Prussia as a new major force
within Europe.

Upon completion of the Silesian campaigns, Frederick turned to the business of internal government.
Between 1746 and 1756, he initiated nearly every major reform of his reign. Later years would see the
development and maturation of these policies. Frederick inherited a state already provided with the
outlines of an absolute, highly centralized government. Much of his work consisted of intensifying the
level of control within Prussia by extending and developing the possibilities contained within the
structure left to him by his father.

However, in several areas he quickly displayed the creative nature of his thinking about state policy. First,
he immediately called several prominent ENLIGHTENMENT figures to his capital, BERLIN. Among them,
VOLTAIRE was outstanding, if also one of the more difficult to handle. Plans were made to rejuvenate the
BERLIN ACADEMY, and Pierre de MAUPERTUIS, the French astronomer, was invited to become its
president. Julien Offray de LA METTRIE, the exiled French philosopher of MATERIALISM, obtained
Prussian protection. Several musicians received royal appointments. They included C. P. E. BACH, the
eldest son of J. S. BACH, Johann Joachim Quantz, the famed flutist who provided Frederick with flute
lessons, and the OPERA composer Karl Heinrich Graun, who immortalized Frederick’s Machiavellian
invasion of Silesia in an opera allegory entitled Montezuma.

Frederick also embarked on a major building campaign in Berlin. The Opera House (1743), the state
buildings along Unter den Linden Strasse, the Forum Fredericianum (now, Bebelplatz), and the Platz der
Akademie (Academy Place) all date from Frederick’s reign. Frederick also had Charlottenburg Palace
expanded by adding an east wing, and he commissioned the construction of Sans Souci, his summer
palace at Potsdam. Voltaire praised Frederick for having transformed "a sad Sparta into a brilliant
Athens." However, Voltaire would soon be disenchanted with the Prussian king. Voltaire angered
Frederick by lampooning a royal favorite and, when the king ordered his hangman to burn the offending
tract publicly, Voltaire took the hint and left Potsdam in 1752.

But Frederick again borrowed Enlightenment discourse in 1770 when he claimed that one of his major
tasks was "to make people as happy as is compatible with human nature and the means at my disposal."
He once claimed somewhat disingenuously that he was nothing more than the "first servant" of his
people as king and said that "I well know that the rich have many advocates, but the poor have only one,
and that is I."

Judicial reform ranked high for Frederick, and he outlined four major reform goals as early as 1746: to
establish one state court in each Prussian province, thereby reducing the numerous courts whose
jurisdictions clashed; to reduce the number of judgeships and to pay each judge substantially, while
forbidding the practice of receiving private dues and fines; to require the seignorial courts of private
landowners to use state approved judges; and to create a uniform law code applicable to every territory
within Prussian control. The first two reforms enjoyed swift implementation. The universal law code had
to wait until 1795 for fruition.

Very early in his reign, Frederick liberalized state control of the press and issued an official decree of
religious TOLERATION, which established as law the actual Prussian practice. In 1756, Frederick again
plunged Europe into a war, the SEVEN YEARS’ WAR, by moving against the electorate of Saxony.
Following the destruction and chaos engendered by this, the last great European conflict before the
Napoleonic Wars, Frederick turned to the business of rebuilding and restoring his state. In 1766, he
reorganized the central administration, replacing the old General Directory with a smaller council and
establishing separate ministries for mining, forestry, the mint, the state bank, and the tobacco and coffee
monopolies. Foreign affairs and justice were already separate departments.

With this reform, Frederick attempted to streamline and to rationalize the government BUREAUCRACY,
while still maintaining personal control of business. He issued regulations directly to each department
and provided no opportunity for official interdepartmental consultations. Through various largely
mercantilistic policies, Frederick attempted to invigorate trade, industry, and agriculture. He established
a program of colonization and land reclamation in the marshy areas of Pomerania, BRANDENBURG, and
the Oder River and introduced new English agricultural methods and products such as the potato. He
even considered relieving Prussian peasants of the burdens of SERFDOM, but, ultimately, he instituted
such changes only in his extensive private domains—even Frederick did not believe it possible to tamper
with the privileges of his powerful serf-owning nobles, the Junkers.

As Frederick aged and the task of ruling Prussia grew ever more complex, he became increasingly cynical
and suspicious. In an attempt to maintain thorough control over government affairs, he instituted a
system of internal surveillance, whereby individual bureaucrats surreptitiously observed and reported on
each other. The extension of absolute control became an obsession that began to demonstrate how the
ideals that had driven his reforms—RATIONALISM, the location of all aspects of sovereignty in the
kingship, and raison d’état, all central to one strain of the Enlightenment—could be warped beyond
recognition.

In spite of the developments of his later years, Frederick must be seen as an outstanding example of
enlightened despotism. Like his father, Frederick believed that the position of king above all entailed a
duty to govern the state responsibly, to observe strict economies of time and money, and to ensure
military efficiency. But Frederick William’s concepts derived from the old Calvinist notion of responsible
rule, whereas Frederick’s inspiration grew out of the application of the philosophy of the Enlightenment.
Rationalism, the associated notion of NATURAL LAW, utilitarianism, and humanitarianism, all enlightened
concepts, informed Frederick’s attempts to rule as the “First servant of the State” and to ensure that
foreign policy, justice, state bureaucracy, the arts, and culture all served the interests of the state. If
contradictions exist between Frederick’s theories and his practices as king of Prussia, then these
contradictions stem at least in part from the tensions inherent within the Enlightenment.

In addition to his achievements as a ruler, Frederick left some writings of interest to students and
scholars. His political writings include the Anti-Machiavel (1740, published 1767), the Histoire de mon
temps (History of my time; 1740–45), and the Testament politique (Political testament; 1768). He also
left an extensive correspondence. An avid, if not particularly accomplished, flutist, Frederick wrote more
than a hundred sonatas for that instrument, some of which can be obtained in modern editions, and he
left a small body of music criticism.

Catherine II (the Great)

Catherine II (the Great) (1729–1796) was a German princess and Russian empress, the wife and second
cousin of Czar Peter III of Russia. Peter III was the grandson of PETER I (THE GREAT). In 1762, Catherine
usurped the Russian throne from her husband by means of a palace coup d’etat in which she had him
assassinated. She ruled Russia as czarina (empress) from 1762 to 1796. Catherine’s activities during the
early years of her reign marked her as one of the enlightened despots of the 18th century.

Catherine the Great was born Sophie Anhalt-Zerbst. Her father was a minor German prince, Christian
Anhalt-Zerbst, who stemmed from an impoverished junior branch of the ruling family of Anhalt. Christian
had entered the service of FREDERICK II (THE GREAT) OF PRUSSIA. He had married Johanna Elizabeth of
Holstein-Gottorp, whose family had ties by marriage with the ruling dynasties in both SWEDEN and
Russia.

Sophie’s mother took her to Russia in 1744 with hopes of securing a marriage alliance between Sophie
and the heir to the Russian throne, Peter. The plan succeeded. The young Sophie made a public
conversion to Russian Orthodoxy, and under her new name, Catherine (Yekaterina), she began her life in
Russia. The marriage in 1745 between Catherine and Peter began badly and deteriorated. Both spouses
took lovers, Catherine, most notably, with the elegant and intelligent Polish count Stanislaus Augustus
Poniatowksi.

As a young and unhappy wife, she began to pursue her intellectual interests. The works of VOLTAIRE,
MONTESQUIEU, Pierre BAYLE, the PHYSIOCRATS, and the volumes of the great French ENCYCLOPÉDIE
became her companions. Montesquieu, in particular, would guide her thinking about political reform in
Russia.

Peter did not inherit the Russian throne as Peter III until December 25, 1761. He ruled for just six months
as Catherine aspired to the throne and with the support of Russian troops had herself proclaimed
empress. Peter III was forced to abdicate and was placed under arrest. On the morning of July 9, 1762,
he was murdered with Catherine’s connivance.

Catherine set out immediately to consolidate her shaky hold on power and to continue the great
Westernizing process begun by Peter the Great. For assistance in her tasks, she set up a series of official
commissions to review policies toward the church and the military. Then, in 1767, she assembled the
Legislative Commission, a group whose members supplied her with information about the conditions of
the country and thus helped her to assess the extent of possible reform. Subsequently, she initiated
decrees that provided some legal codifications, restrictions on the worst forms of torture, and a degree
of religious toleration.

In matters of religion, Catherine subordinated church to the state. The church was plundered and
subordinated to the state dictates. In 1764, she confirmed the decrees of Peter III nationalizing all land
belonging to the churches and monasteries and brought them under a new department called the
College of Economy. The monks and clergy were now paid salaries by the state. A large number of
peasants of the church lands now directly came under the state and were thus available to Catherine to
render labour as serfs and were later given to the nobles who supported her. In the 1790s, the church
boundaries were redrawn to match the administrative boundaries to have a better control over the
church. However, her religious policy was one of toleration. The partition of Poland brought a large
Catholic population under Russian control. She allowed these new subjects religious freedom. When the
Society of Jesus was dissolved in 1773, she did riot insist upon the expulsion of Jesuits. She even
tolerated the Jews who were given permission to join municipal, offices. Whether it was because of
practical needs of the time or the influence of the Enlightenment, it is not easy to answer.

In 1773, the great Pugachev rebellion broke out in Russia’s Ural region and rapidly spread into both the
southeastern provinces and central Russia. This was a large and violent mass uprising of Cossacks, serfs,
and workers in mines and factories, one of the worst rebellions that occurred anywhere in 18th-century
Europe. Catherine responded to the crisis with severe repression. She began to see the noble landlords
as allies in maintaining central state control.

This shift in her thinking resulted in the famous 1785 decree (ukaz) called the Charter of the Nobility. Its
terms granted to the Russian nobility the privileged status that was enjoyed by the nobility of European
countries. The charter contained the following provisions: Nobles were relieved from the compulsory
military and state service imposed on them by Peter III (the Great); they were guaranteed hereditary
noble status; they received certain legal and fiscal immunities such as exemption from personal taxation
and corporal punishment; they were granted economic privileges; and finally, they were given the right
to meet together in provincial assemblies. In short, Catherine, much like Frederick the Great, struck a
bargain with her nobles in return for their support of her rule.

Catherine the Great pursued foreign policies that profoundly affected the European political landscape.
Her territorial acquisitions created an expanded Russian Empire that stretched south all the way to the
shores of the Black Sea and west to the boundaries of ethnic Poland.

Eighteenth-century Russian high culture borrowed much from the ENLIGHTENMENT in western Europe,
and Catherine actively encouraged the dissemination of Western ideas into Russia. She herself read the
works of the French, German, and English Enlightenment avidly. The theoretical background for many of
her reforms can be found in the Encyclopédie, in the writings and practices of German CAMERALISM, and
in the treatises of Sir William BLACKSTONE, Montesquieu, and the Physiocrats. Catherine maintained a
long-term correspondence with both Voltaire and Melchior Grimm. Efforts in 1762 to woo Jean Le Rond
d’Alembert to Russia as the tutor for her son failed, but she corresponded with him until 1772.

Catherine purchased Denis Diderot’s library in order to help him raise a dowry for his daughter, provided
him with a substantial annual pension, and invited him to visit Russia. Diderot accepted the offer in 1773,
and spent six months (October 1773–March 1774) in Saint Petersburg, meeting several times weekly in
private sessions with the empress. Diderot praised Catherine highly, calling her the “Semiramis of the
North.” Catherine admired Diderot but rejected most of his reform suggestions as unrealistic.

Catherine encouraged the translation of important 18th-century European works into Russian; although
she kept watch over the press, she did not establish any rigid censorship. She reformed the Russian
educational system by closing the private schools and setting up a new group of national, public teaching
institutions. In 1764, she founded the first school in Russia for girls, the famous Smol’ney Institute for
Noble Girls. She then created the Novodevich’ye Institute for Girls of the Third Estate (bourgeoisie) and
reformed the military program at the Army Cadet Corps. Catherine followed the ideas and activities of
the German pedagogue Johann Basedow with great interest. She invited Christian Heinrich Wocke, one
of Basedow’s disciples, to Saint Petersburg to set up a school (called a philanthropin) on Basedow’s
model.

However genuine her enthusiasm for the Enlightenment, Catherine balked at its more radical
manifestations. For example, the FREEMASONS and ROSICRUCIANS were flourishing in Russian cities.
Their members controlled the Moscow University Press under whose auspices books of the rational
Enlightenment were published, along with mystical and occult works. Catherine, at first amused by the
Freemasons, later grew to despise them. But they remained in Russia and would play a critical role in the
formation of the early 19th-century revolutionary intelligentsia.

Finally, Catherine provided substantial support for ART, THEATER, architecture, and MUSIC. She collected
a large number of outstanding European paintings, laying the foundation for the magnificent collections
of the modern Hermitage. She commissioned the construction of the lovely palladan- style Hermitage
theater, where she had her own dramatic creations performed. In 1762, she set up a commission on
building that supervised public building in Saint Petersburg and Moscow. Substantial private construction
also occurred as the nobility rushed to provide itself with palaces in the style of the European
aristocracy.

Like most absolute and enlightened rulers, Catherine recognized the role that the arts could play in
supporting centralized government policies. She organized fêtes and theatrical events with an eye
toward underscoring her political power. Perhaps the most famous example of this use of spectacle took
place in the winter of 1787, when Catherine arranged to have JOSEPH II of Austria, King Stanislaus II
Poniatowski of Poland, and emissaries from all the major European capitals escorted on a GRAND TOUR
through her newly acquired southern lands. The aim was to impress the visitors with the colonization
and building achievements that Potemkin, her former lover and lifelong companion, had accomplished
as governor of the new region.

The achievements were significant and duly noted by Catherine’s illustrious visitors, but the
propagandistic nature of the spectacles arranged along the tour route was all too transparent.
Furthermore, some of the new villages were not even completed. The prince de Ligne, one of Catherine’s
guests on the tour, quipped about the unreality of the claimed achievements and referred sarcastically to
“Potemkin’s villages.” The phrase even now is used to refer to overblown, unrealistic claims of
achievement. The theatrical element of the planned political spectacle, in this instance overdone, had
backfired, creating a tradition of ridicule.

Catherine lived to witness the most violent periods of the FRENCH REVOLUTION and to see aspects of
the revolutionary political message being spread by force throughout Europe. She, like many of her
contemporaries, reacted with dismay and in the 1790s began to instigate repressive measures designed
to counterbalance any radical influences. She instituted strict censorship of the press in 1793, began
arresting political dissidents and writers, and even publicly condemned the Enlightenment.

However, despite her change in attitude towards the later years of her reign, one cannot deny her role as
one of the greatest enlightened despots of her time. Unfortunately though, the so-called 'enlightened
reforms' in Russia had hardly any impact on the lives of the masses. It certainly benefited the state and
nobility at the expense of peasants. They were more firmly bound to their lands and became more
dependent on the lords.

Maria Theresa and Joseph II (Austria)

Enlightened reforms in the Habsburg empire started with Maria Theresa and lasted till the end of
Leopold's brief reign, i.e. from 1740-92. During this period, the Enlightenment inspired not all reforms
and the real impact of the intellectual movement could only be seen in the policies of Joseph II.
However, the outbreak of French Revolution and Austria joining the first coalition war against France in
1792 marked a sudden shift to a conservative, rather a reactionary era.

Maria Theresa initiated reforms within the Hapsburg lands that furthered the cause of ABSOLUTISM and
laid the groundwork for the enlightened despotism of her son, JOSEPH II. Maria Theresa was the
daughter of Charles VI, who ruled both the HAPSBURG EMPIRE and the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. Charles VI
had no male heirs and the law of both empires prohibited the succession from passing to a woman. In
view of these restrictions, Charles VI anticipated that his death would lead to a succession crisis.

Within his personal domains (the Hapsburg Empire), he warded off trouble by obtaining his Diet’s
approval of a decree called the Pragmatic Sanction, which provided for the succession to pass to his
daughter, Maria Theresa. Within the larger Holy Roman Empire, however, Charles VI had no power to
alter succession laws or the electoral process by which an emperor was chosen.

Maria Theresa became the de facto ruler of the empire (1745–80), but her husband, Francis Stephen of
Lorraine, held the official position as Francis I from 1745 to 1765, and her son, Joseph II, followed in the
same role from 1765 to 1790. In spite of the precautions taken by Charles VI, the succession of Maria
Theresa to the Hapsburg throne plunged Europe into a war known as the WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN
SUCCESSION. Prussia, France, and Spain battled against Maria Theresa and her allies, Britain and
Holland. Peace returned to Europe in 1748 with the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle.

Maria Theresa recognized that the conditions under which she ruled would give her no practical power
in the Holy Roman Empire. She turned her attention to the personal domains of the Hapsburg dynasty,
with the aim of creating out of them a strong, prosperous, unified nation under absolute rule. In order to
reach these goals, she sanctioned a program of wide-reaching, radical reform. Yet Maria Theresa cannot
properly be called an enlightened monarch. Her advisers, Count Friedrich Wilhelm von Haugwitz, Wenzel
von Kaunitz, Gerard van Swieten, and Josef von Sonnefels, however, were well acquainted with the
political philosophy of the ENLIGHTENMENT. Their reforms aimed at rationalizing administration and
taxation, unifying all aspects of sovereignty under the emperor or empress, and limiting the power of the
Catholic Church to interfere in matters over which the secular government claimed control.

Reaching these goals required actions that attacked the system of special privileges, dismantled the right
of representative assemblies (the estates) to vote on requests for taxes, and placed limits on the power
of the nobility. It also required amelioration of the abject conditions in which most Hapsburg subjects
were living. The practical results included the following: the establishment of a centralized state
bureaucracy; the imposition of a tax on all lands (although noble lands paid a lower tax than those in
commoners’ hands); the exclusion of the estates from decisions regarding military and foreign affairs;
and the establishment of a new military academy for training officers (the famed Theresianum).

Other reforms resulted in the creation of a new system of courts with unified codes for civil and criminal
procedures and the imposition of taxation on the Catholic clergy. Finally, the Roman Catholic order of the
JESUITS was dissolved; its properties were confiscated; and its buildings and assets were used to
establish a secular system of EDUCATION. By the end of her reign, Maria Theresa was contemplating
even more radical reforms, including the abolition of SERFDOM and alteration of the old manorial system
in the countryside.

Maria Theresa had begun her reign as a young, vastly inexperienced, embattled young woman. She
ended it having provided the basis for a strong, unified nation. Her son, Joseph II, would inherit the
throne as a sole ruler, intent on instituting even more radical reform.

Joseph ruled the Hapsburg lands as an enlightened despot. He was committed to CAMERALISM and to
two associated general principles: that humanitarian concerns should guide state policy and that reform
processes should be instigated from above by the emperor and his central state officials. Within the
Hapsburg dominions, he continued the basic reform policies that had been laid down during his mother’s
reign. But unlike his mother, Joseph II had a radical commitment to the ENLIGHTENMENT and an
authoritarian temperament. Impatient to increase the extent and the pace of reform, he began to abuse
his power, acting outside the bounds that were tolerable to the subjects of his empire. The end of his
reign was marked with strife and rebellion. If, on the one hand, his reforms embody the radical extremes
of the Enlightenment, on the other hand, they show how at these extremes the tensions inherent within
enlightened theories could give birth to political practices totally opposed to enlightened ideals.

In this respect, Joseph II’s reign demonstrates similarities with the rule of Frederick II (The Great). Joseph
II was a rigid but extremely idealistic man. The Enlightenment vision of a world based on equality,
humanitarianism, religious toleration, universal education, and economic security inspired his many
radical reforms. He believed that change must come from the ruler in whose person both executive and
legislative powers should reside. Any sharing of sovereignty with intermediate powers, such as the
Estates, the guilds, the Roman Catholic Church, or the landed nobility, would only result in an impasse
because these special interest groups squabbled among themselves, neglectful of the common good.
When Joseph decided that something must change, he proceeded with direct assaults on any
institutional or individual obstacles. He had no patience for gradual reforms or for the art of gentle
persuasion.

His mother, in contrast, had understood that she needed to respect the traditions of outlying Hapsburg
territories like Milan and the Austrian Netherlands in order to rule them effectively. Joseph directly
attacked the traditional structures of power and privilege in both Milan and the Austrian Netherlands,
replacing the old systems with centralized bureaucracies modeled after his mother’s administration in
Austria. Within the contiguous Hapsburg lands, Joseph II tackled the privileges of the guilds, confiscated
Catholic Church lands, and installed a universal land tax divided proportionally according to the income
of the proprietors. In contrast, his mother’s land tax had recognized legal social status rather than wealth
as the ground for determining tax rates.
The religious policies of Joseph II were called Josephism by his contemporaries. Joseph’s personal beliefs
were drawn partly from Deism and the Freemasons, whose enlightened spiritual orientation had roots in
the notion of natural religion. He was immortalized by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart as Sarastro, the wise,
enlightened ruler in the opera The Magic Flute. Joseph recognized the value of religion as a shaper of
social morality, but he wished to limit the ability of the Catholic Church to exert power in secular affairs.
He also wished to extend state control into areas such as education and marriage (granting permission to
marry) that traditionally lay in the religious domain. He attacked the fiscal privileges and wealth of the
Catholic Church and tried to undermine its popularity with the people.

Joseph’s attitude towards religion presents a sharp contrast to that of his mother. She always hesitated
to interfere in any way with the supremacy of the Catholic religion. Joseph, on the other land declared, I
stand for freedom of belief in so far as I am prepared to accept everyone's services in secular matters,
regardless of denomination. Let everyone who is qualified occupy himself in agriculture or industry. I am
prepared to grant the right of citizenship to anyone who is qualified, who can be of use to us, and who
can further industrial activity in our country', The Patent of Toleration was published in 1781. Jews were
subjected to all kinds of discrimination in the Habsburg empire, as was the case elsewhere. In various
ordinances issued in 1781 and 1782, Joseph removed their worst disabilities. His attitude towards the
Jews was in sharp contrast to his mother's and was governed by humanitarian concern, as taught by the
Enlightenment. However, other elements prevented him from establishing complete parity between the
Jews and the Christians.

The Patent of Toleration granted full toleration to all except atheists and Deists. Irrespective of religion,
the Austrian subjects were given the right to hold property, build schools, and enter any profession and
could enter political or military profession. The Patent gave civil equality and freedom of worship to
Lutherans, Calvinists and orthodox Christians, so long as their services were held discreetly. The church
establishment was reorganized. Foreign bishops lost their power inside Austria. Large dioceses were
divided up and now parishes were marked out so that no person had to walk for more than an hour to
reach a church.

Joseph also instituted legal toleration and rights of public worship for religious dissidents (Lutherans,
Calvinists, and Greek Orthodox), and removed certain civic disabilities aimed at the Jews of the empire.
At least at the beginning of his reign, he also relaxed censorship of the press. Not surprisingly, all these
activities aroused opposition from the conservative clergy and from the nobles, who believed that
Joseph’s reforms were undermining their traditional privileges. Minority religious groups also opposed
his reforms aimed at cultural integration, fearing that assimilation through education, for example, might
threaten their very existence. Joseph II responded to internal resistance by increasing the police
activities of his state. He resorted to internal surveillance, to restrictions on academic freedom, and to
the reestablishment of strict press censorship. He outlawed the Bavarian Illuminati and associated
radical lodges of Freemasons, fearing the program for revolutionary change that they were promoting.

Joseph was also seriously concerned with the lack of economic development of his territories. He held
monasticism in abhorrence because it deprived the economy of much badly needed capital and
prevented useful citizens from writing for the state. Through a series of decrees, he made himself the
sole authority of the human and material resources of the monasteries. Numerous monastic buildings
were converted into factories, warehouses, granaries and residences and monastic lands were sold off in
the market. The property acquired through the suppression of monasteries led to the creation of a
Religious fund of 60 million florins, with which a wholesale reorganization was carried out, including the
training and education of the clergy. Thus the church was reorganized and regulated to eliminate waste.
One can easily decipher economic motives behind his Patent of 1781. By the Edict of 29 November 1781,
he ordered state take-over of all Carthusian monasteries and other religious orders of males and
females, which neither ran schools or looked after the sick or engaged in academic pursuits for he
considered them entirely useless. Economic and philanthropic motives seem to have prompted Joseph,
to adopt such measures as the proceeds from the suppressed orders were used to establish in Vienna
alone three hospitals, a medical academy and a home for the deaf and dumb.

Joseph's reforms, though genuinely aimed at the welfare of his subjects, were very paternalistic. He was
principally interested in creating a unified, well-run state that would be respected in Europe. But his
foreign policy aim of aggression abroad did not go down well. His campaigns against the Turks were
largely unsuccessful and he failed to acquire Baroria in exchange for the Austrian Netherlands (called
Belgium now). Josephs attempt to impose a blueprint from above proved disastrous. The clerics joined
the opposition that was fighting against the destruction of their privileges. His high-handed policy and
complete disregard of local privileges and traditions led to much discontent and brought the region on
the brink of rebellion at the time of his death. Belgium was lost because of policies imposed on it while
Hungary was saved through concessions. Thus rebellion and retreat marked his last years as military
failure was accompanied by poor harvest and economic depression.

The outbreak of the French Revolution made Joseph retreat from the path of reforms. He himself was
now in extremely poor health but was forced to lead the military campaign against the many rebellions.
The middle classes, because Joseph's reforms had aroused their political aspirations, began to make
fresh demands that he found excessive. He increased censorship of the press and created a secret police
to find out whether there was any discontent so that he could suppress it in the bud if there was a
rebellion, But Joseph's rule demonstrated that 'enlightened absolutism', to be successful needed a
strong staff to execute the reforms. As his programmes conflicted with the interests of the nobility and
the bureaucracy- (that section of the society on whose support its success depended). Joseph was the
only monarch of that age to risk a frontal attack on the privileged order. On economic as well as
humanitarian ground, he made an attempt to raise the status of the peasants. Naturally the nobles and
the clergy condemned these proposals and obstructed its implementation in their estates. The peasants
resisted many of his plans as they were badly informed of his intentions.

Thus, like Frederick the Great in Prussia, the great enlightened reformer Joseph II finished by curtailing
liberty and establishing the rudiments of an early police state. Upon Joseph’s death in 1790, most of his
reforms were dismantled, in spite of the fact that his brother and successor, Leopold II, also believed in
their underlying enlightened ideals.

When Joseph died, the empire faced disorder and it was left to his brother and successor, Leopold II, an
enlightened but pragmatic ruler, to restore order by granting real concessions like cancelling the single
land tax, restoring tithe and bringing back the robot. The chief problem of Joseph was that his
enlightened despotism was rooted in policies and intentions that had a theatrical foundation and he
believed that his enlightened measures could be achieved only through absolute rule, to be applied by
his subordinates without questioning them. It was the haste and impatience of Joseph II, his
tactlessness, lack of administrative cohesion and lack of any preliminary information, consultation and
uncompromising attitude that led to his failure. Though aware of the benefits of the Enlightenment, he
was basically an inflexible autocrat. But it was his reforming efforts and the policy of centralization along
with that of his mother, that transformed Austria from a dynastic expression into a political unit that
helped Austria survive not only the Napoleonic wars but hold a place in the European power structure
till 1918.

Enlightened Despots elsewhere

Outside Austria, Prussia and Russia, the concept of enlightened despotism can be seen in the policies of
some Italian princes during the eighteenth century. The chief feature of enlightened despotism in the
Italian states was that it was tied to monarchial forms and depended greatly on foreign source for
inspiration. One such state was Naples that had been ruled by Spain for over two centuries followed by a
brief rule by Austria. Naples became an independent kingdom in 1734 under Don Carlos, the eldest son
of Philip V and Elizabeth Farnese, who assumed the throne in 1735 as Charles III at the age of eighteen.
The concept of enlightened despotism can be located in the rule of Charles III (1735-59) and Ferdinand I
(1759-1825). Charles had high notions of his prerogative and his independence and considered himself
an absolute monarch. Like other despots of his time, he was knowledgeable but obstinate. Bernardo
Tanucci, was the chief adviser of Charles and had served as a Minister of Justice in the 1730s and later
became the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He initiated reforms based on the principles of the
Enlightenment. He attempted to make law more rational and less barbarous, curb bribery and improve
the judicial system. His attempt to codify the Law of Naples failed miserably.

The nobility in Naples was very powerful and controlled four- fifths of the people, exercised influence
over municipal government and could block any tax proposals at any time in the parliament. Charles had
concluded a Concordat in 1741 with Pope Benedict XIV, that allowed him to tax church property, reduce
jurisdiction and privileges of the clergy. Tanucci was strongly against the Jesuits and took repressive
measures against them. He did not subscribe to the policy of religious toleration as propounded by the
philosophers. In fact, he had ordered a ban on Voltaire's works. Charles III on the other hand was even
prepared to welcome the Jews to settle in Naples but could not carry it out because of popular outcry.
Charles contribution in promoting the ideas of the Enlightenment was definitely there but not in a
tangible form. He provided encouragement to the opera and the San Carlo Opera house was opened in
1737. This was followed by the creation of the Neapolitan Academy of Art that attracted a number of
artists. In 1755, the Royal Herculaneum Academy was set up to promote archaeology and was regarded
as an important centre of education. In 1755, the first lecture in Europe on political economy was
delivered by Abbe Antonio Genovesi and he also lectured on Montesquieu and d'Alembert. The
University of Naples began to promote subjects like experimental physics, astronomy, botany, chemistry,
etc., in place of jurisprudence and theology. However, not all efforts of reforms contained the ideas of"
the Enlightenment.

In 1759, Charles III of Naples became the ruler of Spain. Here the spirit of Enlightenment was missing in
his policies probably because of the total absence of academic atmosphere. Initially, Charles tried to
introduce reforms at a brisk pace but he faced strong opposition. A measure to reform the revenue
collection, by introducing a single tax based on wealth, met bitter opposition of the nobility and some
privileged groups. Similarly, the attempt to control the prices of Five Major Guilds of Madrid antagonized
the rich bankers and merchants. The policy of increasing the Power of th; crown over the ecclesiastical
courts and increased clerical taxation led to the opposition of the clergy. The pace of reform measures
slowed down after 1766 when major riots broke out in Madrid and in other cities. It is not clear whether
the riots were organized by nobles and clergies.
Tuscany was another Italian state that could hardly be called modern before the accession of Leopold,
the brother of Joseph II, Leopold had a similar intellectual background as both brothers were introduced
to the world of the Enlightenment and the philosophers by their tutor, Karl Anton Von Martini. Leopold
subscribed to the Italian editions of Encyclopedic. At the young age of nineteen, he had formulated his
plan for reforms and he showed a will to implement them. There was a small group of energetic men and
supporters of the Enlightenment who helped Leopold to adopt a programme of reforms - men like
Pompeo Neri, Angela Tavantiorian, Francesco Maria Gianni, etc. Their chief plan included reforms in the
structure of the local government abolishing local administrative variations and special privileges
enjoyed by a particular group and unifying the fragmented state.

The church in Tuscany was quite powerful. Leopold adopted the Jansenist programme of dissolving the
monasteries, enforcement of strict laws, that destroyed papal jurisdiction over the Tuscan church, and
abolishment of the lay brotherhood. Leopold adopted a pragmatic approach for his reforms and sought
the approval and cooperation of his subjects. Unlike Joseph, he welcomed criticism and consulted both
officials and subjects. He was averse to personal absolutism and remained engaged in a project of
constitutional reforms. In his drafts of the proposed constitution, he made frequent reference to the
scholars of the Enlightenment like Turgo, Mirabean, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Abbe de Saint-Pierre.
He was fully aware of the terms of the newly-prepared American" Constitution, He opposed the
tripartite division of legislature into nobles, clergymen and common people, as existed in the European
states, and instead proposed representation of owners of real estates, professional men and artisans.
Unfortunately this new Constitution envisaging a constitutional monarchy could not be introduced
because of the opposition of the privileged classes, the political unawareness of the people and the cold
response of the officials.

Still, Leopold carried out reforms in other fields. The feudal courts were subordinated to the centres
control, the revenues of the church officials were subjected to state taxation and financial reforms were
introduced (tax farming and internal tolls were abolished). The legal reforms brought to an end torture
and the death penalty and a uniform criminal procedure was started. The alarming situation in Austria
forced him to leave for Vienna where he improved the situation from the mess which Joseph had created
but could not do much as he died two years later. Thus, from a feudal state, Leopold turned Tuscany into
one of the best-governed states in Europe with a modified administration and rationalized tax structure.

A form of Enlightenment could also be noticed in Sweden and Denmark. A Swedish historian describes
the period after the death of Charles XII and the beginning of Gustav III (1771-92) as the Age of Liberty'.
This period was one of political confusion and diplomatic humiliation, though a time of intellectual and
artistic growth. The Academy of Science (1739) and the Royal Academy of Painting and Sculpture (1768)
were created in this period. The Swedish Opera was inaugurated in the 1770s. Gustavs period saw the
growth and Marmaton of these cultural trends. The Academy of Belles-Lettres, created in 1753 was
revived in 1786 with additional fields of History and Antiquities. The Swedish Academy was created to
promote the Swedish language. Reforms of paper currency and of coinage were smoothly carried
through. The physiocratic principles in the form of land enclosures and freedom of trade in corn were
introduced but the principles of mercantilism were practiced in the industrial sphere, particularly in iron
production. The constitution of 1772 was framed on Montesquieu's model. The aggressive designs of
Russia and Prussia made Gustav demonstrate his strength, particularly against Russia. He called a session
of the Riksdag, the representative institution, to handle the foreign threats effectively. When the nobles
opposed him, he immediately formed an understanding with the commoners and imposed a new
constitution on Sweden, called the Act of Union and Security in which the king was given full legislative
freedom. The council became an intermediate body and the official posts were thrown open to all
subjects. The only effective control the Riksdag had was over financial matters, Thus Gustav brought
about major changes in Sweden for which a revolution had to be carried out in France.

The Danish rulers, Frederick V (1746-66) and Christian VII (1766-1808), cannot be compared to Gustav
but some of the ideas of the Enlightenment can be seen in their reforms. Struensee, the German
physician of the king (and the queen's lover), introduced these reforms. He exercised tremendous
political power. The reforms programme included confiscation of church revenue, freedom of worship,
end of press censorship, establishment qf hospitals and some legal reforms, including the abolition of
torture. However, a strong reaction against his programme developed as these reforms were seen as an
attempt to Germanize Danish society. Struensee was executed but Crown Prince Frederick carried his
reforms forward though more cautiously.