1740 and All That

A good while ago, mildred_of_midgard had asked me for a write up of two works by noted 18th century writer and philosopher Montesquieu which were relevant to our interests, to wit, My travels in Germany 1728–1729, edited and published in German by Jürgen Overhoff, and a very particular edition of Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and their Decline, 1734, which was owned by Frederick the Great and which he intensively commented on by scribling marginalia on the pages; said edition complete with its comments was available as a German paperback to me.

( How not to travel through Germany in the first half of the 18th Century )

On to the Romans. This book, which was partly triggered by Montesquieu visiting Italy on the same journey, is way more fun, and not just because of the Fritz notes. In both cases, though, it's worth constantly keeping in mind Montesquieu is writing from the pov of a conservative French aristocrat, who despite all the compliments paid to Louis XIV regrets Louis' declawing of the French nobility to no end. (Louis revoking the Edict of Nantes and persecuting Protestants, otoh, is A plus.) All the observations on Roman decadence thus also have the subtext of criticism of current day France without getting censored for it. (Which, btw, isn't that different from Roman historians putting their present day criticism into the mouth of "barbarian" leaders and/or waxing on on how much better the ancestors did it.) Thus, Rome was doing well when the wise Patrician Senate was in charge, creating the Tribunes was already a step in the wrong direction, and naturally once the Empire came to be and the Senate devolved into a rubber stamp for imperial decisions, while the Emperors were except for five of them no good luxury loving parasites, everything went down the toilet.

( Roman Greatness and Decadence according to Montesquieu, with added Fritz commentary on clemency, courage, fame and suicide )

( Montsequieu and Fritz on tyrants, their successors and the ultimate horror: women in Politics )

These are just some of the lines and quotes. It's a truly interesting document, and I'm glad to have bought it.

Joseph II, Volume I: In the Shadow of Maria Theresa (1741 - 1780)

I've now read the first volume of Beales' opus magnum. As biographies go, I find it less dense while as informative as Stollberg-Rillingers MT biography, but otoh not as fluently narrated as, say, "Der Kaiser reist incognito" or Stefan Zweig's Marie Antoinette biographie romancee. He's mostly good with footnotes and sourcing his quotes. (A very rare exception: the apocryphal "She cried, and she took!" re: MT & Poland supposedly by Fritz but really not! Near the end of the book in an overall assessment of the co-regency years, no less.) Also, as opposed to Nancy Goldstone on one end of the scale (Fritz bad, MT and daughters plus Leopold but not Joseph good) and the whole school of Prussian historians pre and some post WWII (Fritz glorious, destiny justifies everything! Party of Progress! Also MT should just have given him Silesia which was Prussia's by old right anyway, and he'd have been her champion!) on the other, he's refreshingly matter of factly and unpartisan. In terms of Habsburg vs Habsburg, he of course makes his case for Joseph but without putting down MT, and I find his rendition of the Mother/Son relationship, both in its personal and political aspects - and at the way these were hopelessly intertwined, which - very plausible. He doesn't prettify the increasing dysfunctionality of the later years, but nor does he simplify and makes a good case for the ongoing affection along with all the mutual criticism and frustration. And he makes an absolutely fascinating contemporary comparison which never occurred to me before, but the more I think about it, the more the shoe fits:

( Joseph & Maria Theresa = Fritz & Heinrich? )

( Interlude: Joseph and Eleonore Liechtenstein )

And here's an anecdote featuring the Prince de Ligne, he who wrote the Eugene's memoirs RPF and also gave us some great descriptions of the Joseph and Fritz summit (including an Antinous reference!). Writes Beales, in a story that also is very descriptive of 18th century monarchies, Austrian edition:

A trivial example will highlight the difference of attitude between mother and son. The Belgian prince de Ligne, serving in the Monarchy's army, recalled in his memoirs that, furious at not being at once appointed on the death of his fatherh to command the family regiment and to a Knighthood of the Golden Fleece, he had written to the appropriate official, using the phrase: "Born in a land where there are no slaves, I shall be in a position to take my small merit and fortune elsewhere." When this insubordination became known to Maria Theresa and Joseph, they called a 'council of war'. The emperor wanted to take the initiative and dismiss the prince forthwith. Another member wanted him imprisoned. But a third, marshal Lacy, made the courtier's suggestion which the empress adopted: .for three months she would refuse to speak to Ligne, or to look at him when he kissed hands. The prince claimed that on one occasion during the period of this cruel sentence, he had caught her laughing.

( Joseph & Frederick the Great as monarchs, compare and contrast )

Beales doesn't hold back on Joseph's flaws - for example, his Fritzian treatment of his second wife - but also has praise for his ability to be there when people he loved were suffering. Reading this biography, it hit me that Joseph was present at the deaths of his father, mother, first wife and daughter. The only death which was quick of these was the one of his father. The death of his daughter is the saddest of these, (MT to Lacy, one of Joseph's two male bffs in the circle: After this cruel blow, take care of my son. Try to see him every day, even twice a day, so that he may share his grief with you whom he knows to be his friend. )

( Joseph the Theatre Patron )

( Maria Theresa's Death and Joseph's reaction )

In conclusion: a good and profound book on a tricky subject.


Joseph II, Volume II: Against the World (1780 - 1790)

Volume 2, about Joseph's decade as a lone ruler, continues to be concise, informative, neither dense and headache inducing nor as vividly told as the biographies romancees. Beales remains non-partisan in that he shows very clearly how Joseph manages to alienate most people, including most of his siblings, and piss off the nobility of various countries under his rule (whom he'd have direly needed on his side) in completely unnecessary ways, while also making mince meat of some legends (there's a chapter basically all about Joseph as a patron of music, with special emphasis on Mozart, where Beales really cuts loose against Joseph vilification in some older Mozart biographies and makes a convincing case of Joseph having been a good patron to Mozart (and in general responsible for Vienna really being the capital of European music under his reign), and showing the sheer magnitude and radicalism of what Joseph was aiming for. There's a good discussion near the end of putting Joseph in context not just with the two other enlightened despots of his time - Fritz and Catherine - but also with the two monarchs before him who could be called not enlightened, but revolutionaries from the top who did succeed in radically changing their countries and societies - Peter the Great and FW. He points out that the usual explanation as to why they were successful in ways Joseph was not, that Joseph's temper, the high handedness, the sarcasm, the know it all ness, the arrogance etc. ruined his efforts, really does not work, because both Peter and FW were easily as difficult as Joseph, if not way more so, and Joseph would never have done to his nephew (or alienated siblings) what they did to their sons. But, says Beales, Peter and FW worked with their nobles. And that, in his opinion, did make the difference.

MT is dead in volume II, of course, but her long term effect and the intense and complicated feelings Joseph had for his mother continue to play a role. Right at the start, Beales has great description: "(S)he had been a bulwark on which he needed to lean even while he was pummelling it with his fists."

Self evidently he was glad to finally get all the reforms he wanted going without anyone on an equal or superior level argueing back, let alone prevent it (he was yet to discover this did not mean the reforms would actually be accepted and work), but he also wrote to Leopold: Every minute I think I ought to be sending her some packets or going to see her myself. A pleasant habit of forty years' standing, affection such as Nature, duty, inclination and admiration combined to inspire, can enither be forgotten or effaced. It is as if I am stunned.(...)

( Reformer Joseph vs The Vatican )

( Joseph's Russian alliance and in-laws )

( Joseph emancipates the Jews and pisses off the Hungarians )

( Joseph, both the least and the most approachable of Enlightened Despots )

( How Joseph got the other HRE Princes paranoid )

( Joseph and Leopold agreeing on their worst brother-in-law )

( Leopold and Max Ernst versus Joseph )

( Joseph as a patron of music and musicians )

I.e. "Frederick the Great and Maria Theresia: in eye witness accounts." This actually was/is a series of books devoted to a particular era or historical figure(s); the first one of those I've read was "The French Revolution: In Eye Witness Accounts". The advantage is obvious: these are all either excerpts of primary sources, written at the time, or memoirs, written none too much later, arranged by subject, many of which might be difficult to track down individually. On the down side, you're also at the mercy of the editor, in terms of what he chooses to highlight or edit out.

( Short assessment of Jessen as an editor )

All these nitpicks aside, though, it's a great source book, and in addition to containing by now familiar documents it had a lot of documents from which I only knew individual phrases, but not the entire texts, which sometimes recontextualize previously known quotes quite differently. I've excerpted some especially intriguing gems.

( Hot or Not: Portraits of an Enigma )

Since the emphasis on this collection is on the Friedrich/Maria Theresia arch nemesis relationship, we get treated to several of the things they said and wrote about each other.

( He said, she said: through the decades )


Not that Joseph's kind of being a Fritz fan ever went the Peter III. way. He believed in imitation via competition, which turned out to be even more disturbing to his mother than mere admiration would have been, since it affected the peace of her realms. Fast forward to more than a decade later, and Joseph is like Fritz in the worst way, i.e. by invading Bavaria. Here's Mom trying to argue him out of it, on March 14th, 1778, very much belying son Leopold's claim that she was half senile near the end of her life, for that letter, written two years before her death, shows Maria Theresia the politician at the top of her game:

( Maria Theresia versus War: It's on! )

The last Fritz section goes on for a while longer. Jessen has the letter from Fritz - to D'Alembert, as it turns out, dated January 6th 1781 - which has the famously revisioninstic "I was never her enemy" quote in it; what I hadn't known before reading the complete letter was that he then, bereft of his best enemy, transitions right to his next target, German literature. Writes he:

( MT and me, by Fritz, followed by: Why Shakespeare is rubbish, and German literature does not exist )

Friedrich wasn't the only one who ascended to the throne in 1740.

Maria Theresia
Collecting various posts on Friedrich’s best enemy, the one and only female ruler of Austria and de facto of the Holy Roman Empire:

( She was always THE WOMAN )
One Count von Podewils, Prussian ambassador in Vienna, had a lot to say about Friedrich’s arch nemesis. That it is an "enemy" assassment makes it especially valuable, of course, as opposed to some Austrian courtier wanting to carry favor, but bear the intended recipient in mind:
( Maria Theresia, The Prussian Dossier )
The Kids
Marie Antoinette
( MT’s teenage daughter vs Madame Dubarry )

Joseph II

( How (not) to be a successful reformer )

Joseph visits Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI in Paris, as covered by the Duc de Croy:

( Chronicle of an undercover visit )

Joseph’s first wife, Isabella de Parma, was young, beautiful, smart – and utterly disinterested in men. She was in love with his sister Maria Christina. She also died young, after a few years of marriage.

( The Ballad of Isabella and Maria Christina )

Isabella’s and Joseph’s only daughter, who was called MT after his mother, didn’t survive her mother for long. When she died at only 7 years of age, he wrote this letter to her governess, Christine de Trazegnies, Marquise d'Herzelles:

Madame,

If decency permitted, it would be with you alone that I would be pouring out the sorrow which… pierces my soul. I have ceased to be a father: it is more than I can bear. Despite being resigned to it, I cannot stop myself thinking and saying every moment: ‘O my God, restore to me my daughter, restore her to me.’ I hear her voice, I see her. I was dazed when the terrible blow fell. Only after I had got back to my room did I feel the full horror of it, and I shall go on feeling it all the rest of my life, since I shall miss her in everything. But not that I have, I believe, fulfilled all the duties of a father - and a good father - one [duty] remains which I hear my daughter imposing on me: that of rendering thanks to you. Madame, where would you wish me to begin? All your trouble and care have been beyond price. But [she] would never forgive me if I did not at least try to induce you to accept the enclosed offering as a memento of all that I owe you and a pledge of all that I should like to do for you. In addition the sincere respect and true friendship that I have sworn to you can in some way discharge [my obligation], you can be sure it will be unshakable. I venture to ask only one favour from you, which is that no one shall ever know anything about it and that even between ourselves - since I am counting on our weeping and talking again together about this dear child - there will never be any mention of it, or you will at once cause me to regret fulfilling this duty. I beg you to urge the same absolute silence of Mlle Chanclos, for whom I also enclose a letter; it is for me a point of importance. As my daughter’s sole heir, I have just given orders… that I should keep only her diamonds. [You are to have everything else.] One thing that I would ask you to let me have is her white dimity dressing-gown, embroidered with flowers, and some of her writings. I have her mother’s, I shall keep them together. Have pity on a friend in despair, and be sure that I can hardly wait for the moment when I come to see you…

Your true friend and servant,

Joseph

This unhappy 23 January, which has overturned our happy and so successful household, 1770.

Did Joseph have non-disastrous relationships? He did, the circle of five, allow me to copypaste:
( The Circle of Five )
( What happened to Maria Christina )