Enlightened Reformism or the New Spirit of Absolute Power
Enlightened absolutism was, in principle a variety of “classical absolutism” or Hochabsolutismus. Enlightened despots would continue to govern without requiring their subjects’ consent or seeking their engagement in public affairs.
There was, however, a substantial difference between enlightened absolutism and its forerunner, as the former pursued a state which would no longer limit itself to functioning as a mere guarantor of order. Unlike classical absolutist monarchs, whose essential mission was to prevent chaos, enlightened sovereigns were expected to do everything possible to foster progress in their subjects’ interest.[460] Thus, they made major efforts to do away with age-old prejudices, and construct a new society, according to Enlightenment ideals (Ingrao 1986).10.3.1 The State: From Guardian of Order to Protector, Educator and Reformer
Enlightened absolutism represented public power’s complete embrace of eighteenth-century ideas. It was based on the principle then in vogue that the state rests upon a contract between the ruler and his people for the advancement of their general welfare and security, an objective which subjects could not (yet) achieve by themselves, as they lacked the knowledge necessary to advance in the right direction. The prince, in contrast, was fully qualified to do so, having been educated expressly from birth for this purpose. Thus, for Enlightenment monarchs, the state, while continuing to play its traditional role as a guardian of order, was also committed to protecting and educating its people[461] to achieve the highest possible
level of development and to promote the reforms needed to ensure social 19
progress.
The state took on an educational role, for example, in Austria, where Maria Theresa founded an academy, Vienna’s Theresianum, designed to train public servants for the Austrian state and to inculcate in them a spirit of public service.[462] [463] The general educational system was overhauled, with the creation of primary schools and the transformation of universities, which shifted from religious into state institutions.
Maria Theresa’s son, Joseph II, took the same line, in 1774, promulgating his Allgemeine Schulordnung (General School Ordinance) which introduced into Austria the principle of compulsory education for children between 6 and 12 years of age (Melton 2002, 212-224). In the field of higher education universities lost their medieval status as independent entities—generally with ecclesiastical origins—and became public institutions, administrated by the state.Frederick II of Prussia, meanwhile, in an effort to promote the welfare of his people, adopted a very ambitious educational policy, especially at the elementary school level through the General-Landschul-Reglement of 1763.[464] When he acceded to the throne, primary education was in the hands of volunteers, who taught mainly during the winter months when they did not have to work the land. Frederick the Great brought stability and rigor to the system by creating public schools that contributed very effectively to raising Prussians’ educational level (MacDonogh 2001, 348-349). This educational ideal would be endorsed by Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835), who introduced essential reforms of schools and universities during his brief period as head of the Prussian section for Education and Instruction in 1809-1810 (Philips 2011, 15). In 1810, he created the University that still bears his name in Berlin, and whose core philosophy was to give students broad, intellectual education rather than solely utilitarian training.
In Portugal, the expulsion of the Jesuits (1759), left the country virtually bereft of teachers at the secondary and university levels, which spurred the Marques de Pombal to support the development of a state-sponsored system of secondary education headed by a Director of Studies. He also transformed higher education through the creation of a “Junta for the Provision of Learning” and reformed the University of Coimbra. The Pombaline educational reform had the clear utilitarian purpose of providing a new learned class to staff the state and the Church (Maxwell 1994, 101-102).
In Spain, the exodus of the Jesuits (1767), spurred reformers to modify educational institutions, which hitherto had been some of the kingdom’s most reactionary forces. Enlightened figures such as Jovellanos and Cabarrus viewed education as a national problem, and believed that the transformation of schools, universities, and particularly colegios mayores[465] would transform the monarchy and the kingdom. Concerning higher education, they wanted universities to be better incorporated into society to satisfy its economic and cultural requirements, and reflect the greatest achievements of modern science and research. New, advanced schools were opened by the crown, with ministerial encouragement at the secondary level in Madrid and the main cities, and attempts were made to support affordable and even free primary education.[466]
The principle of the state’s educational role would extend into the nineteenth century in France, after the Revolution. Napoleon (1799-1815), despite establishing a new monarchy, in accordance with revolutionary principles, in 1806 implemented the “university” in France, understood as a state institution designed to educate citizens of the new French society, from primary school up to the university level.[467] In addition, in the last third of the nineteenth century, Jules
Ferry founded republican schools to foment public, secular and free education for the entire French population as a way of conveying republican principles and values (Harrigan 2001, 52-83). In this same sphere it is significant that the 1815 Constitution of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands expressly indicated the state’s role as an educator. In fact, throughout his reign King William I (1815-1840) supported the educational system in the Netherlands, from primary school to the university.[468]
10.3.2 The “Depatrimonialization” of the Monarchy
and the Transformation of the State
An important consequence of the secularization of the monarchy was a resounding rejection of the traditional patrimonial concept of the royal institution.
Since the time of the Romans, and even during the era of Visigoth Spain, a distinction had developed between the emperor or king’s personal patrimony (fiscus), and that belonging to the empire or kingdom. Subsequently, however, as a result of the expansion of feudalism there was a de facto privatization of European kingdoms, to the point where kings actually inherited and divided the realm among their descendants. In the Modern Age, even though the state was still identified and associated with the figure of the sovereign, his assets, or patrimony, gradually came to be considered as the property of the state.[469]Under Enlightenment principles the monarch, then, became the administrator of the crown’s property, but did not actually own it, nor could he do with it whatever he deemed fit. This process, however, would not be complete until well into the nineteenth century.[470]
This “depatrimonialization” of the monarchy led to a professionalization of state administration, a field in which the enlightened monarchs undertook major reform efforts to enhance public administration and make it more efficient. In this area the work of Maria Theresa of Austria (1740-1780) is notable[471]; to ensure her kingdom’s unity she established a centralized administration while respecting the particularities of each of its territories to keep from stirring up resentment,[472] as she did not inherit a country, but rather a princely house holding disputed sway over many lands and many peoples (Crankshaw 1970, 6). In this task she was ably assisted by Chancellor Haugwitz, the former administrator of Silesia, who in 1749 began to reorganize the State Chancellery, and by Gottfried van Swieten, who introduced reform in the areas of education and health. In 1753, Haugwitz would be replaced by Chancellor Kaunitz.[473]
Maria Theresa’s son, Joseph II, went even further, suspending the feudal assemblies of medieval origin in the empire’s different territories, deeming such meetings a waste of time and inefficient from a governmental point of view.
Instead, the emperor divided his state into 13 districts, each organized, in turn, into “circles” (Kreise) headed by “captains”. The aim was to dissolve traditionally regional dynamics and standardize territorial administration. In pursuit of this objective, he also abolished what was left of municipal autonomy, with local authorities coming to be designated by the government.[474]The key to these reforms was that enlightened monarchs entrusted royal administration to professional civil servants. Thus, for example, to impose his enlightened policies and implement his reforms, Joseph II employed a veritable army of officials. These were mainly lawyers, appointed directly by the emperor based on merit, to positions which they then occupied for life, allowing them to devote themselves fully to their tasks. In Austria, state offices were not purchasable, unlike in Spain or France, where the standard practice was the “sale of offices” through which monarchs obtained substantial revenues, a practice already examined in the previous chapter. The downside, however, was that these positions were transmitted from father to son, creating a hereditary caste of officials in which merit and capacity were not requisites. Neither did Austria employ a system of “patronage” (very close to Spain’s caciquismo in the late nineteenth century), one which had become firmly entrenched in England under the Tudor monarchy and consolidated under the Stuarts.[475]
This contingent of civil servants in the Austrian state proved extremely effective, especially in areas such as tax collection, which could be obtained directly and not through the unfair and inefficient system of ad-hoc tax-collectors, who operated for profit as commissioned agents of the state rather than permanent civil servants. The administration of the state improved markedly and royal reform was implemented more effectively.[476]
Concerning Prussia, though Frederick II harbored great admiration for his father’s administrative achievements, he did his best to improve the efficiency of the highest administrative body of his kingdom, the General Directory, through his order of May 20, 1748, which completely reorganized it.
At the territorial level he also developed the War and Domains Chambers, the executive authorities in the provinces which provided precious information about the actual situation in different parts of the kingdom. He sought to streamline their functioning through the creation of Kammerdeputationen and the redistribution of the Kreise. Meanwhile, to form a body of excellent civil servants he decreed examinations and practical training for them. Finally, he did not rely entirely on a centralized approach toadministration, but rather, in an effort to favor reconstruction,[477] standardized the office of the Landrat throughout the Prussian provinces, against the wishes of his central administrators, who wished to get rid of the Provincial Estates and country deputies. Frederick continued to keep those institutions alive, as he saw in them a useful counterweight to his own bureaucracy (Hubatsch 1975, 151-168).
10.4