- Analyse the concept of Enlightened Despotism. Assess the impact of the ideas of the Enlightenment with respect to the policies of Frederick the Great of Prussia, Maria Theresa and Joseph II of Austria and Catherine II of Russia.
The term ‘Enlightened Despotism’ is used to describe the governments of those eighteenth century monarchs who were familiar with the ideas of the Enlightenment and carried out a programme advocated by the philosophers of the age. Policies such as the elimination of irrationalities in the administration and judiciary through rigorous centralization and codification, the introduction of more humane punishments, religious tolerance, alleviation of the lot of the peasantry, etc. are typically associated with the governments of Prussia, Austria and Russia in the eighteenth century.
In a sense, the very term Enlightened Despotism seems to be a contradiction of sorts for ‘despotism’ seems to be the very antithesis of the ideas associated with the Enlightenment—rationalism, the liberty of the individual, the natural development of the economy, minimal state interference, etc.
Enlightened Despotism: The Theory
Fritz Hartung in his book ‘Enlightened Despotism’ argues that perhaps a more appropriate expression would be “Enlightened Absolutism” for while the former is equivalent to unchecked tyranny the latter term denotes a monarchical form of government not hampered by parliamentary checks but which voluntarily submits to laws and acknowledges the rights of subjects. The contradiction in the ideas of the Enlightenment which supposedly motivated the policies of these monarchs and the ideal of centralization implicit in the very concept of absolutism is resolved through the doctrines of ‘eclaire despotisme’ developed in the 1760s by the French Physiocrats as an offshoot of their economic philosophy. The role of the state according to these doctrines is to intervene in public life to restore the individual’s natural right to freedom, the rule of reason and the natural order of things by removing all obstacles to the free development of productive forces. Trusting in the ultimately victorious power of enlightenment, the executive power of the State was vested entirely in the hands of the monarch.
The theory of Enlightened Despotism also implied the subordination of the monarch to a higher entity, the State. In the opinion of Frederick the Great, for instance, the king was not the owner but only the administrator of the wealth of the country. He saw the monarch as the “first servant of the state.” At the same time, for all practical purposes the will of the monarch was seen as equivalent to that of the State. The power of the monarch was untrammeled by either a constitution or by representative parliamentary institutions. Effectively, therefore this was little more than a change in rhetoric, albeit a significant one. The legitimacy for absolutism was now derived from the values of the Enlightenment. According to W.H. Bruford, the spirit of Enlightened Despotism was founded in the conviction that it was the duty of the State to compel its immature subjects to lead a life governed by reason for their own and the common good. In this way the natural conflict between a centralizing absolutist state and the principle of individual liberty was negated by asserting that the former was necessary for the latter. The state was seen as a voluntary contract between individuals entrusted with supreme power in order to maintain common welfare and security.
It is important to note, however, as Lheritier does that most of the sovereigns associated with Enlightened Despotism could not have been influenced by the doctrines of ‘eclaire despotisme’ simply because their activities preceded the enunciation of the doctrine. Nonetheless these monarchs have in common certain traits: a tendency towards the reform of administration, a drive towards greater centralization, the extension of the educational system, religious tolerance, etc. It is also a fact that these rulers were in their personal lives deeply influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment. Joseph II, Frederick the Great and Catherine II were all correspondents of Voltaire. Whether these personal preferences and inclinations motivated the reforms of these rulers and indeed to what extent they manifested themselves in their policies, is of course a matter of debate.
Prussia: Frederick the Great
The philosophy and practice of Enlightened Despotism is epitomized by the policies of Frederick II of Prussia. Upon coming to the throne in 1740, Frederick immediately plunged into the Silesian War which culminated with the annexation of the Habsburg province of Silesia. This was to inaugurate an era of conflicts with Austria, marked by the War of Austrian Succession and the Seven Years War.
Military contingencies helped to legitimize a number of steps that Frederick took in the course of his reign to introduce reforms in various fields of domestic state policy.
Centralization
Frederick established personal control over the elaborate bureaucratic apparatus left to him by Frederick William I. The ministers of the General Directory were made collectively responsible to the King and he remained informed of decisions taken through periodic reports to which he responded with directives. Eventually, finding it too slow for his convenience he abolished the General Directory replacing it with a new functional ministry directly accountable to him. He went on to place each department of government under his personal control, believing that a coherent system of government requires a single mind in command. He acted as his own foreign minister, communicating directly with all Prussian ambassadors abroad.
Frederick also enforced high standards in his bureaucracy, eliminating all venality and abuses of power. His civil servants were recruited by public examination and officials called Fiscals were appointed at different levels in the bureaucratic hierarchy to keep a check on irregularities.
Law Reform
With the assistance of such legal experts as Von Cocceji and Carmer who acted as his Chief Justice, a single centralized judicial system was instituted, with a standardized procedure. A professional judiciary was trained and soon replaced the hereditary jurisdiction of the nobility. Each province now possessed a single central court and judges were forbidden from taking fees or fines. Nobles were compelled to reform the conduct of their manorial courts. A single codification of Prussian law was achieved with the introduction of a new civil code, the Prussian Landrecht.
While the Prussian Landrecht recognized the right of each inhabitant to the protection of the state, it remained archaic in several respects. For instance the rights and duties of the State were still vested in the monarch who wielded supreme legislative and executive power. Further, it did not dare attack the division of society into Estates in the interests of military necessity—peasants provided the rank and file of the army and the junkers its officer class. Nobles, burghers and peasants therefore remained separate classes each with their own property rights and separate taxes. The dominance of the aristocracy was maintained by granting them prerogatives denied to the other classes and maintaining their proprietary rights over the peasants.
Serfdom remained firmly entrenched. While steps were taken to make the tenure of the serfs hereditary, these applied only to the Crown Estates. On the estates of the junkers, nothing was done to alleviate the lot of the peasants. In Pomerania, the decree abolishing serfdom was never put into effect. The protection afforded to the peasantry by the Crown was effective only to the extent that it forbade the lords from annexing peasant property.
Commercial and Economic Policy
Under Frederick the first systematic ‘populationist’ policies in Europe were followed, with immigration recruitment centres abroad. Incentives, including exemption from military service were extended to attract settlers from neighbouring states.
In agriculture, rural drainage programmes were taken up to empty swamps. After the Seven Years War, a recovery programme was implemented for the benefit of peasants in affected areas. The cultivation of turnips, sugar beet and potatoes were encouraged. Mortgage banks were established to help landowners in straitened circumstances.
In order to stimulate industry, cotton mills were set up and rural schools were established to train spinners and weavers. The manufacture of Prussian porcelain received royal encouragement in this period.
Frederick’s economic policies were Mercantilist, like those of his father. According to Hartung, taking no notice of the newer views of the Physiocrats, he persisted with policies that actually complicated trade. He sought to protect home industries by high external tariffs, abolishing internal tolls. Transport and communications were improved to facilitate internal trade. State subsidies were provided to industrial schemes, particularly in iron production, mining and trade. State monopolies were established in salt, porcelain, tobacco, etc.
A more efficient system of taxation was also introduced with a revised indirect tax (the Regie) based on the principle of reducing taxes on necessities and increasing those on luxuries.
Religious Policy
Frederick II was the most tolerant ruler in Europe in religious matters. Stuart Andrews states that he believed in respecting different religious beliefs, but he was moreover aware that persecution bred disaffection and was bad politics. He described his position as neither Catholic nor Protestant. When the Society of Jesus was dissolved by the Pope, he promptly offered the Jesuits asylum. It is significant however that discriminatory policies were employed against the Jews who were debarred from settling in Prussia. Prussian Jews were excluded from civil office and heavily taxed.
Education
Andrews speculates that Frederick’s refusal to suppress the Jesuits was possibly motivated by his need for teachers. A scheme for a national system of education, the Landschulereglement, was proposed in 1763 although it could not be carried out for lack of funds. The Prussian primary school system remained behind that of Austria.
Little was done to improve higher education. While the Prussian Academy was revived as the Academy of Science and Literature, this was an association of expatriate philosophers rather than an educational establishment. The universities of Halle and Konigsberg languished for lack of funds.
Hartung asserts that Frederick was not personally very interested in the improvement of public instruction of Prussia for he did not appear to share the general optimism of the philosophers who believed that the dissemination of the ideas of the Enlightenment would contribute to the moral progress of mankind. Andrews suggests that Frederick was not entirely convinced of the political advisability of universal education and certainly not prepared to foot the bill.
Limitations
The centralizing policies of Frederick II created an administrative system that was too dependent on the personal strength of the ruler. In the absence of a dynamic ruler, the political system would readily crumble.
While the ideas of the Enlightenment do seem to have influenced the policies of Frederick to some extent, these policies invariably stopped short of their logical conclusion. This was no doubt due to the political exigencies of the time. For instance, the abolition of serfdom would have antagonized the junker class upon whom the monarch was still dependent to a great extent. While he remained aware of the natural equality of all men, he did very little to improve the lot of the peasantry. His reluctance to improve the educational system and attachment to the principles of mercantilism also speak against his record as an ‘Enlightened Despot’.
Hartung who is extremely critical of Frederick II openly asserts that a reform in the administration and codification of law (arguably his most significant accomplishments) only served to increase centralization and serve the interests of the monarch and can hardly be celebrated as the progressive policies of an ‘Enlightened’ ruler.
While political necessities clearly held Frederick back, Hartung goes so far as to assert that his personal inclinations would have stopped him regardless. He argues that Frederick combined a marked preference for the aristocracy with a broad contempt for the masses. This is all too clear in his attitude towards public instruction. Perry Anderson notes that Frederick’s reign marked a departure from the usual policy of checking the pretensions of the nobility as the top ranks of the army and the bureaucracy were consciously aristocratized by the monarchy.
Russia: Catherine II
Catherine the Great of Russia was undoubtedly amongst the most ardent students of the Enlightenment. She was well-versed in the writings of Voltaire and Montesquieu and indeed, carried on a long correspondence with the former. She bought Diderot’s library and upon the death of Voltaire, distributed a hundred copies of his complete works amongst the citizens of Russia. While she was inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment, she openly confessed the limitations of her ‘enlightened absolutism’.
Centralization
Upon her accession to the throne, Catherine found herself in possession of an administrative machine that did not work, an army whose payments were in arrears and a revenue system incapable of meeting the state’s expenses. In the initial years of her rule, she set about restoring the direct control of the monarch over the administration, attending debates in the Senate, interrogating officials and undertaking tours of inspection.
Under Catherine, steps were taken to create a permanent Council of State (although she eventually had to make do with occasional councils of varying composition) and limit the powers of the Senate instituted by Peter I. Its members were once again subjected to the direct control of the monarch. The ‘colleges’ of Peter I were reduced in number and their departments dealing with military naval and foreign affairs soon became independent ministries.
Her chief reforms were in local government. Convinced of the need for decentralization by the Pugachev rebellion, she reduced the size of the provincial gubernia. Each gubernium was subdivided into districts and presided over by a governor assisted by boards of officials nominated by the central government as well as an Office of Public Welfare to supervise health, education and poor relief. Each district was administered by a court and an official called an ispravnik (corrector) elected by the nobles, responsible for police and poor relief. Each district had an Assembly of Deputies which met every three years.
Contrary to patterns of development in other absolutist states, the reign of Catherine was marked by gradual decentralization as it became increasingly apparent that Russia was too large for centralized rule. The monarch thus grew increasingly dependent on the provincial nobility.
Law Reform
Catherine devoted her time to the formulation of a set of instructions for the codification of Russian law. These instructions, which were based on principles such as the equality of all men, the relaxation of harsh punishments, the gradual abolition of serfdom, etc., were greeted with much praise in Europe. However the Legislative Commission convened to draft the new the new legal code failed to do so. The Commission, consisting of representatives of the different estates saw much disagreement over the reform of existing laws as each sought to protect the interests of his class. The whole episode was a failure and the Commission was soon suspended. While some historians see it as nothing more than an elaborate propaganda stunt, Andrews argues that Catherine genuinely wanted reforms, but the Legislative Commission convinced her of their impracticability.
However some reforms were introduced; civil cases were separated from criminal and the nobility, the townsmen and the peasants each came under the jurisdiction of their own court systems.
Under Catherine, there were no attempts to abolish serfdom. Landowners were granted permission to arbitrarily send their serfs to Siberia on their own initiative. Serfdom was actually extended by Catherine; she introduced it in the new lands of White Russia and the Ukraine.
Being dependent on their support, she sought to strengthen the position of the nobility. The Charter of the Nobility granted in 1785 recognised the nobles as a separate estate, confirmed their traditional privileges as well as exempted them from state service and personal taxation and ensured it total jurisdictional control of the rural labour forces. In return they were expected to ensure that the serfs paid their poll tax and discharged their compulsory military service.
Commercial and Economic Policy
In response to the widespread social and economic discontent best exemplified perhaps by the revolt led by Pugachev in 1773, Catherine embarked upon a policy of economic liberalism. State monopolies were ended and steps were taken to establish internal free trade. Protective tariff policies were jettisoned as more liberal tariffs were put in place. The export of corn was permitted and other export duties were abolished. Commercial treaties were concluded with Poland, Turkey, Austria, etc. Improvements were made in road and canal building. However by 1793, Catherine had changed her liberal views and there was a return to mercantilist policies.
Measures were taken to stabilize the currency and stimulate trade. However most of Russia’s trade was in the hands of foreigners and few of Russia’s exports were manufactures.
Religious Policy
Catherine continued Peter’s policy of subordinating the Church to the State. Church lands were appropriated by the state and secularized. This deprived the Orthodox clergy of political independence; they were now financially reliant on the state. The partitions of Poland led to an influx of Catholic subjects who were however allowed religious freedom. When the Society of Jesus was dissolved she did not expel the Jesuits. She even extended toleration to the Jews and admitted them to municipal office.
Education
Catherine took several concrete steps to improve public instruction in Russia. She gave the Academy of Fine Arts a new foundation and it soon came to supervise all branches of art throughout Russia. She founded the Smolny Institute for the daughters of noblemen and established the College of Medicine, also taking the decision to be inoculated against smallpox. By the end of her reign there were 300 free public schools in Russia but these were all in the towns and in general elementary education was left to village schools run by the clergy and private schools run by landlords.
Unlike Frederick II, Catherine seems to have been fully convinced of the ideals of the Enlightenment and their propagation. However the vast size of Russia rendered the implementation of some of her ideas impracticable. The resistance from the nobility upon whom she was dependent to a great extent also limited the scope of her reforms. Nonetheless, the extension of the system of serfdom was hardly necessary, although it was justified by the disorder in public finances. Her programme of conquest imposed severe constraints on her policies as well. As Stuart Andrews points out, Catherine was the only one of the ‘Enlightened Despots’ to witness the excesses of the French Revolution. Under its impact her regime became as repressive as any in Europe.
Austria: Maria Theresa and Joseph II
The reigns of Maria Theresa and Joseph II are remarkable for the contrast they offer in their respective versions of ‘Enlightened Despotism’ and are indicative of the strengths, weaknesses and limitations of implementing the ideas of the Enlightenment in the field of state policy. Maria Theresa succeeded to the Habsburg throne in 1740 although the Imperial title was bestowed on Charles of Bavaria and later on Maria’s husband, Francis of Lorraine. Upon his death, their son Joseph succeeded to the title and ruled jointly with Maria Theresa until her death in 1780. The policies introduced by Joseph in the ten years that remained to him until his death in 1790 were markedly different from those of the preceding years. Joseph II was destined to be, in the words of Stuart Andrews, ‘the Enlightenment’s aptest pupil and its most spectacular failure’.
Centralization
Under the guidance of Chancellor Haugwitz, the separate Bohemian and Austrian court chanceries were fused into a single organ and a single ministry for all internal affairs was established in all Habsburg lands except Hungary, Milan and the Netherlands. Further, taxes were levied on the aristocracy and clergy of Austria and Bohemia for the first time and their estates were compelled to sign contracts for increased taxation for ten years in advance. The Council of War (Hofkriegsrat) was reorganized and given plenary powers through the empire.
Changes were also introduced in provincial administration. Austria and Bohemia were divided into ten gubernia, each with a high court and an administrative council which were directly dependent on the central government in Vienna. The local agent of the gubernium, to whom the provincial estates surrendered all their administrative duties, was the Krieshauptmann who was appointed by the central government to enforce centralized justice and administration. However this centralization was not extended to Italy or the Netherlands.
Hungary retained its independence under Maria Theresa although gradually the central directories extended their jurisdiction over Hungary and the Magyar nobles were enticed into the service of the state through bribes and blandishments. Under Joseph II however there was a drive to Germanize Hungary; German was made the official language and the Hungarian Diet was deprived of all authority. A separate gubernium was established for Hungary and one for Transylvania each under a Viennese governor. Conscription was enforced and the fiscal immunity of the landowning class was abolished. All the main Josephine reforms were introduced here with disastrous consequences.
In the Netherlands too, the abolition of the local provincial estates and the division of the country into nine circles each under an intendant generated discontent.
In addition to these changes the civil service was professionalized and its ranks were organized on a merit basis, while secret surveillance was ensured by a network of police agents.
Law Reform
Applying Montesquieu’s principle of separation of powers, Haugwitz created separate judicial and administrative bodies. As in Russia, although a commission, composed in this instance of lawyers was created to look into the issue of codification and law reform, the commission reported that to promulgate a new comprehensive code at one stroke would create chaos; it therefore recommended no change. A new criminal code was introduced in 1770 retained the use of judicial torture although this was subsequently abolished on the instigation of Joseph.
Although Maria Theresa had no intention of abolishing serfdom, steps were taken to check the worst feudal abuses. A commission was appointed to resolve disputes between landlords and serfs and attempts were made to regulate the maximum number of days that a peasant could be required to work on the lord’s land. A revolt against the nobles who checked the implementation of such regulations only convinced Maria Theresa to go no further in her concessions. Joseph went beyond his mother to a far more radical step; he abolished the personal dependence on the lords. The peasants were now permitted to own land, marry freely, take up new trades, move freely, etc. The robot (compulsory labour services) was retained however. Further, the peasants were granted security of tenure where they did not possess it. These measures had already been introduced by Maria Theresa on the crown lands; Joseph now applied them to all the Habsburg dominions. In time, the robot and the tithe were commuted to cash payments, provoking opposition from peasants who found their new taxes heavier. On the other hand, measures taken to reduce the share of the nobility in land revenues to the advantage of the peasant antagonized the landholders.
Joseph abolished feudal courts in Hungary although they were retained elsewhere for civil cases. The Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure made men equal before the law, abolished the death penalty and gave wider opportunities for appeal to higher courts.
Commercial and Economic Policy
Under Joseph II the influence of mercantilism on the economic policies of the state began to wane; impressed by the arguments of Turgot, Joseph came round to the view that liberty is the precondition for the development of commerce and industry. Government regulations on industry were therefore relaxed and government subsidies were reduced.
Although a systematic property and income tax were imposed on the nobility and clergy, financial burdens remained uneven: the peasants still bore the brunt of the taxes and Bohemia contributed twice as much as Hungary.
On the other hand, there was a significant increase in revenues although it was to prove insufficient to meet the cost of the impending war against the Turks.
Religious Policy
Under Maria Theresa, Roman Catholicism continued to enjoy a privileged position in the Empire and the Jesuits were expelled. Jews remained without most civil rights and were openly persecuted, as were the Moravians.
In Joseph’s reign however, toleration was extended to all except atheists and Deists, including the right to hold property, build schools, enter political and military office, etc.
Further the Catholic Church was nationalized. The bishops were forbidden to receive papal bulls and decrees without royal consent and were required to take an oath of obedience and fidelity to the Emperor. Marriage was made a civil contract and education was secularized.
Hundreds of monasteries in the Austrian territories were closed and their property seized by the state. The funds obtained from the confiscation of monastic property were applied to education, poor relief and the raising of clerical stipends. In the opinion of Stuart Andrews however, Joseph’s policy of toleration was based on principle rather than political expediency as he believes was the case with Frederick the Great.
Although under Joseph the system of censorship instituted by Maria Theresa was abolished, freedom of the press was not absolute and the persecution of Deists and a ban on the discussion of clerical celibacy remained in place.
Education
Maria Theresa created a national and centralized system of education. Attendance was made compulsory although naturally this was impossible to enforce. She maintained that the school system was primarily a political institution and it was in the same spirit that Joseph dealt with the universities which he saw mainly as training grounds for civil servants. In the University of Vienna, German was made the compulsory medium of instruction. However secular education was promoted and modernized curricula were designed to produce better trained engineers and functionaries.
Of all the eighteenth century monarchs, Joseph was the only one to pursue the principles of the Enlightenment beyond the bounds of practical politics. Maria Theresa was too devout a Catholic to approve of Voltaire and she certainly did not read Montesquieu even if her reforms seemed to owe something to his ideas. Unlike Frederick the Great, Joseph’s reforms owed more to principle than to practical politics. Further, unlike Catherine II he was not constrained by the need to secure the support of the nobility.
However, Joseph’s policies were doomed to failure for his reforms generated opposition against which he was unable to make any significant headway. Further, his own impatience and inability to make his officials work for him to achieve his purposes spelt disaster; he was ultimately compelled to resort to the creation of a secret police and special directives to achieve his objectives. Despite this, he found that the time when subjects meekly complied with the all orders given to them from those in authority were gone for good. The people clung obstinately to their ancient customs, rights and privileges believing these to be the only protection against the absolute power of the government. He was ultimately compelled to withdraw the majority of his reforms.
The reforms of Joseph II and the reception they received bring out the limitations that any scheme of reform would necessarily have been subject to in the eighteenth century when society was still semi-feudal, commercial policy was seen as a continuation of war and industry was still localized and on a small scale.
Sujit Thomas
II HISTORY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) Fritz Hartung: Enlightened Despotism
2) Stuart Andrews: Eighteenth Century Europe
3) Perry Anderson: Lineages of the Absolutist State
A contradiction in terms
Theory of Enlightened Despotism
Ideas of the enlightenment: influence
Policies
Exigencies of the situation, eg. Frederick
Assess enlightenment of despots
Theoretical basis of absolutism; a subtle shift? Analysis