1740 and All That

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 )

A few notes on two books focused on Joseph II, son of Maria Theresia, not so secret fan of Frederick the Great (with an understanding of fandom that includes "going to war with" eventually), brother of Marie Antoinette, reform minded multi travellling Emperor and comic relief in Amadeus.

One is in English - Rebecca Gates-Coon: The Charmed Circle. Joseph II and the "Five Princesses", 1765 - 1790" - and one in German, Monika Czernin: Der Kaiser reist inkognito.

( Young Joseph hits the road and plays marital sex counselor in France )

( Five Ladies and Joseph II: How did it happen? )

A few more notes on the Five Princesses.

( The Famous Five (Princesses): Who were they? )

The two male members of the "charmed circle" other than Joseph:

( Orsini-Rosenberg and Lacy )


Both Orsini-Rosenberg and Lacy are bachelors. The Ladies are all married, but none of the husbands is ever allowed to attend the meetings. Joseph doesn't dislike them exactly, he just has no interest in them.

( A few quotes from letters and more entertaining trivia )

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 )