Q. 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