The Mad Monarchist looks at an enigma, an 'enlightened' anti-clerical who heard Holy Mass every morning.
From The Mad Monarchist (7 June 2012)
There are certain monarchs who I cannot help but having a great deal of
mixed feelings about. More often than not, these involve monarchs from
the “Enlightenment” era. In some cases, it is figures who I know I
should like more for practical reasons yet I just cannot bring myself to
do it. A perfect example of this is King Carlos III of Spain. He did a
great deal of good for the Spanish empire, restoring it to some of its
former glory, winning back some areas that had been lost, yet his
“Enlightenment” policies of state centralization and restrictions on the
Church put me off. Also, much of the gains he made for Spain was done
by effectively allying with the American revolutionaries against Great
Britain -understandable but a monarchist never enjoys seeing a monarchy
side with republicans against another monarchy- and (faint-hearted hide
your eyes) I will never be able to forgive the man for abolishing
bullfighting. In somewhat the same way I have often described the great
King Louis XIV of France as a monarch impossible to like but equally as
impossible not to admire. Much of that, I will confess, simply comes
down to style. The man exuded greatness and grandeur and glory. He was
also a scheming, licentious libertine and part-time anti-clerical. But,
at the same time, oh how glorious he was.
Another that comes up frequently, mostly because of his family name, is
the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II. I have noticed that, when compared to
other royal houses, the Hapsburgs seem to have a larger number of extremely
devoted adherents. Oftentimes these people are not even from any
country over which the Hapsburgs ever held sway but they are always
Catholic and usually devote much of their praise for the House of
Hapsburg because of the (real, not simply perceived) devotion of that
house to defending Catholicism. Yet, devotion to the Hapsburg monarchy
often extends to such lengths that even on those occasions (not many but
certainly numerous) that the Pope and the Hapsburg Emperor were at odds
the defenders of the Hapsburgs will side with the Emperor rather than
the Pope. As an example, there was the horrific sacking of Rome by the
troops of Emperor Charles V in which Pope Clement VII was almost killed.
The faithful will still defend the Emperor. It is true, he did not
order the pillage, he was not present and he was horrified when he
learned of it. However, it would be hard for me to imagine another
monarch being extended the same benefit of these considerations rather
than being castigated for having sent his armies against the Pope in the
first place.
I point this out only because the reason often given for supporting the
Emperor over the Pope (on the part of Catholics) is that, in these
certain cases, they will argue that it was actually the Emperor who was
looking out for the best interests of Christendom whereas the Pope had
more narrow and self-serving interests. However, in spite of such
attitudes, in my experience, the case of Emperor Joseph II is the one
that is totally beyond the pale and even the most devoted admirers of
the House of Hapsburg seldom have one good thing to say about the man.
This is because, of course, of his rather anti-clerical policies and his
“Enlightenment” effort to make religion more “reasonable”. Because of
these attitudes I am often compelled to explain myself when it comes to
my opinion of Emperor Joseph II because he is another one of those who
manages to be on my “best” and “worst” lists at the same time. There are
plenty of reasons for old fashioned Catholics (the best kind) to
dislike the man, aside from the fact that he was not, personally, a very
likeable fellow. All of these I would agree with and his religious
policies are ones I cannot condone or overlook and would certainly never
approve of. Yet, I also cannot help but think that some of the
criticism of Joseph II goes a bit overboard and that there was also
quite a bit to recommend him. As I said, I frequently feel the need to
“explain” Joseph II.
When it comes to the things I like about Emperor Joseph II, near the top
of the list must be (and I’m not ashamed to admit it) his ambition. He
wanted the Hapsburg lands, what eventually became the Austrian Empire,
to be the most powerful European state. Given that the subsequent
Hapsburg emperors were all pretty good and given how history turned out
(and admitting that I like the Hapsburgs and Austria) I tend to think
this would have been a good thing and worked out to the benefit of
Europe as a whole. In pursuit of this goal (and it often seems to me
that his Catholic critics tend to gloss over it) Emperor Joseph II was
energetic in his military campaigns against the Prussians to the north
and the Ottoman Turks to the south. Like his mother, of course, Joseph
II had the misfortune to be up against the great Frederick of Prussia
who was one of the greatest military leaders Europe has ever produced.
He also shared much of the Emperor’s “Enlightenment” sympathies and,
after meeting him on the battlefield, came to have a degree of healthy
respect for Joseph II. His wars against the Turks were frustrating
affairs, carried out to a large extent because of his friendship and
admiration for Imperial Russia. Little was gained, but at least the
Turkish threat, which had once threatened Vienna, was kept at a safe
distance. His real ambition was in Germany and the hope of gaining
Bavaria. He brought in Transylvania and did begin crucial developments
in the south to the benefit of the Croats and Serbs.
Had the Hapsburg empire become the strongest in Europe, I think things
may well have worked out for the better (who can ever know for sure) and
part of this involved, for Joseph II, German consolidation. His court
was a very cosmopolitan one as was usual for Hapsburg Vienna, but Joseph
II considered Germany the core of strength for his empire and one of
his more controversial ideas was his effort to make German the common
language of the Hapsburg domain. This is something some people have a
problem with and I can certainly understand the fear of losing ethnic
languages and the encroachment of dull uniformity. However, lest we
forget, the nominal “state” of which Joseph II was Emperor was the “Holy
Roman Empire of the German People”. The Roman part was
historical, the legacy of Charlemagne and all of that but there was
never any doubt that the core lands of this empire was Germany, not the
Italian peninsula and the people who made up the bulk of the population
were Germans and not Latins who mostly spoke a variety of German
dialects rather than a variety of Italian ones and, of course, no longer
Latin though it remained fairly widespread amongst the educated class.
Given all of that, it does not seem entirely unreasonable that German be
enforced as a common language. Of the multitude of languages spoken in
the Hapsburg lands, there would be a greater justification for making
German the official language rather than any of the others. This would
also not mean (necessarily) that other minority languages would be
abolished, only that in addition to your ethnic language everyone would
be required to know (probably) High German. The diverse nature of the
empire, ethnically and linguistically, is appealing but it was also a
detriment in terms of administration, trade and the military, as was
seen increasingly in the future, when everything had to be written in
such a vast array of different languages. I cling to the archaic idea
that a common language is not always necessary for a successful state
but I do recognize that it usually helps.
Another fact I have often noticed, particularly in reading Catholic
history books which most strongly criticize Emperor Joseph II, is the
allocation of credit to later (and more Church-friendly) monarchs for
policies which originated under Joseph II. One of the best examples I
have seen of this is the oft-reported tolerance shown to the Jewish
minority in late Austria-Hungary by Emperor Francis Joseph I. All of
which is completely true. They had special provision made for them, even
in the military, to be exempt from labor on the Sabbath and to have
kosher meals. It is also usually mentioned (and truthfully so) that the
Jews referred to the Emperor as the “King of Jerusalem” because of their
affection for him. This was one of the many titles claimed by the
Austrian Emperor, though also by the heir of the Two-Sicilies, the King
of Spain and the King of Italy. I would certainly never object to
Emperor Francis Joseph being praised for his kindness (I have a soft
spot for him as well) but the fact remains that the same books which
credit him for his broad-minded attitude toward the Jews neglect to
mention that there was not religious freedom for the Jews, or any other
group, until Emperor Joseph II made it so (which I cannot imagine the
Holy See being very happy about at the time). For myself, I have
observed that granting religious freedom does not always work out well
but it seems unfair to credit later monarchs for upholding the policy
while criticizing the one who enacted it in the first place. All credit
where credit is due.
In similar fashion I have seen Francis Joseph I credited for his
humility, displayed by sleeping on an army cot and preferring to wear a
uniform as his usual attire. Yet, Emperor Joseph II also normally wore
an army uniform rather than an elaborate civilian costume and, despite
his often disagreeable personality, was known for opening up the parks
to the entire public rather than just the aristocracy who complained
somewhat over having to share their afternoon walks with peasants. The
Emperor famously remarked that if he insisted on associating only with
those of equal rank to himself, as Emperor, he would have to spend all
his time in the imperial crypt. There are also numerous stories of
Joseph II and his comical interactions with commoners who he would pick
up in his carriage and give a ride to, revealing his lofty identity only
well into the trip. On one such occasion he picked up a peasant who,
after traveling for a little while, sought to pass the time by asking
the Emperor to guess his occupation. They played that little game and
then Joseph II asked the man to guess his occupation. The man looked him
over and guessed he was a soldier. The Emperor said no, but that he did
have a connection with the army. He asked if he was a government worker
and the Emperor said no, but that he did have a connection with the
government. After several wrong guesses the man asked in exasperation,
“Well, who are you then, the Emperor?!” to which Joseph II responded in
the affirmative. The man was horrified, dropped to his knees and begged
to be let out of the carriage but the Emperor persuaded him to stay,
saying that each then knew who the other was and they could continue on
just as friendly as they had been when they first met.
The objectionable aspect of Joseph II was, of course, his religious
policies and there is no denying the fact that they were disastrous.
Some, today, might not find them so outrageous but many did at the time
and I certainly consider them outrageous myself. This is an explanation
and not a defense by any means. He expelled the Jesuits (a very
fashionable thing to do at the time), closed down many convents and
monasteries, reallocated Church lands, suppressed many popular
devotions, processions and such things and determined to make the Church
subservient to the state. This was rather standard procedure in
Protestant countries but in Catholic countries it was an entirely
different story as it invariably brought about a question of whether the
loyalty of clerics belonged to the Pope in Rome or to their monarch. It
was, perhaps, because of the very loyal image of the House of Hapsburg
toward the Catholic Church that the actions of Joseph II stand out more
than they might otherwise. His attitude toward the Church was certainly
considerably different from his extremely pious and devout mother
Empress Maria Theresa. In fact, it led to some tension between the two
when Francis I died and Joseph II succeeded him as Holy Roman Emperor.
For instance, when Joseph II expelled the Jesuits from all his lands,
his mother was quick to give them refuge on her own properties. However,
the actions of Joseph II should be kept in context and the reasons
behind his atrocious religious policies should at least be understood.
Some have tried to compare Joseph II to one of the previous Holy Roman
Emperors, the “Wonder of the World” Frederick II of the House of
Hohenstaufen. This is, all in all, rather unfair. Whereas Frederick II
truly seemed to be something of a skeptic, keeping his own harem,
incurring excommunication and at times being openly at war with the Pope
and once so arousing the Roman nobles against him that the Pope was
driven out of Rome. He also tried to gather a council to depose the
Pontiff. Joseph II, on the other hand, had no desire to conquer Italy,
never went to war against the Pope or sought to have him removed and,
despite his occasional skeptical comments, heard mass every morning of
every day of his life. To say he was a better Catholic than Frederick II
is, of course, not saying much but it at least shows that his problems
with the Church certainly did not rise to the level of Frederick II or
even a number of his other predecessors on the imperial throne. His own
Hapsburg ancestor Charles V, known as a champion of Catholic Europe,
fought against the Pope and his troops (quite without imperial knowledge
or approval) devastated Rome itself on a level more gruesome than any
of the barbarians of ancient times had ever done. Things were, of
course, different in the times when Popes were political figures and
engaged in wars and alliances with and against various powers, usually
shifting between Catholic France and Catholic Austria for fear of either
one becoming too powerful and thus threatening Papal Rome. The actions
of Joseph II could more justly be compared to those of King Louis XIV of
France who also was at odds with the Pope over his effort to bring the
Catholic Church in France under royal control. Where Joseph II differed
from the “Sun King” was in the conduct of his personal life. In that
regard, Joseph II was as far from the amorous, philandering Bourbon king
as the east is from the west.
It is also true, as was the case more often than one would think, that
the Emperor got some of his first encouragement in asserting state
control over the Church from a high-ranking cleric, the Auxiliary Bishop
of Trier from whom the term “Febronianism” is derived, due to his
pen-name. The intent of his work was to deny that the papacy is a
monarchy (which most Catholics today seem to do anyway) in an effort to
bring Protestants back into the Catholic Church by uniting around the
secular monarch at the head of the state. As it happens, the actual
Prince-Archbishop Elector of Trier (and the last) was a cousin of Joseph
II. The Prince-Archbishop himself did not agree with everything the
Emperor did but also himself suppressed certain traditional practices.
The point behind everything he did, which justifies nothing but helps to
understand why he did it, was “reason”. These religious policies,
despicable as they were, and I think they were, did not, in my opinion,
originate in any malice on the part of Joseph II. He wanted the Church
to be practical and “reasonable” and he also wanted to centralize
everything under his own control, in secular and spiritual matters. That
was why he wanted all the bishops to take an oath of allegiance to him
as Emperor. Today this is commonplace and expected but, at the time, it
was very controversial for a bishop to swear allegiance to anyone other
than the Pope. Even that was nothing new, but combined with government
supervision of seminaries, the state deciding where tithe money would go
and all the rest, it all served to infuriate the Catholic hierarchy
against the Emperor.
Joseph II wanted things to be simple and practical. His closure of about
a third of the monasteries and convents (not all of them) was because
he saw no practical value in people living cloistered lives of
contemplation. He closed churches but also built a great many of them
(using the money from confiscated Church properties) so that parishes
would be more evenly distributed throughout the empire rather than
scattered about. So, we have the picture of a man who drastically cut
down the number of holy days (since these reduced productivity by giving
people so many days off work) but who also wanted all of his subjects
to have to travel no more than about an hour to reach a church. This is
why, as much as I oppose his religious policies, I cannot see him as
having a malicious intent behind them in the way that the French
Revolutionaries did later. Similarly, whereas they eventually invaded
Rome and carried off the Pope as a prisoner, Pope Pius VI felt
comfortable enough with Emperor Joseph II to leave Rome willingly to pay
him a visit. The Emperor treated the Pontiff with all due respect and
behaved in every way as a good Catholic should have toward him but,
showing his famous single-mindedness and authoritarian nature, refused
to change any of his policies after hearing the arguments of the Pope.
An unfortunate thing to be sure, but two men meeting in a palace and
stating their opposing cases is quite a far cry from troops besieging
Castel Sant Angelo or someone standing barefoot in the snow for days on
end. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia, both before and after listing all
the “problems” Joseph II had with the Church says that, “Joseph
undertook his reforms with the best intentions”.
In the end, most of what he attempted ended up being more trouble than
it was worth. As his contemporary and battlefield opponent Frederick the
Great famously said, ‘he tries to take the second step before the
first’. Despite the “Enlightenment” origins of many of his ideas, he was
nonetheless and extremely ardent monarchial absolutist and was
horrified by the growing French Revolution and determined to save his
sister Marie Antoinette from their clutches, though he died too soon.
His reforms created division and dissension rather than uniting the
empire as he wished (or Austria at least) but many of his efforts would,
I think, have been beneficial had they been fully carried out just as
many others should never have been tried. People may have complained
that his poor houses looked like army barracks but his court attracted
some of the greatest artists and musicians in the world and he showed
them sufficient favor to be known in artistic circles as the ‘musical
Kaiser’. There was a great deal of cultural achievements alongside the
drab government housing, there were some things he did that were
entirely terrible and there were things he did or tried to do that would
have been quite beneficial had they been carried out and continued. All
of this is why I cannot give him unqualified praise but still cringe
when he is harshly criticized and why he is one of those few monarchs
who can appear on both my “best” and “worst” lists at the same time.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to deletion if they are not germane. I have no problem with a bit of colourful language, but blasphemy or depraved profanity will not be allowed. Attacks on the Catholic Faith will not be tolerated. Comments will be deleted that are republican (Yanks! Note the lower case 'r'!), attacks on the legitimacy of Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ (I know he's a material heretic and a Protector of Perverts, and I definitely want him gone yesterday! However, he is Pope, and I pray for him every day.), the legitimacy of the House of Windsor or of the claims of the Elder Line of the House of France, or attacks on the legitimacy of any of the currently ruling Houses of Europe.