Something I forgot to mention in my write up of volume 1: Beales points out that while M T's constant asking in her letters about Marie Antoinette's state of marital relations (and why no grandkid) strike us today as awfully interfering, but for this, and thus Joseph setting out to Paris with strict instructions to figure out what the hell was going on with Louis and Marie Antoinette, there would have been no one daring to talk with the King and Queen about their sex life, which says a lot about their isolation at Versailles even among the society there. Unlike Goldstone, Beales does't think Louis XVI was autistic, but sees the fact he wasn't able to talk to anyone (including his doctors, his brothers and any given courtier) about sex until a fellow monarch and brother-in-law came to town as telling about the status of a French King in the 1770s.
Maria Carolina: well, you know my main criticism of the Maria Carolina sections in Goldstone's book was that "she was loved by everyone in Naples, and those few revolutionaries were basically deluded or paid by the French" is not the takeaway I had of the Neapolitan revolution. I didn't question "the husband was stupid and uselessl, but she had the upper hand and made it work for her" because that was Horowski's take as well. I don't recall either of them mentioning Ferdinand had infected her with STDs, a sore in the vagina, or marital rape in the later 1780s.
Also forgot to mention this, since we've been wondering: there is nothing in either Beales volume about Maria Christina/Mimi showing Joseph Isabella's letters to herself. Unless Goldstone has another source, she must have made it up.
Leopold's secret 1784 memorandum is the Relazione, yes. It's basically "why Joseph sucks, let me count the ways, with some flashbacks to why Mom sucked, too". Beales thinks some of the criticism is valid and earned while other parts are either exaggarated or demonstrably untrue, which he argues by presenting Zinzendorf's diary (Zinzendorf was an MT era veteran and politically very much against Joseph's ideas, so his diary offering counter testimony to some of Leopold's claims is pretty valid), various letters from contemporaries and, with a bit more sceptism, Joseph friendly memoirists like the Prince de Ligne (RPF writer extraordinaire, but he did write about his own life as well) or Lorenzo da Ponte (Joseph was my Emperor and patron! Fuck yeah!).
In terms of sibling Joseph critique, Beales gives the most weight not to Leopold or Maria Christina but to youngest brother Max Ernst. MT had gone to some effort to get him alected as Archbishop and thus Prince Elector of Cologne. In medieval and Renaissance times, this was the most prestigious and important position any German cleric could have, because not only was the Prince Bishop of Cologne part of the Princes Elector who voted the Emperor into power (or not), he was the one conducting the coronation, and his vote usually held the most influence among the clerical Princes. (When we had decades long feudings between noble families as to who would get to be Emperor in the 12th century, getting the Prince Bishop of Cologne on your side was key.) By the time of the 18th Century, and the decline of the HRE, it wasn't this important in terms of international and day to day politics, but it was still an office of incluence, and also, it offered Max Ernst the chance to interact with representatives of other German states on a daily basis and watch inner HRE politics for which neither of his older brothers had much patience. This led Max Ernst to write to Leopold:
Germany was useful to (FS), useless and even dangerous to Joseph. The explanation of the difference is dunbtedly to be found in the two emperors' manner of ruling. Our father, easy, polite, affable, upright, reigned over all hearts. The empress, gracious and generous, supported him marvellously. The princes of the Empire were attracted to Vienna, were amused, flattered, manipulated, and were full of it when they got back. The ecclesiastical princces were treated with the greatest consideration, and the canons found ample satisfaction for their interest and ambition in the chapters and bishoprics of the heritiary lands, in the abbeys of Hungary, in the invariably effective reccommendations made by the Imperial Court to the Pope. Not even the smallest election took place without the influence of the Imperial Court preponderating, and its creatures, finding themselves looked after, remained totally devoted to the House of Austria. The lesser princes and counts were honoured with places in the army (...) or in the civil service. The Theresianum an the Savoy College attracted many noblemen from the Empire, who then dispersed to all parts of Germany, regarding Vienna as their second home, imbued with its principles and keeping up their connections there. It was by all these means that (FS) caused the Empire to act (on his behalf) in the Seven Years War against its own interests.
Whereas Joseph, after his initial attempts at reform had been rejected
absolutely neglected to cultivate individuals and paid more attention to a simple (Hungarian) guard than to a prince of the Empire, and wouldn't give any favours to imperial nobles, considering them mere spongers and intriguers, which was bound to alienate them. Instead of the favours they were accustomed to receive, they came up against a gracious code of regulations. The Hungarian abbeys were suppressed, you could only get a canonry after ten years in a cure of souls. Papal support was cut off, (...) ministers were prohibited form interfering in elections (...) The Colleges were abolished or (effectively) restricted to the local inhabitants. Every military rank above cadet was prohibited to (imperial nobles). And the only hope for promotion was seniority. Moreover, no Court - and therefore no distinction - and French marquises and English milords were feted while I saw canons and knights of true merit relagated to the lower table and the company of imperial agents.(...) This is certainly not the way to win hearts and minds.
Mildred: Also, as I recall, he was writing in invisible ink to his siblings, because he knew Joseph was reading his mail. But, says Beales, he obviously didn't switch to the lemon juice soon enough, because one of his non-invisible ink letters was read by Joseph and was critical enough of Joseph to cause bad feelings/problems/something I don't have time to look up.
This happened in 1789 (a year before Joseph died), but had a 1788 prehistory. Writes Beales.
At the beginning of October, (Joseph) contrived to give grave offence to Leopold on two counts. He first accused him of having revealed to diplomats secret information supplied by Joseph. Leopold denied the charge, but the emperor sent him the evidence for it, which was difficult to rebut. Although they agreed to drop the matter, Joseph evidently remained suspicious and bacme less confiding. Secondly, when Leopold's daughter, Maria Theresa, came to Vienna en route to marry a son of the elector of Saxony in Dresden, the emperor took the occasion to critisize his brother's upbringing of his children. No doubt, wrote Joseph, Leopold's intentions were good. But
all the more defective must be the method or the teachers. (...) The physical side seems to me as neglected as the moral. They don't know what to do with their arms and legs anymore than they know how to make use in society of the pedantic knowledge that has been stuffed into their heads. I can't find in them any sincerity. They think they're clever if they can boast of having conceiled what they really think.
Joseph thought that Leopold's other children needed to come to Vienna to be properly educated - except that Charles, who had epilepsy, "should either find a cure for it or vegetate unobserved in his sad situation, which he can do much better in Tuscany."
Leopold sent a pained reply saying that Francis had been the most difficult and reserved of all his sons and that Charles was actually the most intelligent. Joseph said that he was 'in despair' if what he had said about the children's education had displeased Leopold. But he went on to complain about the state of their teeth. Further, Theresa didn't know how to curtsey. Joseph had found the elder daughters proud, self-satisfied and deceitful. After this appalling display of cruel insensitivity, however, he agreed that Charles could also come to Vienna. The despised epileptic was to become perhaps Austria's greatest general after Prince Eugene.
Unsurprsingly, after this, Leopold stepped up his "Joseph: the worst!" letters to Mimi and Max Ernst. By 1789, when it was clear to Joseph he would likely die within the year or so, writes Beales:
He seemed to have accepted that he could not live much longer, and he knew from intercepts that Leopold's prudent letters to him veiled an aversion to his despotic policies. The emperor told Trautmannsdorff in June 1789 that he was' sure that intrigue goes on between Florence and Brussels' (i.e Leopold and Mimi) and he had a copy of one of Leopold's letters sent on to prove it. The grand duke had good reason to use lemon-jice as an invisible ink when writing to his sister, but he evidently should have taken the precaution earlier. It must therefore have been clear to Joseph that his brother, if he succeeded, would not m aintain all his legislation intact. Yet he set forth on a collision course, reviving and exarbating almost every possible grievance in every province. One can only wonder at the dedication and willpower of the dying emperor in his desperate campaign to bring his policies to fruition. It was magnificent, but it was not politics.
Mildred asked: omeone I was reading recently--I can't remember if it was Beales--was casting Leopold's interest in constitutionalism as lip service, since the Tuscans never actually got a constitution out of him. Thoughts?
Don't recall this from Beales, though maybe I overlooked it, can't comment without a Leopold biography.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Collected replies re: Joseph and Leopold , mainly
Date: 2022-01-14 07:29 am (UTC)Maria Carolina: well, you know my main criticism of the Maria Carolina sections in Goldstone's book was that "she was loved by everyone in Naples, and those few revolutionaries were basically deluded or paid by the French" is not the takeaway I had of the Neapolitan revolution. I didn't question "the husband was stupid and uselessl, but she had the upper hand and made it work for her" because that was Horowski's take as well. I don't recall either of them mentioning Ferdinand had infected her with STDs, a sore in the vagina, or marital rape in the later 1780s.
Also forgot to mention this, since we've been wondering: there is nothing in either Beales volume about Maria Christina/Mimi showing Joseph Isabella's letters to herself. Unless Goldstone has another source, she must have made it up.
Leopold's secret 1784 memorandum is the Relazione, yes. It's basically "why Joseph sucks, let me count the ways, with some flashbacks to why Mom sucked, too". Beales thinks some of the criticism is valid and earned while other parts are either exaggarated or demonstrably untrue, which he argues by presenting Zinzendorf's diary (Zinzendorf was an MT era veteran and politically very much against Joseph's ideas, so his diary offering counter testimony to some of Leopold's claims is pretty valid), various letters from contemporaries and, with a bit more sceptism, Joseph friendly memoirists like the Prince de Ligne (RPF writer extraordinaire, but he did write about his own life as well) or Lorenzo da Ponte (Joseph was my Emperor and patron! Fuck yeah!).
In terms of sibling Joseph critique, Beales gives the most weight not to Leopold or Maria Christina but to youngest brother Max Ernst. MT had gone to some effort to get him alected as Archbishop and thus Prince Elector of Cologne. In medieval and Renaissance times, this was the most prestigious and important position any German cleric could have, because not only was the Prince Bishop of Cologne part of the Princes Elector who voted the Emperor into power (or not), he was the one conducting the coronation, and his vote usually held the most influence among the clerical Princes. (When we had decades long feudings between noble families as to who would get to be Emperor in the 12th century, getting the Prince Bishop of Cologne on your side was key.) By the time of the 18th Century, and the decline of the HRE, it wasn't this important in terms of international and day to day politics, but it was still an office of incluence, and also, it offered Max Ernst the chance to interact with representatives of other German states on a daily basis and watch inner HRE politics for which neither of his older brothers had much patience. This led Max Ernst to write to Leopold:
Germany was useful to (FS), useless and even dangerous to Joseph. The explanation of the difference is dunbtedly to be found in the two emperors' manner of ruling. Our father, easy, polite, affable, upright, reigned over all hearts. The empress, gracious and generous, supported him marvellously. The princes of the Empire were attracted to Vienna, were amused, flattered, manipulated, and were full of it when they got back. The ecclesiastical princces were treated with the greatest consideration, and the canons found ample satisfaction for their interest and ambition in the chapters and bishoprics of the heritiary lands, in the abbeys of Hungary, in the invariably effective reccommendations made by the Imperial Court to the Pope. Not even the smallest election took place without the influence of the Imperial Court preponderating, and its creatures, finding themselves looked after, remained totally devoted to the House of Austria. The lesser princes and counts were honoured with places in the army (...) or in the civil service. The Theresianum an the Savoy College attracted many noblemen from the Empire, who then dispersed to all parts of Germany, regarding Vienna as their second home, imbued with its principles and keeping up their connections there. It was by all these means that (FS) caused the Empire to act (on his behalf) in the Seven Years War against its own interests.
Whereas Joseph, after his initial attempts at reform had been rejected
absolutely neglected to cultivate individuals and paid more attention to a simple (Hungarian) guard than to a prince of the Empire, and wouldn't give any favours to imperial nobles, considering them mere spongers and intriguers, which was bound to alienate them. Instead of the favours they were accustomed to receive, they came up against a gracious code of regulations. The Hungarian abbeys were suppressed, you could only get a canonry after ten years in a cure of souls. Papal support was cut off, (...) ministers were prohibited form interfering in elections (...) The Colleges were abolished or (effectively) restricted to the local inhabitants. Every military rank above cadet was prohibited to (imperial nobles). And the only hope for promotion was seniority. Moreover, no Court - and therefore no distinction - and French marquises and English milords were feted while I saw canons and knights of true merit relagated to the lower table and the company of imperial agents.(...) This is certainly not the way to win hearts and minds.
Comments Beales: Here speaks the authentic voice of the ancient régime. . He could have added that Max Ernst is a bit rose-eyed re: how far FS was able to make the German princes support Team Austria in the 7 Years War. Yes, Fritz was put into the Reichsacht for invading Saxony, but his hero of the Protestant faith pose certainly mattered more to the Protestant princes in practice. But unlike Leopold, whose resentment always comes with the conviction he'd be able to do a better job in Joseph's place, and who knew he would get that job once Joseph died, Max Ernst didn't have a personal horse in that race.
Mildred:
Also, as I recall, he was writing in invisible ink to his siblings, because he knew Joseph was reading his mail. But, says Beales, he obviously didn't switch to the lemon juice soon enough, because one of his non-invisible ink letters was read by Joseph and was critical enough of Joseph to cause bad feelings/problems/something I don't have time to look up.
This happened in 1789 (a year before Joseph died), but had a 1788 prehistory. Writes Beales.
At the beginning of October, (Joseph) contrived to give grave offence to Leopold on two counts. He first accused him of having revealed to diplomats secret information supplied by Joseph. Leopold denied the charge, but the emperor sent him the evidence for it, which was difficult to rebut. Although they agreed to drop the matter, Joseph evidently remained suspicious and bacme less confiding. Secondly, when Leopold's daughter, Maria Theresa, came to Vienna en route to marry a son of the elector of Saxony in Dresden, the emperor took the occasion to critisize his brother's upbringing of his children. No doubt, wrote Joseph, Leopold's intentions were good. But
all the more defective must be the method or the teachers. (...) The physical side seems to me as neglected as the moral. They don't know what to do with their arms and legs anymore than they know how to make use in society of the pedantic knowledge that has been stuffed into their heads. I can't find in them any sincerity. They think they're clever if they can boast of having conceiled what they really think.
Joseph thought that Leopold's other children needed to come to Vienna to be properly educated - except that Charles, who had epilepsy, "should either find a cure for it or vegetate unobserved in his sad situation, which he can do much better in Tuscany."
Leopold sent a pained reply saying that Francis had been the most difficult and reserved of all his sons and that Charles was actually the most intelligent. Joseph said that he was 'in despair' if what he had said about the children's education had displeased Leopold. But he went on to complain about the state of their teeth. Further, Theresa didn't know how to curtsey. Joseph had found the elder daughters proud, self-satisfied and deceitful. After this appalling display of cruel insensitivity, however, he agreed that Charles could also come to Vienna. The despised epileptic was to become perhaps Austria's greatest general after Prince Eugene.
Unsurprsingly, after this, Leopold stepped up his "Joseph: the worst!" letters to Mimi and Max Ernst. By 1789, when it was clear to Joseph he would likely die within the year or so, writes Beales:
He seemed to have accepted that he could not live much longer, and he knew from intercepts that Leopold's prudent letters to him veiled an aversion to his despotic policies. The emperor told Trautmannsdorff in June 1789 that he was' sure that intrigue goes on between Florence and Brussels' (i.e Leopold and Mimi) and he had a copy of one of Leopold's letters sent on to prove it. The grand duke had good reason to use lemon-jice as an invisible ink when writing to his sister, but he evidently should have taken the precaution earlier. It must therefore have been clear to Joseph that his brother, if he succeeded, would not m aintain all his legislation intact. Yet he set forth on a collision course, reviving and exarbating almost every possible grievance in every province. One can only wonder at the dedication and willpower of the dying emperor in his desperate campaign to bring his policies to fruition. It was magnificent, but it was not politics.
Mildred asked: omeone I was reading recently--I can't remember if it was Beales--was casting Leopold's interest in constitutionalism as lip service, since the Tuscans never actually got a constitution out of him. Thoughts?
Don't recall this from Beales, though maybe I overlooked it, can't comment without a Leopold biography.