beyond late josephinism: josephinian influences and … · „die historische entwicklung des...

Beyond Late Josephinism: Josephinian Influences and the Commemoration of Joseph II in the Confessional Legislation of 1868.

1

Beyond Late Josephinism

Josephinian Influences and the Commemoration of Joseph II in the Austrian

Confessional Legislation of 1868.

Christos N. Aliprantis

MA Student in Austrian History - University of Vienna

I.

‘By its constitution it was liberal, but its system of government was clerical. The sys-

tem of government was clerical, but the general attitude to life was liberal’ (R. Musil)1

‘Was is this notion of Josephinism? Each party gives a different answer to this question.

The Liberals say that it has to do with Liberalism, the Antiliberals the opposite; the first

say that it was Enlightened Despotism, the other that it was free humanity’ (R. Kralik)2

In the passages quoted above appear two often repeated topoi of the Austrian intelle-

ctual and political history in the long 19th century. Firstly, that in the vast realm ruled

by the Habsburgs, Church and State were never completely separated, but until the very

end of the Monarchy (and beyond that) they kept interacting and influencing each other.

The second element of the Austrian idiosyncrasy is linked to the long-lasted legacy of

the Emperor Joseph II (r.1780-1790)3, whose memory and reformatory tradition has -

as seen in the passage- survived and remained an object of political instrumentalisation

from various groups at least until 19184. Despite the fact that ecclesiastical history and

the relations between Throne and Altar have been a long-established and well-resear-

ched field5, this is not always the case with the narrowly related Josephinian legacy and

1 Quoted in Robert Musil, The Man without Qualities, trans. S. Wilkins, B. Pike (New York, 1995), 495. 2 Quoted in Karl Michael Kisler, “Joseph II. in der Literatur”, in: Karl Gutkas (ed.), Österreich zur Zeit

Josephs II. (Vienna, 1980), 298-305. Here 302. Kisler quoted the passage from an essay of Richard Kra-

lik named Joseph II. der Deutsche (1916). 3 Before concentrating on his legacy, an analytical portrait of the emperor himself and his deeds is neces-

sary. Regarding Joseph II’s biographies see Paul v. Mitrofanov, Joseph II.: Seine politische und kulturelle

Tätigkeit, 2 Vols. (Vienna, 1910), Lorenz Mikoletzky, Kaiser Joseph II. (Göttingen, 1979) and Derek

Beales, Joseph II, 2 Vols. (Cambridge, 1987/2009). 4 There have been numerous and yet fruitless attempts to define what Josephinism exactly is, but the con-

troversial character of the emperor per se, the scarceness of political testaments written by him and the

affiliation with it of all the parts of the political spectrum, make a undefinable definition rather impos-

sible. For some preliminary remarks, see Elisabeth Kovacs, “Was ist Josephinismus?”, in: Karl Gutkas

(ed.), Österreich zur Zeit Josephs II. (Vienna, 1980), 24-30 and Helmut Reinalter, „Aufgeklärter Abso-

lutismus und Josephinismus”, in: Helmut Reinalter (ed.), Der Josephinismus: Bedeutung, Einflüsse und

Wirkungen (Frankfurt a.M., 1993), 11-21. 5 Concerning the history of the Austrian Church, see introductorily Josef Wodka, Kirche in Österreich:

Wegweiser durch ihre Geschichte (Vienna, 1959), Rudolf Leeb et al. (eds.), Geschichte des Christen-

tums in Österreich. Von der Spätantike bis zur Gegenwart (Vienna, 2003), Helmut Rumpler, „Kirche

und Staat in Österreich im 19. Österreich”, in: Werner Drobesch et al. (eds.), Mensch, Staat und Kirchen

zwischen Alpen und Adria, 1848-1938 (Klagenfurt, 2007), 127-139. On the topic of the close relations

between the Church and the Habsburg dynasty particularly in the early modern era, see Anna Coreth, Pi-

etas Austriaca (Vienna, 1981 [1959]) and R.J.W. Evans, The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1550-

1700: An Interpretation (Oxford, 1979), esp.1-117.


2

the commemoration of the radical monarch. More precisely, the overwhelming amount

of earlier6 but also more recent7 relevant scholarly interest has been absorbed by the

impact of Josephinism from the reign of Joseph until the 1848 revolution, whilst its

presence and consequences in the last decades of the empire remained until nowadays

an atrophic field. A deeply-rooted historiographic conviction, which was established in

the mid-20th century asserting that Josephinism reached its End (Ausklang) after 1848

holds largely still its unquestionable position discouraging thus younger scholars from

researching the scientific lacunae of Josephinism in the subsequent neoabsolutist and

the liberal eras8. This persuasion was based on belief that after the sign of the 1855

Concordat between the Holy Sea and the Austrian Empire9, the Josephinian tradition of

a State-dominated Church (Staatskirchentum)10 passed in decline, whereas later the last

remnants of Josephinism were absorbed by Liberalism11.

This thesis holds indeed truth in it, meaning that indeed after 1855 Josephinism went

temporarily down and after 1860 became closely affiliated to the liberal politics. None-

theless, at the same time, it tends to oversimplify certain occasions of the mid-19th cen-

tury, which the current study aims to discuss in a more detailed level. More precisely,

this paper supports that the Josephinian State-Church tradition and the commemoration

of Joseph II, in spite of a temporal setback in the 1850s, met by no means their end and

instead “albeit of somewhat different nature, would survive the changes of the second

half of the 19th century” as Waltraud Heindl notes12. Much more, it claims that they

turned into a symbol of resistance and a useful ideological weapon against this highly

6 Fritz Valjavec, Der Josephinismus: Zur geistigen Entwicklung Österreichs im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert

(München, 1945), Eduard Winter, Der Josephinismus: Geschichte des österreichischen Reformkatholi-

zismus (Berlin, 1962) and Ferdinand Maaß (ed.), Der Josephinismus: Quellen zu seiner Geschichte in

Österreich 1760-1850. Amtliche Dokumente aus dem Wiener Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, 3 Vols. (Vi-

enna, 1951-1964). None of these standard works deals seriously with the period after 1848/1850. 7 Some typical examples are Matthias Rettenwander, "Nachwirkungen des Josephinismus", in: Helmut

Reinalter (ed.), Josephinismus als Aufgeklarter Absolutismus (Vienna, 2008), 317-425 and Franz Fillafer,

“Eine Gespenstergeschichte für Erwachsene. Überlegungen zu einer Geschichte des josephinischen

Erbes in der Habsburgermonarchie”, Ch. Ehalt, J. Mondot (eds.), Was blieb vom Josephinismus? Zum

65. Geburtstag von Helmut Reinalter (Innsbruck, 2010), 27-56. 8 Partial exceptions to that rule consist the works of Johanna Schmid, „Der Wandel des Bildes Josephs

II. in der österreichischen Historiographie: von den Zeitgenossen bis zum Ende der Monarchie“, Ph.D.

Thesis University of Vienna, 1972, which focuses exclusively on historiography as well as the brief stu-

dies of Karl Vocelka, “Das Nachleben Josephs II. im Zeitalter des Liberalismus”, in: Karl Gutkas (ed.),

Österreich zur Zeit Josephs II. (Vienna, 1980), 293-298, esp.293-294 and of Nancy Wingfield, "Joseph

II in the Austrian Imagination to 1914", in: Daniel Unowsky, Lawrence Cole (eds.), The Limits of

Loyalty: Imperial Symbolism, Popular Allegiances and State Patriotism in the Late Habsburg Monarchy

(New York, 2007), 62-85, esp.68-69 that offer only rudimentary and insufficient information. 9 On the Concordat, see the standard works of Erika Weinzierl, Die Österreichischen Konkordate von

1855 und 1933 (Vienna, 1960) and Gottfried Mayer, Österreich als “Katholische Großmacht”: Ein Tra-

um zwischen Revolution und liberaler Ära (Vienna, 1989). 10 On the origins of the Staatskirchentum, see Elisabeth Kovacs, „Burgundisches und theresianisch-jose-

phinisches Staatskirchensystem“, in: Helmut Reinalter (ed.), Der Josephinismus: Bedeutung, Einflüsse

und Wirkungen (Frankfurt a.M., 1993), 39-62 11 That assertion is made by Valjavec, Der Josephinismus, 133, 140-145. 12 Quoted in Waltraud Heindl, Josephinische Mandarine: Bürokratie und Beamte in Österreich, Vol.2:

1848-1914 (Vienna, 2013), 36.


3

unpopular act of the neoabsolutist regime13. The essay is going to focus on the presence

of Josephinism in the 1860s, i.e. the Kulturkampf age in Austria and especially on the

liberal-clerical struggle for the confessional legislation of May 1868 (Maigesetze),

which largely reinstalled the pre-1855, Josephinian regime in the State-Church rela-

tions14. Of equal interest is the clerical attitude towards Joseph II and his legacy and

how the conservative camp related the emperor to the Concordat as an attempt to legi-

timize its own aspirations and goals. After all, it is hoped to be comprehended how the

Austrian mid-19th century perceived and made use of the past epoch of Enlightened Ab-

solutism in order a better understanding of both eras to be promoted15.

II.

The image of Joseph II experienced a Blütezeit in 1848, when the Viennese revoluti-

onaries attempted to legitimize their aspirations on his political legacy (or what they i-

magined as such)16. Many pamphlets and poems were dedicated to him in this year,

which pictured him as an apostle of liberty against the oppressive Metternichian regime.

In March Joseph v. Lazarini composed the following verses: “Great Emperor, // Savior

of Light, // Apostle of truth and King! // We have reached the island of freedom, // have

heard its marvelous song.”17 During these days Franz Gräffer published a collection of

historical sources on Joseph II under the title Josephinische Curiosa, which, according

to his words, were: “a mirror of Joseph’s beautiful and pure soul, of his noble human-

13 On the hatred the Concordat created against the Austrian government, see briefly Alfred Ableitinger,

„Die historische Entwicklung des Liberalismus in Österreich im 19. und beginnenden 20. Jahrhundert“,

in: Helmut Reinalter, Harm Klueting (eds.), Der deutsche und österreichische Liberalismus. Geschichts-

und politikwissenschaftliche Perspektiven im Vergleich (Innsbruck, 2010), 121-147, esp.135. 14 The Austrian Kulturkampf is a topic rather poorly served by modern research. The digital database

Österreichische Historische Bibliographie contains only 69 titles under this field. See http://wwwg.uni-

klu.ac.at/oehb/oehbquery/ (accessed: 12.04.2015). From the existing literature, see Max v. Hussarek, Die

Krise und die Lösung des Konkordats vom 18. August 1855. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des öster-

reichischen Staatskirchenrechts (Vienna, 1932), Georg Franz, Kulturkampf: Staat und Katholische Kir-

che in Mitteleuropa von der Säkularisation bis zum Abschluss des preußischen Kulturkampfes (München,

1954), 82-154, Alan W. France, ‘Kulturkampf in Austria: The Vaterland Circle and the Struggle over the

Confessional Legislation of May 1868’, Ph.D. thesis, Rice University, 1975, Karl Vocelka, Verfassung

oder Konkordat? Der publizistische und politische Kampf der österreichischen Liberalen um die

Religionsgesetze des Jahres 1868 (Vienna, 1978), Moritz Csáky, „Kulturkampf, Freisinn und Liberalis-

mus im Österreich der siebziger und achtziger Jahre des 19. Jahrhunderts”, in: Norbert Leser (ed.), Re-

ligion und Kultur an Zeitenwenden: auf Gottes Spuren in Österreich (Vienna, 1984), 186-199 and Law-

rence Cole, „The Counter-reformation’s Last Stand: Austria”, in: Chris Clark, Wolfram Kaiser (eds.),

Culture Wars: Secular-Catholic Conflict in Nineteenth-century Europe (Cambridge, 2003), 285-312. 15 Other national historiographies have already made considerable steps in similar fields. See e.g. Mellon

Stanley, The Political Uses of History. A Study of Historians in the French Restoration (Stanford, 1958),

John Burrow, A Liberal Descent: Victorian Historians and the English Past (London, 1981). 16 See Friedrich Engel-Janosi, “Kaiser Joseph II. in der Wiener Bewegung des Jahres 1848”, Mitteilungen

des Vereines für Geschichte der Stadt Wien, Vol.11 (1931), 53-72, Eduard Beutner, „Joseph II. Die Ge-

schichte seiner Mythisierung und Entmythisierung in der Literatur (1741-1848). Die Grundlagen und

Bausteine der josephinischen Legende.“ Habilitation Dissertation, University of Salzburg, 1992, 347-

361 and R.J.W. Evans, “Josephinism, "Austrianness" and the Revolution of 1848", in: E. Timms, R.

Robertson (eds.), The Austrian Enlightenment and its Aftermath (Edinburgh, 1995), 145-160. Especially

Engel-Janosi and Beutner contain numerous examples of Josephinian literature of 1848. 17 Quoted in Joseph Freiherr v. Lazarini, Zwölf Märzlieder, der Wiener Hochschule gewidmet (Vienna,

1848), 12. See also Beutner, „Mythisierung und Entmythisierung“, 351, Engel-Janosi, „Joseph II.“, 67ff.

http://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at/oehb/oehbquery/

http://wwwg.uni-klu.ac.at/oehb/oehbquery/


4

friend heart, of his magnificent, self-sacrificing spirit […]”18. The coming Neoabsolu-

tism instrumentalized selective elements of the Josephinian legacy, especially when it

came to the rapid bureaucratic reorganization of the state in the early phase of the new

regime19. This becomes evident for instance by the profound similarities between Jo-

seph II’s Pastoral Letter (Hirtenbrief) to his civil servants (1783) and the equivalent let-

ters from ministers Stadion and Bach dated in late 1848 and in mid-1849 respectively20.

Nevertheless, the regime of Restored Absolutism connected its name not so much with

the renaissance but rather with the withdrew of Josephinism because of the Concordat

and in general due to its dogmatically Catholic public attitude21. The clerical supremacy

after 1855 was automatically interpreted by the contemporaries as a defeat of Josephi-

nism. Freiherr Johann Philipp v. Wessenberg-Ampringen wrote in a letter in October

1855: “What would Emperor Joseph say on that? With the Concordat […] the admini-

stration of the ecclesiastical property and the absolute influence over the elementary

schools was conceded to the bishops […]”22. Writing some decades after the collapse

of Neoabsolutism, the liberal statesman Carl v. Stemayer noted in his memoirs that with

the Concordat: “the work of our immortal Emperor Joseph II was exterminated with a

single stroke of the pen and the brand of the darkest reaction was put on the brow of

the Austrian Monarchy”23. It may be asserted that the Concordat all in all formatted

more enemies (domestic and foreign) for the Habsburg Empire than it did allies24, but

for as long the autocratic regime was still all-powerful such opinions as the above stated

held a rather marginal position and consisted no serious threat to the government25.

III.

This situation was bound to change after the Italian defeat of 1859 and the consequ-

ent fall of Neoabsolutism. The relaxation of censorship and the enforcement of a semi-

constitutional regime in 1861 allowed the liberals and josephinians opponents of cleri-

18 Quoted in Franz Gräffer, Josephinische Curiosa; oder ganz besondere, theils nicht mehr, theils noch

nicht bekannte Persönlichkeiten, Geheimnisse, Details, Actenstücke und Denkwürdigkeiten der Lebens-

und Zeitperiode Kaiser Josephs II. (Vienna, 1848), 143. 19 Some preliminary observation concerning this issue can be found in Heindl, Josephinische Mandarine,

52-77. Also see John David Deak, “The Austrian civil service in an age of crisis: Power and the politics

of reform, 1848-1925”, Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Chicago, 2009. Nevertheless, the topic of Jo-

sephinism in the bureaucratic reforms of Neoabsolutism still awaits to be seriously addressed. 20 Joseph’s letter can be found in Harm Klueting (ed.), Der Josephinismus: ausgewählte Quellen zur Ge-

schichte der theresianisch-josephinischen Reformen (Darmstadt, 1995), 334-341, while an excellent co-

mmentary on it there is in Beales, Joseph II, Vol.2, 345-352. The letters of Stadion and of Bach can be

traced in Friedrich Walter (ed.), Die Österreichische Zentralverwaltung, Part 3/Vol.2: 1848-1852 (Vien-

na, 1964), 32-36 and 105-110 respectively. 21 On the Catholic reorientation of the regime in the public sphere, see D. Unowsky, The Pomp and Poli-

tics of Patriotism: Imperial Celebrations in Habsburg Austria, 1848-1916 (West Lafayette, 2005),11-32 22 Quoted in F. A. Brockhaus (ed.), Briefe von Johann Philipp Freiherrn von Wessenberg aus den Jahren

1848 bis 1858 an Isfordink-Kostnitz, 2 Vols. (Leipzig, 1877), Vol.1, 326-327. 23 Quoted in Carl v. Stremayer, Erinnerungen aus dem Leben (Vienna, 1893), 35. Additionally other de-

voted Josephinians felt extreme disapproval like the Police minister v. Kempen. For his attitude, see Jose-

ph Karl Mayr (ed.), Das Tagebuch des Polizeiministers Kempen von 1848-1859 (Vienna/Leipzig, 1931). 24 Detailed references to the responses -approving or disapproving- towards the Concordat are made in

Weinzierl, Die österreichischen Konkordate, 83-98 and Mayer, Katholische Großmacht, 205-216. 25 Negative witnesses against the Concordat come mainly from illegal or foreign documents, private pa-

pers or a posteriori composed essays. See the comments of Cole, “Austria”, 285-288.


5

calism to be openly expressed. A wave of pamphlets and other publications appeared,

which criticized the detrimental influences of the Concordat to virtually every aspect of

the public life. Thereupon, we read in a contemporary brochure that: “the concordat

driven until its expressed consequences, functions thus not for the independence of the

Catholic Church from the State, but [enforces] the authority of the Roman Church over

Austria and [over] all its subjects without discrimination of religion.”26 The newly-

acquired freedom of Press opened the way for a flood of publications directly or indi-

rectly linked with Joseph II and his legacy, which corresponded to the enlargement of

the public sphere in Austria in the age of liberalism. Thus the members of a local literarz

Verein declared proudly that: “Next to a history of Austria, a biography of our unforget-

table Emperor Joseph II should never be lacking [from a public library].”27 The majo-

rity of Joseph II’s related literature contextualized him within the broader Kulturkampf

milieu of the liberal-catholic struggle for the Concordat28.

The German writer and politician Eduard Schmid-Weißenfels composed a popular

apologia of Joseph II in 1862 using the pseudonym Ernst Hellmuth29. This biography,

albeit it aspired to be an impartial historical study, had no hesitations to depict the em-

peror as a pioneer of liberalism: “[…] his bourgeois simplicity made the Austrian peop-

le admire him. His compassion and gallantry became exemplary” notes the author30.

The emperor devotion and idealism were praised, as were his grandiose reformatory

plans: “And now at first a prince, like Joseph II, with radical plans in mind, with an i-

deal in his heart […] [he wished] to unite all his lands and peoples through the tape of

one single, uniform constitution, series of laws and administration.”31 The German li-

beral ideal for a strong, centralized state becomes evident in Hellmuth’s words in spite

of speaking about Joseph II. His deep admiration for the monarch’s breath-taking admi-

nistrative and judicial reforms, his never-ceasing activity and his absolute devotion to

the state is obvious32. Equally influences by the contemporary developments in the Mo-

narchy, the author does not neglect to point out the immensely significant abolition of

censorship: “The first of this wave of reformatory laws, which targeted to the destru-

ction of medieval Austria was the edict of censorship, which abolished the strict censor-

ship of the old regime […]”33 Here the parallelism between the josephinian era and the

young constitutional epoch in the empire after the end of Neoabsolutism is clear. Rid-

ding of the old clerical spirit was the main objective of Joseph also in matters of his ec-

clesiastical reforms. That was the case particularly when it came to the abolition of mo-

26 Quoted in Anonym, Das ABC des Konkordates für Solche, die klar sehen wollen (Vienna, 1861), 9.

Vocelka, Verfassung oder Konkordat?, 26-42 provides also other similar examples, while Fran, “Kultur-

kampf in Austria“, 1-35 discusses that wave of publications focusing mainly on the catholic perspective. 27 Quoted in Politischer Volks-Kalender für 1878 (Klagenfurt/Villach, 1877), 2-4. See Pieter Judson, Ex-

clusive Revolutionaries: Liberal Politics, Social Experience and National Identity in the Austrian Empi-

re, 1848-1914 (Ann Arbor, 1996), 155-159. 28 It is emphasized that the liberals interpreted the Concordat not as simply a legal affair, but as an emble-

matic symbol of clerical autocracy, which they strove to get rid of. France, “Kulturkampf in Austria”, 3. 29 Ernst Hellmuth, Kaiser Joseph II.: Ein Buch für’s Volk (Prague, 1862). 30 Quoted in Hellmuth, Joseph II., 179. 31 Quoted in Hellmuth, Joseph II., 160. 32 See Hellmuth, Joseph II., 162-165. 33 Quoted in Hellmuth, Joseph II., 166.


6

nasteries, the creation of a state-controlled Church and the edict of tolerance, all of

which were objects of admiration and imitation by the 1860s liberal movement34. The

same line is followed by another biography of Joseph II published simultaneously by

the journalist Hermann Meynert35. Although, some new archival material was used in

this study, this did not lead the author to any novel conclusions and the rhetoric he uses

present substantial similarities to those of Hellmuth36. The great length of the chapters

concerning Church affairs in the book is interesting nevertheless since it advocates the

view of the topicality of Joseph II’s reforms via the lens of the Kulturkampf climate in

Austria. The basic function of these popular works was after all not to deepen histo-

rical knowledge, but to preserve the legend of Joseph II as a patron saint of Liberalism37.

Other authors did not face any hesitation to connect directly the memory of the late

emperor with the contemporary political dilemmas. One such example is the journalist

Johann F. Faber and his interesting undertaking to compare Joseph II to the ruling mo-

narch Francis Joseph, in order both to praise the first, but also to flatter the second38.

The first and foremost similarity between the two men was their hard work ethos and

their unique devotion to the common good and to the prosperity of their subjects39. In

spite of Joseph II’s heavy commitment, the essential difference in the Zeitgeist of the

two eras is noted by pointing out that:“[Joseph II] resisted stubbornly to the thought to

ask these peoples themselves what they considered as satisfactory for their prosperity”,

a situation totally different to the established parliamentarism of the 1860s according

to Faber40. Old (pre-josephinian) Austria was characterized by: “[…] the hostility a-

gainst the modern spirit, by absolutism and by ultraconservatism […] by Metternichian

stagnation and by the Jesuitism of Ferdinand II […]”41. This was everything Joseph

stood against to in his effort to build a “new Austria”. These plans were expressed by

a variety of laws and by the emperor’s iron will to centralize and homogenize the state

-an undertaking that can find its parallel only in the age of Neoabsolutism42. The re-

forms of Joseph II, despite the temporary setbacks they created in his times, they were

proven to be most beneficiary for the Monarchy: “Is this new Austria the best apologist

for Joseph II? Does it confess the undefinable evidence of the success, of the spirit and

of the power, that his seed has secretly survived and as it was suppressed, the stronger

it became?”43 Finally, the author attempted the unimaginable: to find common points

between the ecclesiastical policy of Joseph II and the Concordat on the basis that both

tried to construct a spiritual and dogmatic harmony within the boundaries of the state

34 See Hellmuth, Joseph II., 167-171. 35 Hermann Meynert, Kaiser Joseph II.: Ein Beitrag zur Würdigung des Geistes seiner Regierung (Vien-

na, 1862). 36 See Meynert, Kaiser Joseph II., 18-75. Alone they cover more than one third of the total book length. 37 See F.A.J. Szabo, “Changing Perspectives on the 'Revolutionary Emperor': Joseph II. Biographies sin-

ce 1790“, Journal of Modern History, Vol.83, No.1 (2011), 111-138, esp.124. 38 See Johann F. Faber, Joseph II. und Franz Joseph I.: Eine Historische Parallele (Stuttgart, 1863). 39 See Faber, Joseph II. und Franz Joseph I., 7. 40 Quoted in Faber, Joseph II. und Franz Joseph I., 12. 41 Quoted in Faber, Joseph II. und Franz Joseph I., 17. 42 See Faber, Joseph II. und Franz Joseph I., 49-52. 43 Quoted in Faber, Joseph II. und Franz Joseph I., 22.


7

(independently of their results). Thus Faber strove to satisfy both the advocates of Jose-

phinism and the followers of clericalism44.

Another document, which generates particular interest is an anonymous brochure

from 186345. Its major concern is the Concordat and in spite of the fact that, according

to its author, takes an indisputably catholic perspective, that does not prevent it from

being overwhelmingly in favor of Joseph II, stating that: “[he] was emperor, catholic

and humane at the same level in the noblest meaning of the word”46. The author re-

marks that the advocates of the Concordat believe that the recent revolution has taken

place due to Joseph’s policy, whilst the supports of the latter hold the opinion that if his

reforms were concluded successfully there would be no need for revolution and that

they are simply carrying out was he did not managed to do47. He notes that the clerica-

lists noted in their own brochures that: “In Austria no one wants no know or to hear

nothing more about Emperor Joseph” and yet nonetheless, they bring forward to proof

of their accusations against the charismatic monarch. On the contrary the memory of

Joseph II enjoyed great popularity: “[…] If the great majority [of the population] had

to decide, then [it would decide] that the Concordat has gone bankrupted and not Em-

peror Joseph. Because in all public gatherings, theaters, festivities and cheerful activi-

ties, where in the present prologues and epilogues of the people the name ‘Joseph’ is

heard or his image is shown, is always the name of Emperor Joseph that is cheered

with great warmth! When a reference to the Concordat is seen, then a silent attitude

and great disapproval can be always observed from the side of the people.”48 The writer

adds that several leading politicians were fighting against the Concordat: “And do these

deputies not want to achieve under the constitutional system the same goal that Empe-

ror Joseph has tried to reach, that is peoples’ happiness in the Austrian Monarchy?”49

One should not forget that in the era after 1848, academic historiography made rapid

steps in the Monarchy and the establishment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences

(1847) and of the Austrian Institute for Historical Research (1854) contributed mostly

to that development50. Themes that were linked to Joseph II held a distinguished posi-

tion and despite the fact that this development were not associated to the contemporary

political developments, its very existence speaks in favor of the continuing influence of

Josephinism in Austria. The case of the moderate liberal archivist and celebrated biog-

rapher of Maria-Theresa, Alfred von Arneth needs to be addressed, who from the mid-

1860s until the early 1870s managed to publish Joseph II’s correspondence with the

44 See Faber, Joseph II. und Franz Joseph I., 22-24, 33-35. Also 41-42 for a comparison between the

1861 protestant patent and the josephinian agenda of religious tolerance. 45 Anonymous, Das österreichische Konkordat vor dem Richterstuhle im Reichsrathe von katholischen

Standpunkte beleuchtet (Vienna, 1863). 46 Quoted in Anonymous, Das österreichische Konkordat, 51. 47 See Anonymous, Das österreichische Konkordat, 49, 52. 48 Quoted in Anonymous, Das österreichische Konkordat, 53. Italics belong to the author. 49 Quoted in Anonymous, Das österreichische Konkordat, 54. Italics belong to the author. Concerning

the leading politicians of so called ‘constitutional party’ of the era, see Joseph Hartmeyer, “Die führenden

Abgeordneten des Liberalismus in Österreich”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Vienna, 1949. 50 See Alphons Lhotsky, Geschichte des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 1854-1954

(Vienna/Graz/Köln, 1954) and idem, Österreichische Historiographie (Vienna, 1962), 193-224.


8

other members of his family as well as with the Czarina Katharina of Russia. In the int-

roductions of his publications, not only the character of the late emperor is unveiled,

but also the very attitude of Arneth towards him. Joseph is pictured as a determined, al-

most despotic ruler, although a more humane side of his can be seen particularly in his

contact with his sister51. The impetuous and sometimes overambitious elements of his

character with maximalist plans especially in his foreign policy generally seem to pre-

vail since he desired to overcome militarily both the Ottoman Empire and Prussia52. In

the domestic sphere, Joseph’s program of administrative centralization faced also sub-

stantial difficulties in its enforcement. Despite these setbacks, his policy won Arneth’s

admiration: “he wanted […] to liberate the land [i.e. Hungary] from its half-asiatic

conditions and bring, even partly, the blessings of a European culture”53. In matters of

the new ecclesiastical organization, Joseph had no hesitation to declare his goal to turn

all priests into paid civil servants without the approval of a Synod54. Arneth’s underta-

king ended with the impression that Joseph left a rightly-orientated and yet unfinished

and hasty enforced work that nevertheless sealed the later existence of the Monarchy.

IV.

The posthumous image of Joseph II became an object of discussion not only by the

liberal but also from the conservative camp as well55. There the name of the late monar-

ch was painted in the darkest colors in order the rightfulness of the Concordat and the

abolition of the previous josephinian system of State-Church relations to be justified.

Antijosephinian attitudes appeared already from the 1848 revolution56, calling for the

liberation of the Church from state tyranny that has lasted for 70 years. Nonetheless, in

the 1860s the Catholic arguments were expressed in such a passionate and sentimental

way that was unknown in the previous ages. Among the writers of this camp, the Ty-

rolese Benedictine monk, historian, director of the Austrian Institute of Historical Re-

search and firm antijosephinian Albert Jäger holds a predominant position. In a short

book of his named Das Concordat und seine Gegner (Innsbruck, 1862) he tried histo-

ricize the State-Church conflict in Austria. According to him, in 18th century Europe

appeared “new theories and doctrines”, which in the Habsburg lands were expressed

mainly during the reigns of Maria-Theresa and Joseph II. They strove to strengthen

state authority and eventual “state absolutism”, which was created had no parallel “in

the destruction and the hindrances it put to the rights, the power and the autonomy of

51See Arneth (ed.),Marie Antoinette, Joseph II. und Leopold II.: Ihr Briefwechsel (Leipzig,1866),VI-VII. 52 See Arneth (ed.), Joseph II. und Leopold von Toskana: Ihr Briefwechsel von 1781 bis 1790, Vol.1 (Vi-

enna, 1872), XIX-XX. Joseph wrote to his brother Leopold that he wanted “not only to crush the whole

might of the Ottoman Empire but also truly the very king of Prussia”. 53 Quoted in Quoted in Arneth, Joseph II. und Leopold, XXXII. 54 Joseph stated: “my efforts target to turn all into paid civil servants and that I have already achieved.

On that, no approval of a Synod is needed”. Quoted in Arneth (ed.), Joseph II. und Leopold, XXXVII. 55 For conservatism in Austria, see selectively, Johann Christian Allmayer-Beck, Der Konservatismus in

Österreich (München, 1959) and John W. Boyer, Political Radicalism in Late Imperial Vienna: Origins

of the Christian-Social Movement, 1848-1897 (Chicago, 1981), esp.1-39. 56 See for instance Karl Ernst Jarcke, “Österreich und die Kirche (1848)“, in: Friedrich Walter (ed.), Ös-

terreichische Zentralverwaltung, 1848-1852 (Vienna, 1964), 41-47.


9

the Church”57. The reforms that began under Maria-Theresa were culminated during

the reign of her son, who targeted to: “the total replacement of the Church by the State

[…] and the submission of the Church in Austria became the ultimate goal [of Joseph

II]”58. As main components of the josephinian legislation Jäger saw the degree for the

abolition of monasteries, the transformation of marriage to a secular affair and the

establishment of the general seminaries in order the priests to be turned into state civil

servants59. For the author: “this status of the Church in Austria was forced and unna-

tural” and in order the natural ecclesiastical autonomy to be reinstalled the Concordat

was a necessity60.

Jäger had the opportunity to express his opinion towards Joseph II in a more detailed

way in a biography of his he published in 186761. In his narration it is emphasized that

the godless ideas of the Enlightenment found their perfect embodiment in the person of

Joseph II, who in one word was: “totally the son of his times” and was depicted as the

exact opposite of the pious emperor Ferdinand II (r.1619-1637). Joseph II consisted:

“the full image of a church-hostile, catholic prince, whose governmental program of

restriction and marginalization of the ecclesiastical rights, took the single name of Jo-

sephinism”62 The aspect of Josephinian reforms, on which Jäger exercised indeed mer-

ciless criticism was the violent submission of the Church to secular control, as already

noted. His harshest remark was that Joseph’s ecclesiastical reforms were: “a chaotic

conglomerate of laws and regulations, which had nothing to do with each other”63. The

theoretical confusion had also most detrimental repercussions in practical level as well:

Joseph’s laws on the abolition of monasteries were carried out in climate of fear, while

countless cases of vandalism took place at the expense of rightful religious property, as

Jäger described64. Thus in the author’s eyes, Joseph II was a dangerous and obsessive

ruler, who made irresponsible use of his power, which eventually led to tragic repercas-

sions for both the Catholic Church and the Habsburg Empire.

Joseph II was painted also in very similar colors in a brief pamphlet written by Josef

Beißleithner targeting to the defense of the Concordat as well65. Jäger’s argumentation

was followed and the author asserted that the 1855 agreement did nothing else than to

restore the Church to its former (pre-josephinian) condition and its earlier privileges,

which were bestowed to it by the Roman Emperor Constantine himself66. The suprema-

cy of the enlightened ideas in 18th century Austria as expressed by the reforms of Joseph

II, were, according to Beißleithner, responsible for great domestic confusion as well as

57 Quoted in Jäger, Das Concordat, 10. 58 Quoted in Jäger, Das Concordat, 14. 59 See Jäger, Das Concordat, 17-19, 21-22 and 24 respectively. 60 See Jäger, Das Concordat, 27. 61 Albert Jäger, Kaiser Joseph II. und Leopold II.: Reform und Gegenreform, 1780-1792 (Vienna, 1867). 62 Quoted in Jäger, Kaiser Joseph II., 27. See more generally, 22-27. 63 Quoted in Jäger, Kaiser Joseph II, 63. 64 See Jäger, Kaiser Joseph II, 72-78 and 139 on cases of vandalism. 65 See Josef Beißleithner, Das Concordat: Ein Vortrag gehalten in der Katholiken Versammlung in

Veindorf (7. Oktober 1867) (Linz, 1867). The pamphlet was initially a speech made public in an assemble

of an Upper Austrian local Verein. 66 See Beißleithner, Das Concordat, 3-6.


10

for the uprisings in Hungary and in Belgium67. To the author, the borders between the

two camps were clear: “[the] friends of Josephinism are enemies of the Church and of

the Monarchy”68. Finally, stability and social and spiritual harmony were restored to

the Empire only via the Concordat and the exemplary pious monarch Francis Joseph.

One last reference to the clerical critics of Joseph II is needed and that is for the

conservative writer and journalist Sebastian Brunner, who was the author of a series of

very critical historical works on Joseph II and his era in the late 1860s and early 1870s.

Nevertheless, his contribution to the historical research on Josephinism was truly extra-

ordinary: he unveiled the forgery of a widely known collection of supposently written

by Joseph II letters, the so called “Constantinople Letters”, while working on his book

Die theologische Dienerschaft am Hofe Josephs II. (Vienna, 1868)69. Becoming sus-

picious of the Constantinople material, Brunner collaborated with von Arneth, who

“brilliantly revealed the falsity”70. Brunner noticed that the falses presented substantial

stylistic differences from material, which was without doubt written by Joseph. This

was an extremely important discovery since virtually all the works written for Joseph

II up to that day were at least partially based on the Constantinople letters: “We can

now”, he commented, “put an end to this unhistorical deception for all future authors

who possess conscience, honor and love of truth.”71 It was a major achievement since,

according to an expert, the letters exaggerated Joseph’s inclination to philosophize and

his willingness to make literary and historical references. They also made him seen mo-

re liberal, tolerant, anti-clerical and free-thinking than he actually was72. That meant

that the until then written works were rendered obsolete (including those above discus-

sed), whilst Brunner seized the opportunity in order to deprive his liberal political op-

ponents from politicall/y using the memory of Joseph II. That was a strategical weapon

that cannot be seen separately from the wider political developments. A few years later

Brunner, who was willing to underline the nonexistent relations between the real Joseph

II and liberalism, stated in a biography of the late emperor that “[…] these gentlemen

[who praise Joseph II] must not know that Joseph had in very little esteem all the then

valid constitutions and he showed his disapproval in all assemblies of that kind”73. This

was, as Brunner argued, the real enlightened despot behind the Constantinople letters.

V.

The use of more sentimental and acute language in the later publications examined

above is a fine evidence of the escalated tension in the liberal-clerical conflict in 1867-

1868, when the Austrian Kulturkampf entered its highest stage. After the double defeat

of 1866 and the expulsion of the Monarchy from both Germany and Italy, traditional

67 See Beißleithner, Das Concordat, 8-9. 68 Quoted in See Beißleithner, Das Concordat, 10. 69 See Brunner, Die theologische Dienerschaft, 7-8, 515-531. See also Derek Beales, “The false Joseph

II”, in: Enlightenment and Reform in 18th century Europe (New York, 2005), 117-154, esp.121. 70 Quoted in Brunner, Die theologische Dienerschaft, 518. 71 Quoted in Brunner, Die theologische Dienerschaft, 517. 72 See Beales, “False Joseph II”, 134. 73 Quoted in Sebastian Brunner, Joseph II.: Charakteristik seines Lebens, seiner Regierung und seiner

Kirchenreform (Vienna, 1874), 6-7.


11

absolutism and the Concordat were under constant attack by their liberal opponents (the

plethora of conservative responses stated above also indicate this evolution)74. The con-

stitutional party75, the main expresser of liberalism in Cisleithanian politics counted

among its main goals the legal abolition of the Concordat. After the end of the auto-

cratic Belcredi ministry (1865-1867) and the reestablishment of parliamentarism in

May 1867, lively discussions began to take place both in the House of Deputies (Abgeo-

rdnetenhaus) and in the House of Lords (Herrenhaus) of the Imperial Parliament (Rei-

chsrat)76 concerning the alternation or even the complete abolition of the Concordat77.

During these intense verbal conflicts Joseph II and his legacy were commemorated

several times by both sides in order each one to justify their own claims and world view.

In the session (Sitzung) of 5th June 1867 of the House of Deputies, Eduard Herbst,

one of the leaders of the constitutional party suggested that there would be a revision in

the State-Church relations78. This statement was received by the opposition as a direct

provocation against the 1855 clerical establishment and Albert Jäger (the same as

above), who participated in the parliament as a conservative representative from Tyrol,

responded with a lengthy historical narration concerning the State-Church relations

from the 18th century onwards willing to prove that: “the Concordat was nothing more

than a righteous agreement between State and Church for the enclosure of each one’s

legal fields”79. As in his previously analyzed writings, Jäger referred to the harmonious

relation between State and Church in the Baroque era, which was interrupted by the te-

achings of the Enlightenment in the mid-18th century. These novel principles made the

Habsburgs pursue a policy of centralization and the submission of the Church to state

absolutism, a situation natural in the northern protestant countries but totally foreign to

the Austrian traditions. The situation deteriorated in the last decades of the century:

“You must also recognize this: that the Catholic Church was once again conquered, its

old rights were taken […] these were restored with the installation of the Concordat.

The need for a Concordat was not firstly obtained in 1855 […] and I should remind to

you gentlemen that already from the year 1790 the first effort was made for the reestab-

lishment of the friendly relations between State and Church.”80 Subsequently the wise

and balanced ecclesiastical policy of Leopold II and Francis I/II was praised since it o-

pened the way to the 1855 agreement and returned the Church to its natural position.

74 On the political balances in 1866/1867, see Jonathan Kwan, Liberalism and the Habsburg Monarchy,

1861-1895 (London, 2013), 56-57. 75 On the constitutional party (Verfassungspartei), see Kammerhofer Leopold, „Organisationsformen und

Führungsschichten”, in: Leopold Kammerhofer (ed.), Studien zum Deutschliberalismus in Zisleithanien

1873-1879 (Vienna, 1992), 23-44. 76 Regarding the way that the Cisleithanian parliament functioned, see Lothar Höbelt, „Parteien und Fak-

toren im Cisleithanischen Reichsrat“, in: in: Helmut Rumpler, Peter Urbanitsch (eds.), Die Habsburger-

monarchie 1848-1918, Vol. 7: Verfassung und Parlamentarismus (Vienna, 2000), 895-1006 77 The parliamentary discussions that eventually led to the confessional laws of 1868 are discussed in

Vocelka, Verfassung oder Konkordat?, 51-90 and in France, “Kulturkampf in Austria”, 1-59, 103-157. 78See Stenographische Protokolle über die Sitzungen des Hauses der Abgeordneten des Reichsrathes, IV.

Session, 1867-1869 (Vienna, 1869), 138. For this session see also Gustav Kolmer, Parlament und Verfas-

sung in Österreich, Vol.1 (1848-1869), 300-301. 79 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle: Abgeordnetenhaus, 138. 80 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle: Abgeordnetenhaus, 139. See also Vocelka, Verfassung, 72-73


12

This thoughtful presentation of Jäger, which was almost identical to his published

conclusions81 triggered a variety of references to Joseph II and his policy. Dr. Andrie-

wicz, a deputy from the Bukovina, claimed that the Edict of Tolerance had most bene-

ficial results in his fatherland particularly in matters of equality of rights and elementary

education. Therefore, it was a clear predecessor of the liberal Rechtstaat82. The conser-

vative deputy Greuter pointed out the essential difference between the legal position of

the Church before and after 1855: under the system established by Joseph II, the Catho-

lic Church was only the religious institution of the majority of the Emperor’s subjects,

while the Concordat updated it to the only recognized Church in Austria83. Later the le-

aders of the liberal party, Eugen v. Mühlfeld and Herbst responded straightforwardly

to Jäger’s historical arguments. Mühlfeld picked the example of Francis I/II and clai-

med that he disagreed with the idea of a Concordat with the Holy Sea: “because he was

illuminated by the example of the Emperor Joseph II”84 Herbst asserted that his colle-

ague was wrong when he inaugurated the mutually beneficial relation between State

and Church in the pre-modern era since in the Middle Ages the tensions between the

two powers were frequent. He added that Josephinism was simply the Austrian way to

follow international intellectual and institutional developments in the 18th century85.

In the following month the goals of the liberals became better-defined and at the sa-

me time conservative phraseology became harsher. In 11th July Herbst brought to the

parliament a draft for three laws that were to replace essentially the Concordat. The first

reestablished marriage as an institution dominated by the State, the second brought a-

gain school education into secular control and the third regulated the relations between

different religious confessions86. In the discussion that followed in 22-23 July, Jäger

speaking for the conservative deputies, claimed that there was no need for such legisla-

tion since such issues were regulated by the Concordat87. Nevertheless, his argumenta-

tion did not make liberal activity cease and the discussions for the confessional legisla-

tion continued over the following months as well. At the same time, the conservative

Press adopted a rather defensive position by accusing their opponents on a moral basis.

In 23 July 1867, the leading conservative newspaper Das Vaterland contained an analy-

sis with the categories of the Concordat’s enemies. Among them the group of the so

called “constitutionally-minded” bureaucrats were particularly dangerous for the inte-

rests of the Church, since in the josephinist tradition, they hoped to subject the Church

once again to the yoke of the state. Perhaps they could no more rule the clergy by deg-

81 It is no coincidence that his biography of Joseph II was published in the same year, but on the contrary

seems as a fine political use of history. 82 See Stenographische Protokolle: Abgeordnetenhaus, 144. 83 See Stenographische Protokolle: Abgeordnetenhaus, 149. 84 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle: Abgeordnetenhaus, 155. Mühlfeld’s statement resulted to very

positive reactions from the deputies of his party. His comments did not passed unnoticed by the general

public either since his words were reproduced in the liberal newspaper Neue Freie Presse (6th June, eve-

ning paper), 4. 85 See Stenographische Protokolle: Abgeordnetenhaus, 159. 86 See Stenographische Protokolle: Abgeordnetenhaus, 339f for the draft and 378-380 for their analysis. 87 See Stenographische Protokolle: Abgeordnetenhaus, 478-485.


13

rees as in the age of Joseph II, the newspaper argued, but they had found their place in-

to the parliament and they worked against the interests of catholic religion88.

The clerical arguments did not find their way to the hearts of the Bürgertum, which,

being then on the rise, wanted to abolish the Concordat by all means and as soon as po-

ssible. The confessional legislation passed from the House of Deputies in late October

186789. In December the Austrian constitution was voted90 and slightly later the ever

until most radical elected government of Austria, the so called Bürgerministerium

(1867-1870) was put in charge91. The new ministry was comprised by the most distin-

guished figures of the liberal movement like Herbst, Leopold v. Hasner and Carl v.

Giskra under the premiership of Prince Carlos Auersperg. The new ministry was deter-

mined to end the privileged position of the Church within the Monarchy and its mem-

bers played a decisive role to the crucial discussion for the confessional legislation in

the House of Lords, which took place in mid and late March 186892.

VI.

The debate on the confessional legislation at the House of Lords consisted the high-

light of the political and public issues that the Kulturkampf tensions had caused in the

previous years. In 19th March, the starting day of the discussions dense crowds had been

gathered outside the parliamentary building whereas the most preeminent personalities

of the government were there as well. “You saw at one glance most of the political no-

tabilities, past and present, of Austria” noted a foreign observer93. The widespread fee-

ling that the radical-considered Bürgerministerium was an ideological offspring of the

Viennese revolution of 1848, when the image of Joseph II had flourished, made the

reformer emperor’s memory particularly topical once again94. In more precise terms,

the fact that the 19th March happened to be the name day of Joseph II along with the

wide education and historical interests of several eminent members of the House are all

potential reasons for the impressive plethora of references to the late monarch.

At the beginning of the discussion, the reader of the majority Freiherr v. Lichtenfels

rejected the conservative argument concerning the supposed decline of morals during

the josephinian system: “Via more than 70 years this [josephinian] legislation was kept

88 See Das Vaterland (23 July), 1. See also France, “Kulturkampf in Austria”, 6-7 and Heindl, Josephini-

sche Mandarine, 85-163. 89 On the relevant discussions, see Stenographische Protokolle: Abgeordnetenhaus, 1055-1231 and brief-

ly Kolmer, Parlament und Verfassung, 302-306. 90 On the December constitution, see Gerhard Stourzh, “Die österreichische Dezemberverfassung von

1867”, Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon, Vol.12, No.1 (1968), 1-16. 91 On the Bürgerministerium, see Lothar Höbelt, „Das Bürgerministerium”, Etudes Danubiennes, Vol.

12, No.2 (1998), 1-11 and shortly Kolmer, Parlament und Verfassung, 314-315. 92 On the developments of that era, see briefly Kwan, Liberalism, 64-69. For the discussion in the Hou-

se of Lords, see shortly Kolmer, Parlament und Verfassung, 321-327 and Helmut Rumpler, Eine Chance

für Mitteleuropa: Bürgerliche Emanzipation und Staatsverfall in der Habsburgermonarchie, 1804-1914

(Vienna, 1997), 419-421. 93 Quoted in The Times (London, 24 March 1868), 10. See France, “Kulturkampf in Austria”, 114. 94 See also above pp.3-4 and R. John Rath, The Viennese Revolution of 1848 (Texas: AU, 1957), 243-

245 for the memory of Joseph II in combination to that of the revolution. Particularly for the legacy of

the Viennese uprising in the liberal era, see Pieter Judson, Wien brennt!: die Revolution von 1848 und

ihr liberales Erbe (Vienna, 1998), 109-132.


14

in experience and it was not concluded that it was in conflict with the essential teaching

of the catholic religion on the marriage sacrament […]”95 Consequently the speaker

asked for the installment of the earlier legal framework especially since the Corcordat

was a force of backwardness for the population of Austria96. This remark was immedi-

ately objected by the leading conservative Gustav v. Blome97, who claimed that: “the

Concordat was agreed in order to heal evils that were created through misfortunes of

seventy years” and added that it was unfair the Concordat to be judged so harshly after

only twelve years while Josephinism prevailed for seventy98. As the debate proceeded

josephinian commemoration acquired a more specific form. On this evolution the spe-

ech of the minister of education Leopold v. Hasner is of extraordinary significance as

is himself since his attitude on that matter can be summarized in his phrase: “one needs

only to follow the way back to Josephinism in order to move forward”99. Hasner was a

firm believer of state supremacy in educational and ecclesiastical affairs and he did not

neglect to mention Joseph II as: “one of the most glorious and noble princes of Austria,

to whom the hearts of his people remain loyal”. Albeit he emphasized that he personally

and his government wished no enslavement of the Church, he also pointed out that:

“what is named Josephinism […] is nothing else than one natural evolutionary phase

of the entire life of the State from the middle ages to our times. From this perspective

is this government josephinian. (Bravo! left)”100 Followingly the minister argued that

what Joseph II did was by no means an isolated deed but, along with Maximilian I, they

belonged to a line of Austrian monarchs that helped their country prosper, while remai-

ning also true Catholics. According to Hasner:’what Joseph II did was nothing else than

the endeavor to help the state authority reach its rightful status”. Cleverly enough how-

ever he remarked that even if the emperor happened to overpass the appropriate limits,

the current government would be wiser. Its goal was a free Church in a free State, an

ambition that could be accomplished only with the abolition of the Concordat101. The

untimate goal was of course the construction of the constitutional Rechtstaat, a per-

manent aspiration of the liberal party102. Hasner closed his speech with another histori-

cal argument, i.e. that in most similar cases of State-Church clash in modern history the

secular government emerged most usually victorious and not the Altar, presupposing

thus the end of the current conflict as well103.

95 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle über die Sitzungen des Herrenhauses des Reichsrathes, IV.

Session, 1867-1869 (Vienna, 1869), 512. 96 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 513-514. 97 Blome was one of the most devoted opponents of Josephinism as well as one of the most outstanding

figures of political Catholicism in an international level. For his parliamentary activity, see Emiel Lam-

berts, „A Peculiar Heir of Metternich: Gustav von Blome (1829-1906). An Intermediary between Con-

servatism and Socio-Political Catholicism”, in: Bernhard Löffler, Karsten Ruppert (eds.), Religiöse Prä-

gung und Politische Ordnung in der Neuzeit. Festschrift für Winfried Becker zum 65. Geburtstag (Vien-

na, 2006), 193-220, esp.218. 98 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 516, where the quotation. 99 Quoted in Friedrich Schütz, Werden und Wirken des Bürgerminissteriums: Mitteilungen aus unbenut-

zten Quellen und persönliche Erinnerungen (Leipzig, 1909), 73. 100 For both quotations see Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 523. 101 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 523. 102 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 526. 103 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 529.


15

As the debate went on, Count Blome took the word one more and attempted a full-

scale assault against the very person of Joseph II. After repeating his argument concer-

ning the premature nature of criticism against the Concordat in comparison to the long

duration of Josephinism104, he expressed his own attitude on the reign of the late mo-

narch. For the representative of the minority, Joseph II: “allowed the Monarchy to re-

ach the edge of abyss and he could also wrongly assume that in Church head found an

equal opponent, because he had inherited the Monarchy in relative flourishing conditi-

ons from the great empress Maria-Theresa”105. Such daring a statement did not pass

unnoticed and many deputies protested strongly against it. This reaction nonetheless

did not discourage the speaker, who added emphatically that: “No, Austria is now not

to be allowed to return to the steep path of Josephinism […]”106. The House of Lords

had the high responsibility to lead the country towards the right direction. Subsequently,

Blome denounced in the harshest terms the liberal Rechtstaat and the associated notions

of freedom and progress, which the opposite party was so keen on, as a way to immora-

lity and godlessness. Projecting also the world view of the conservative press (see abo-

ve), he considered as the main carrier for that threat the: “monstrous alliance between

the obsolete josephinian bureaucracy and the association of those that can be described

with the name ‘fanatics of godlessness’ […]”107. Blome’s passionate speech encoura-

ged other members of the House to speak their mind without hesitations and the follow-

ing day, Count Hartig, a conservative noble, argued against the return to the josephinian

marriage system since such a development would give excessive authorities to the go-

vernment against the Church and would deprive marriage of its sacred character108.

In the next stages of the discussion the archbishop of Prague, Cardinal Friedrich von

Schwarzenberg, a respected personality among clerical circles took the word and unlea-

shed a renewed attack on Josephinism109. He mentioned once more the seventy years

of Josephinism during which: “the Church [was] under the pressure of state absolutism

and the very knotty hand of the bureaucracy”. According to the high prelate: “Every

free movement of the clergy was inhibited and deprecated. No surprise that no free ex-

pression of one’s mind, no free word, no free act could stand”110. As Schwarzenberg’s

analysis continued, he explicitly referred to Joseph II as the main carrier of the anti-cle-

rical Zeitgeist of the 18th century and as the creator of the General Seminaries for the

training of the clergy. There:“the instructors delivered lectures according to school bo-

oks, which were to a large extent influenced by the schools of Jansenism and Febronia-

104 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 531. He stated that: „[…] today it cannot be judged

which fruits the Concordat can have after only the events of twelve years. We should give to the Concor-

dat the seventy-year duration of Josephinism and then we would see!” 105 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 533. 106 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 534. 107 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 534. 108 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 544. 109 Cardinal Schwarzenberg was brother of the late chancellor Felix von Schwarzenberg and remained a

paternal figure for the Austrian conservatives from the 1850s until his death in 1885. On him see, Nostitz-

Rieneck, Kardinal Schwarzenberg: Ein Gedenkbild in Ungetrübter Glanz (Vienna, 1888) and C. Wolfs-

gruber, F. Kardinal Schwarzenberg, 3 Vols. (Vienna, 1906-1917). 110 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 557.


16

nism and those bishops, who then resisted to the ideas of Emperor Joseph were fallen

out of favor.”111 That development meant an era of great decline for the Church since

the education offered in the seminaries was weak and insufficient, despite the religiosity

of Joseph II’s successors, as the Cardinal remarked. The shade of Josephinism remained

in power for several decades after the death of the monarch, Schwarzenberg continued,

since the relations between the Austrian clergy and Rome were violently interrupted by

the state and the bishops’ correspondence with the Pope was constantly checked by the

imperial bureaucracy112. The submission to secular authority was also accompanied by

the notorious moral decline of the clergy since the phenomenon of bigamy flourished

as a repercussion of the priests’ low educational level. This gloomy situation ended on-

ly with the reorganization of State-Church relations due to the initiative of the pious

Emperor Francis Joseph113. The Cardinal concluded arguing that Austria could only be

benefited by the preservation of the Concordat and the narrow bonds to the Holy See.

After Cardinal Schwarzenberg Freiherr v. Krauss took the word expressing the op-

possite attitude from the former speaker and coming in direct conflict with Count Blo-

me. He argued that indeed the Concordat reestablished the pre-josephinian system in

State-Church relations meaning the laws sanctioned by the Council of Trento, but that

was unacceptable because no modern state could be ruled by a legislation of three hun-

dred years114. That was only a minor introduction to the systematic counter-offensive

of the pro-josephinian party of the House orchestrated by the distinguished constituti-

onal-minded aristocrat and old-josephinian, Count Anton Alexander v. Auersperg.

Auersperg was an able statesman and a gifted poet, while using the literary pseudonym

Anastasius Grün in his youth during the Vormärz, he had shown his admiration for Jo-

seph II and his legacy through his daring collection of poems Spaziergänge eines Wie-

ner Poeten (1832), which constituted the foundation stone of the pre-1848 Austrian po-

litical poetry115. His pro-josephinian sentiments were revitalized almost forty years later

given the chance of his parliamentary speech. Auersperg began his speech emphasizing

the legacy of the 1848 revolution and its impact on the emergence of constitutionalism

111 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 557. 112 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 557. 113 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 558. 114 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 559-560. 115 Auersperg dedicated the following often-quoted verses to Joseph II: “Ja, du bist es, weiser Joseph! –

Voll von Kraft und Mark und Klang, // So im Bilde von Metalle, wie dein Leben all' entlang! // Dem get-

reu und kühn beharrlich, was als edel du erkannt, // Und an deinem großen Werke bauend fest mit ehrner

Hand! // Ein Despot bist du gewesen! Doch ein solcher, wie der Tag, // Dessen Sonne Nacht und Nebel

neben sich nicht dulden mag, // Der zu dunklen Diebesschlüften die verhaßte Leuchte trägt, // Und mit

goldner Hand ans Fenster langer Schläfer rastlos schlägt. // Ein Despot bist du gewesen! Doch, fürwahr,

ein solcher blos, // Wie der Lenz, der Schnee und Kälte treibt zur Flucht erbarmungslos; // Der den ärg-

sten Griesgram lustig mit dem hellsten Thau besprengt, // Und mit seinen Festeskränzen selbst den ärm-

sten Strauch behängt.“ Quoted in Anastasius Grün, Spaziergänge eines Wiener Poeten (Hamburg, 1832),

83-84. There is rich literature concerning the literary activity of A. Grün in the 1830s and 1840s and his

contemporary political poetry in general. See Antal Madl, Politische Dichtung in Österreich (1830-1848)

(Budapest, 1969), Peter Horwath, Der Kampf gegen die religiöse Tradition. Die Kulturkampfliteratur Ö-

sterreichs, 1780-1918 (Bern, 1978),65-70, Madeleine Rietra (ed.), Jung Österreich: Dokumente und Ma-

terialien zur liberalen österreichischen Opposition, 1835-1848 (Amsterdam, 1980),Peter Beicken, “Ana-

stasius Grün und der Österreichische Vormärz“, The German Quarterly, Vol.58, No.2 (1985), 194-207.


17

in the Monarchy and his continued pointing out that in a modern state like constitutional

Austria, the Church should withdraw to purely spiritual affairs and leave the secular o-

nes to the State, expressing thus a characteristically josephinian attitude116. Subsequent-

ly he claimed that the Concordat was irreversibly linked to the old Polizeistaat, which

has been rendered obsolete by the modern Rechtstaat and such would be the destiny of

the Concordat as well since: “it is an unnatural bond and disadvantageous and detrime-

ntal for both sides, from which no side assumes benefits”117. He then mocked Blome’s

argument on the longevity of Josephinism saying that if the Concordat lasted for seven-

ty years, a miracle would be needed and twelve years of it were more than enough118.

Much more than that since in Auersperg’s words and in his personal interpretation, the

Concordat: “[…] outraged also my patriotic feeling and it seems to me as a printed Ca-

nossa, in which Austria of the 19th century has worn sackcloth and ashes for the Jose-

phinism of the 18th century.”119 After that he referred again to the unnatural nature of

the Concordat, whilst he remarked that:“[…] it is once again recorded that what is hea-

lthy, enduring and long-lasting [lies] in the josephinian ideas and laws […]”120. More

detailed references to the late monarch followed and Auersperg mentioned: “[…] great

Joseph […] the great uncle of our ruling Emperor, who hier has experienced hostility.

[…] It seems to me that his shadow walks through these halls and has shown his whole

grandeur [and] his opponents even today tremble and gnash their teeth before his

ideas. But I am happy that I was born on Austrian soil so as to understand and to know

what Emperor Joseph even nowadays means to the people, to the farmer, to the burger,

to the entire population. Because of that honor his ideas and his name! And when it co-

mes to the great Empress Maria-Theresa […] it is from her spirit, her great spirit that

much was inherited to her great son. History narrates us that when in the year 1753

the edict for the reduction of public holidays appeared and then took place a great agi-

tation from the clergy under the pretext of the threat for the Christian feeling, the great

Empress left simply the ackwards locked to the palace Greifenstein.”121 Shortly after

the end of Count Auersperg’s speech, the crucial vote for the marriage law took place,

where the proposal of the majority passed with a great majority122. The meaning of this

liberal victory becomes evident from the over-sentimentally cheerful reaction of the

crowd waiting outside of the parliamentary building and of the Viennese population in

general, as the main protagonists later described123. The city was illuminated while the

equestrian statue of Joseph II was covered with ribbons and flowers and students gave

impromptu speeches from its pedestal to honor his memory124.

116 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 565. For his speech see also Stephan Hock (ed.), Anton

Auerspergs Politische Reden und Schriften (Vienna, 1906), 301-315. 117 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 566 and in Hock (ed.), Politische Reden, 308. 118 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 567 and Hock (ed.), Politische Reden, 310. 119 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 567 and in Hock (ed.), Politische Reden, 311. 120 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 567 and in Hock (ed.), Politische Reden, 313. 121 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 568 and in Hock (ed.), Politische Reden, 314. 122 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 568. 123 See Hasner, Denkwürdigkeiten, 100 and Friedrich Ferdinand v. Beust, Aus drei Vierten Jahrhunder-

ten. Erinnerungen und Aufzeichnungen, 2 Vols. (Stuttgart, 1887), vol.2, 185. 124 See France, “Kulturkampf in Austria”, 123 and C.A. Macartney, The Habsburg Empire, 1790-1918

(London, 1969), 574.


18

The next act of this first phase of the Austrian Kulturkampf was written in the fol-

lowing day with the debate on the school legislation. Count Leo v. Thun, the neoabso-

lutist minister of education125, used once more the well-known conservative argument

of the seventy years of the Church’s subordination to the State. In this case nonetheless,

Count Thun proceeded even further by identifying the earlier josephinian educational

system with the pre-1848 Polizeistaat and therefore rendering the Concordat a synonym

of progress126.He then referred rather indirectly to Josephinism as an anachronism by

claiming that: “It is the point of view of a circle of ideas, which a hundred years ago

was dominant in the whole Europe, under the influence of teachings in the spiritual fi-

eld like Jansenism and Febronianism, which today have lost their power.”127 Because

of these intellectual conditions, Thun could not accept the association of the current go-

vernment with Josephinism as minister Hasner had suggested128. Thun was followed by

another leading liberal personality, Anton v. Schmerling129. Speaking in favor of the li-

beral cause, the so called “father of the constitution” did not neglect to include Joseph

II in his speech painting him, as expected, with the brightest colors: “I know that the il-

lustrius prince constitutes for many people no pleasant memory because he had broken

the foundations of the Middle Ages and those who will undertake to reinstall our mo-

dern state [on] old historical principles, for those is naturally the memory of Emperor

Joseph unpleasant.”130 Schmerling’s claims were further supplemented and reinforced

by the arguments that were brought forward by the minister of justice Eduard Herbst131.

The latter noticed that Josephinism had deep roots in Austrian society and, even it were

not reestablished, its memory would continue to be alive for seventy more years in con-

trast to the Concordat, which had not and could never obtain such lasting influence132.

Generally the debate on the school law was less intense than that of the previous days

because it was considered essentially certain that the result was going to be the same as

it was indeed the case since it also passed from the House of Lords with a great majority.

The ultimate part of the confessional legislation, this concerning the interconfessional

relations, was discussed on March, 30 with the liberal majority counting one more vic-

tory. The laws were sanctioned by Francis Joseph on May, 25 (hence their name, May

laws). The monarch approved the liberal initiatives even with profound distaste and re-

125 On Leo v. Thun and his career as minister of education, see Peter Wozniak, „Count Leo Thun: A Con-

servative Savior of Educational Reform in the Decade of Neoabsolutism”, Austrian History Yearbook,

Vol.26 (1995), 61-81 and Alphons Lhotsky, “Das Ende des Josephinismus. Epilegomena zu Hans Lent-

zes Werk über die Reformen des Ministers Grafen Thun,“ Mittelungen des Österreichischen Staatsar-

chivs, Vol.15 (1962), 527-549. 126 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 573-574. 127 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 575. On the relation between Josephinism and

Jansenism, see Winter, Der Josephinismus, 34-45. 128 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 576. 129 On Anton v. Schmerling, see Paul Molisch, Anton von Schmerling und der Liberalismus in Österreich

(Vienna, 1947), Peter Wrabetz, Das freiheitliche Porträt: Anton Ritter von Schmerling - der Begründer

des Verfassungsstaates (Vienna, 1983), Lothar Höbelt (ed.), Anton von Schmerling: Der Vater der Ver-

fassung. Aus den Denkwürdigkeiten Anton Ritters von Schmerling (Vienna, 1993). 130 Quoted in Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 580. 131 On Eduard Herbst, see E. Wymetal, „Eduard Herbst, sein Werdegang und seine Persönlichkeit vorne-

hmlich auf Grund seiner selbstbiographischen Aufzeichungen“, Ph.D. thesis, University of Vienna, 1944. 132 See Stenographische Protokolle: Herrenhaus, 589.


19

luctance since he personally, given his conservatism, would wish to preserve the estab-

lishment of 1855133. Nonetheless, this attitude provides substantial evidence in the de-

bate whether (and to what extent) Francis Joseph was a Josephiner and stands in favor

of the opinion that after 1848 the shadow of Josephinism did not reside in Hofburg134.

Interestingly enough, signs of josephinian commemoration were noticed even in con-

temporary Hungary, where the authority of Joseph traditionally faced problems of legi-

timacy and was even regarded as tyrannical in his age135. Even if the Concordat of 1855

was never considered valid in dualist Hungary136, this did not mean that there were not

confessional issues to be sold there as well. In December 1868 during a parliamentary

discussion on the children’s confession descending from mixed marriages, the distingu-

ished Magyar statesman Josef Eötvös summoned the emancipatory legacy of Joseph’s

edict of tolerance -which was valid in Hungary- in order to support his claims137.

VII.

“[Concerning the reign of Joseph II] for the entire following period down to our days

the evolution of Austria was captured in his [i.e. Joseph II’s] traces and constituted an

inexhaustible ferment in the lives of the Austrian people and forced all the parties to

look back at it [i.e. the era of Joseph II], to resume it [and] to carry on the one or the

other direction, because the interests of freedom and of absolutism found in the josephi-

nian view their representation.”138 In the above mentioned sentences of the liberal his-

torian Anton Springer the entire evolution and characteristics of Josephinism in the

1860s (but also before then) can be summarized. The repeating waves of books, pam-

phlets, newspaper articles and parliamentary references -a symptom of a wider enlarge-

ment of the public sphere in Austria after the emergence of constitutionalism- linked

directly to Joseph II and his influencing political agenda as it was interpreted through

the lens of the mid-19th century, provide abundant and persuasive evidence that Jose-

133 On the relation between Francis Joseph and the Bürgerministerium and its agenda, see the old but still

very useful work of Fritz Fellner, „Kaiser Franz Joseph und das Parlament. Materialen zur Geschichte

der Innenpolitik Österreichs in den Jahren, 1867-1873”,Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs,

Vol. 9 (1956), 287-347. 134 Francis Joseph left us unfortunately no diary and he was no regular letter-writer either. Thereupon his

inner feelings still remain under a vail of mystery and probably his true view on his eminent uncle would

remain hidden. Nevertheless, on some recent material on how josephinian Francis-Joseph was, see

Lorenz Mikoletzky, "Franz Joseph I.-ein Josephiner?", in: Ch. Ehalt, J. Mondot (eds.), Was blieb vom

Josephinismus? Zum 65. Geburtstag von Helmut Reinalter (Innsbruck, 2010), 135-144. 135 On Joseph II’s rule in Hungary see generally Éva H. Balázs, Hungary and the Habsburgs, 1765-1800:

An Experiment in Enlightened Absolutism (Budapest, 1997) 136 On that matter, see Gabriel Adriányi, Die Stellung der ungarischen Kirche zum österreichischen Kon-

kordat von 1855 (Rome, 1963). A kind of Kulturkampf took place in Hungary under totally different

circumstances, in the mid-1890s. See Robert Nemes, „The uncivil origins of civil marriage: Hungary”,

in: Christopher Clark, Wolfram Kaiser (eds.), Culture Wars: Secular-Catholic Conflict in Nineteenth-

century Europe (Cambridge, 2003), 313-335. 137 See Moritz Csáky, Der Kulturkampf in Ungarn. Die kirchenpolitische Gesetzgebung der Jahre 1894

/95 (Vienna, 1967), 30. On Eötvös’ political agenda, see analytically Paul Bödy, “Joseph Eötvös and the

Modernization of Hungary, 1840-1870. A Study of Ideas of Individuality and Social Pluralism in Modern

Politics”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series, Vol. 62, No. 2 (1972), 1-134. 138 Quoted in Anton Springer, Geschichte Österreichs seit dem Jahre 1809, 2 Vols. (Leipzig, 1863), Vol.

1, 23. See also Fillafer, „Rivalisierte Aufklärungen”, 149.


20

phinism reached no end after 1848 as earlier literature advocated. Quite the contrary

since the impressive volume of the relevant references can be compared in matters of

density only to the same phenomenon during the 1848 revolution in Vienna in such a

way that we may argue in favor of a josephinian Blütezeit in Kulturkampf era. This re-

naissance of josephinian memory cannot be viewed separately from the post-1855 Sta-

te-Church relations as the figure of Joseph II was formed in the Austrian imagination

as an exact opposite of the Concordat. This mental construction creates certainly more

questions regarding the relation of the 1860s Joseph II with the real one and how “in-

vented” his memory was139. Even if the distance between them was substantial, the

impact and the political function of Joseph II as a “realm of memory” in Kulturkampf

Austria cannot be doubted140.

His devoted advocates like the historians Ernst Hellmuth, Hermann Meynert and

Johann Faber, the archivist Alfred v. Arneth and the politicians Leopold v. Hasner, An-

ton Alexander v. Auersperg, Anton v. Schmerling and Eduard Herbst saw in him a cha-

rismatic ruler, who used his authority in order to transform his empire into a modern

state (in the way that they comprehended modernity) and lay the foundations of the fu-

ture Rechtstaat. The liberals understood themselves as the carriers of the modernizing

legacy of Joseph and saw their governance as a unique opportunity to complete his unfi-

nished work, from which they drew historical legitimization. On the other hand, his mi-

litant opponents, who belonged to the clerical camp, like the conservative writers Albert

Jäger and Sebastian Brunner painted Joseph II in the darkest colors so as to deprive the-

ir rivals from his mythicized patron saint, while this endeavor could in some cases (as

in the Constantinople falsity) be scientifically better argued than the opposite view.

That “conservative Joseph” as he was summoned in parliamentary debates by persona-

lities like Jäger, Gustav v. Blome and Cardinal v. Schwarzenberg, was a tyrant, who

enforced irrational and detrimental reforms, whereas his effort to deal with the Catholic

Church almost destroyed the Monarchy. In their world perception the seventy year jose-

phinian rule was a drear parenthesis between the idealized Baroque past and their Con-

cordat present, which finally restored “the freedom of the Church”. Nowadays, the rela-

tive supremacy of the first version of Joseph II in the public and in academic research

is, to a significant extent, a repercussion of the liberal success in this cultural struggle.

The already complicated situation concerning Joseph II’s commemoration becomes

even more complex if additional (but not necessarily rival or mutually hostile) versions

of Joseph are added. To these we should include the popular image of the late monarch

as the Volkskaiser Joseph, still alive among the rural population of the Empire141. With

special regards to the current age under consideration, the Emperor’s centennial in the

Moravian village Slavikovice in 1869, commemorating the fact that a century ago Jo-

139 On that matter, see Derek Beales, "Joseph II and Josephism", in: Enlightenment and Reform in 18th

century Europe (New York, 2005),287-308. See Hobsbawm’s and Ranger’s The Invention of Tradition. 140 On the theoretical foundation of the “realms of memory”, see Pierre Nora (ed.), Realms of Memory:

the Construction of the French Past, trans. Arthur Goldhammer, 3 Vols, (New York, 1995-1997). 141 The impact of this phenomenon in Galicia is examined by Larry Wolff, „Inventing Galicia: Messianic

Josephinism and the Recasting of Partitioned Poland”, Slavic Review, Vol. 63 (Winter, 2004), 818-840.


21

seph himself drove there the plough, deserves a particular reference142, albeit the event

needs to be studied closer and perhaps to be analyzed together with a series with jose-

phinian centennials in the 1880s143. Of far greater importance, nonetheless, for the evo-

lution of Joseph’s image until 1918 is his posthumous association with German nationa-

lism. This “Joseph the German” was born in the late Vormärz era144 and from the 1880s

onwards was going to acquire increasing popularity and largely overshadow his other

parallel versions145. That more aggressive Joseph was closely associated with the Ger-

man-Czech conflict in Bohemia in the fin-de-siècle as a national hero of the Sudeten

minority. Because of that numerous statues of his there suffered the menace of Czech

nationalists just after 1918146. Even after the dissolution of the Monarchy and the

demise of Joseph II as a political symbol, his kaleidoscopic presence in Central Euro-

pean literature even after the Second World War147 is an undoubtful proof regarding the

well-rooted foundations of his memory in Austria and in Danubian Europe in general.

142 On the 1769 event see, Beales, Joseph II, Vol.1, 338 and Metoděj Zemek, “Joseph II. und Slavíkovi-

ce”, in: Karl Gutkas (ed.), Österreich zur Zeit Josephs II. (Vienna, 1980), 291-292. For the 1869 comme-

moration, see J. Bloch, Der Unsterbliche. Ein Nachhall der Josefsfeier in Slavikowitz (Prague,1869),

Deutsch Eduard, Gedenkblätter an Kaiser Joseph II. gesammelt zum 29. August 1869 (Brünn, 1869) and

Christian v. d’Elvert, “Joseph II. huldigt dem Ackerbaue“, in: Notizen-Blatt der historisch-statistischen

Sektion der k.k. Mährisch-schlesischen Gesellschaft zur Beförderung des Ackerbaues, der Natur- und

Landeskunde (Brünn, 1869), 62-65. 143 For instance, for the grand 1880 centennial, see Wingfield, “Joseph II”, 70-76. 144 See Carl Ramshorn, Kaiser Joseph II und seine Zeit (Leipzig, 1845). Also see Szabo, „Joseph II’s Bi-

ographies”, 122. 145 See Nancy Wingfield, “Statues of Emperor Joseph II as Sites of German Identity”, in: Maria Bucur,

Nancy Wingfield (eds.), Staging the Past: The Politics of Commemoration in Habsburg Central Europe,

1848 to the Present (West Lafayette, 2001), 178-205 and Nancy Wingfield, Cynthia Paces, „The Sacred

and the Profane: Religion and Nationalism in the Bohemian Lands, 1880-1920”, in: Pieter Judson, Mar-

sha Rozenblit, Constructing Nationalities in East-Central Europe (New York, 2005), 107-125. 146 See Nancy Wingfield, “Conflicting Constructions of Memory: Attacks on Statues of Joseph II in the

Bohemian Lands after the Great War”, Austrian History Yearbook, Vol.28 (1997), 147-171. 147 See above all Beutner Eduard, „Historische Perspektiven: Kaiser Joseph II. in der österreichischen

Literatur der Zwischenkriegszeit, in: Walter Weiss, Eduard Beutner (eds.), Polnisch-Österreichisches

Germanisten-Symposion 1983 in Salzburg (Stuttgart, 1985), 171-181 and idem, „Der Kaiser ein Revo-

lutionär? Zum Fortwirken des josephinischen Mythos in der österreichischen Literatur nach 1945“, in:

Eduard Beutner (ed.), Dialog der Epochen. Studien zur Literatur des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts. Walter

Weiss zum 60. Geburtstag (Vienna, 1987), 111-123.

beyond late josephinism: josephinian influences and … · „die historische entwicklung des...

Documents