¹ Wandruszka, A. and Urbanitsch, P. (eds.), Die Habsburger Monarchie 1848–1918. Vol. 4, Die Konfessionen (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1985), pp. 3–15Google Scholar is a useful recent survey, with full references to the literature. During his period (1765–80) as Co-Regent with his mother, Joseph exerted considerable influence on policy towards the church, see Beales, Derek, Joseph II. I: in the shadow of Maria Theresa 1741–1780 (C.U.P., 1987), ch. 14Google Scholar. The restriction of Josephinism to mean policy towards the church is more satisfactory than its extension to cover all ‘modernising’ Austrian reforms since the 1750s, an approach adopted by Valjavec, F., Der Josephinismus (2nd edn, Munich, 1945)Google Scholar and later writers. The term ‘Josephinism’ itself may not have been coined until the 1830s, see Dickson, P. G. M, Finance and government under Maria Theresia 1740–1780 (2 vols. O.U.P., 1987), I, 59Google Scholar. For Joseph's own views, see below.

² Dickson, I, ch. 4 reviews some of these. The Uniat (Greek United) church was of importance in Galicia, Hungary and Transylvania. There was also a small number of Armenian United clergy in Galicia. The most substantial discussion of Joseph's church reforms is still Hock, C. and Bidermann, H. I., Der Österreichische Staatsrath. Eine geschichtliche Studie (Vienna, 1879), pp. 395–450Google Scholar ‘Klösteraufhebung’, though it is fragmented and incomplete. von Mitrofanov, P., Joseph II. Seine politische und kulturelle Tätigkeit (tr. Vienna and Leipzig, 1910), pp. 673–801Google Scholar draws extensively on Hock–Bidermann, but also on government decrees and foreign despatches. Some of his mistakes are noticed below. The posthumous third vol. of Tomek, E., Kirchengeschichte Österreichs (3 vols., Innsbruck, 1935–1959)Google Scholar gives a general survey, with some additional research by its editor, Hugo Hantsch. Die Konfessionen (see n. 1) throws no light on the subject. Beidtel, I., Untersuchungen über die kirchlichen Zustände in den kaiserlich österreichischen Staaten (Vienna, 1849)Google Scholar, though short on facts, has historical interest as a hostile survey of state policy towards the church, 1740–1848. The modern secondary literature, drawing on Mitrofanov and other sources, usually includes the great wealth of religious houses, the dissolution of 700 of them, the reduction of monastic personnel from 65,000 to 27,000, the rushed sale of monastic property which put 60 million gulden into the Religious Fund, the placing of the previously wealthy bishops on fixed stipends, the introduction of state salaries for the lower clergy, and the wholesale creation of new parishes. None of these statements is correct, see below.

³ See Schlitter, H. (ed. and introd.), Die Reise des Papstes Pius VI nach Wien (Fontes Rerum Austriacarum vol. 47, Erster Hälfte, Vienna, 1892)Google Scholar; idem, Pius VI. und Josef II. (ibid.Zweite Hälfte, Vienna, 1894), hereafter Schlitter, I and II; Maass, F. (ed. and introd.), Der Josephinismus. Quellen zu seiner Geschichte in Österreich 1760–1850, vols. 1–5 (Vienna: Österr. Akad. d. Wiss. 1951–1961)Google Scholar; idem, Der Frühjosephinismus (Vienna, 1969). Holzknecht, Georgine, Ursprung und Herkunft der Reformideen Kaiser Josefs II auf kirchlichem Gebiete (Innsbruck, 1914)Google Scholar is an especially interesting and trenchant, if hostile, exposition. Hersche, P., Der Spätjansenismus in Österreich (Vienna, 1977)Google Scholar is a valuable modern commentary, revising earlier views. Karniel, J., Die Toleranzpolitik Kaiser Josephs II (Gerlingen, 1985), p. 317Google Scholar suggests that Joseph von Sonnenfels proposed a ‘Josephinist’ church policy, but the passages cited in support mostly show approval of existing measures.

⁴ Schlitter and Maass treat these aspects of Joseph's policies exhaustively; Tomek and Die Konfessionen give recent summaries. For the Toleration Patent (or patents) of 1781 see most recently Karniel, Die Toleranzpolitik, who also deals well with the increased toleration conceded to Jews 1781–5. Beidtel in his account of Joseph II's reign argues that the emperor was under the influence of an ‘Aufklärungsparthei’ which had established a dominant position inside the administration before Maria Theresa's death. Its members were Sonnenfels, Martini, Kressel, Gottfried von Swieten, Rautenstrauch, Gebler, Born ‘and others’, Untersuchungen, Book 2. This is an early instance of the conservative thesis that Joseph was led astray by wicked advisers. Maass, as is well known, argues for the extensive influence of Kaunitz on policy towards the church. More recently, Aretin, A. von, Heiliges Röisches Reich 1776–1806 (2 vols., Wiesbaden, 1967) I, 138–9Google Scholar has emphasized the activities of certain aristocratic Austrian bishops influenced by Febronian doctrines; and has contrasted Kaunitz's radical approach to church strategy inside Austria with his conservative approach to it in a Reich context. Joseph's central role, and characteristically extreme logic, in the formulation of policy, still seem incontestable.

⁵ Hempel-Kürsinger, Johann Freiherr von, Alphabetisch-Chronologische Übersicht der k.k. Gesetze und Verordnungen vom Jahr 1740 bis zum Jahre 1830 (Vienna, 12 vols., 1825–1833), III, 506–7Google Scholar. This index to government decrees in the non-Hungarian lands is a useful ancillary source, which historians have neglected.

⁶ Joseph's, agenda for the committee appointed to implement a ‘Geistliche Oekonomat’ for the Austrian church in imitation of the Giunta Economale in Milan are summarized in Hock–Bidermann p. 447Google Scholar and printed in detail in Schlitter, 11, 41–6. Schlitter, 47–8, gives 2 July, against Hock–Bidermann's 3 Aug., for the adoption of the name ‘Hofkommission’, and 22 July for the commission's instruction. Its president was Baron Franz Kressel. Its Hofräte were Leopold von Haan, Franz von Heinke and abbot Stephen Rautenstrauch. It reported to the Bohemian–Austrian and Hungarian–Transylvanian chancelleries; Haan was from the latter. This arrangement aimed to satisfy the Hungarian Chancellor's initial opposition to the commission's scope.

⁷ Hock–Bidermann, p. 419n., 17 Jan. 1783.

⁸ For the order to dissolve the contemplative orders, see Hock–Bidermann, p. 395.I am grateful to Miss Barbara Harvey for help on what a ‘contemplative order’ historically was. The statements in the text about the scope of the ecclesiastical inquiry are based on Vienna, Finanz-und Hofkammerarchiv, Oberster Rechnungshof A.94, ‘Klösteraufhebung und Pfarreneinrichtung’; and Vienna, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Nachlass Zinzendorf Hs. 146b, ‘Fondations’. These archives are abbreviated below as HKA and HHSA respectively. The HKA source, which refers more than once to a huge ‘Tabellenwerk’, was extensively weeded in the last century, and only certain documents remain (letter from HKA, 26 Mar. 1991). Dr Lorenz Mikoletzky, Director of the Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Vienna, informs me that there is no systematic information about the church, monastic dissolutions etc., in the division Kultus in his archive (letter, 11 Sept. 1991). Perusal of the Staatsrats-Protokoll and the Index to it in the HHSA would probably clarify details, but not the larger picture.

⁹ For the dates of the returns see Table 1. The numbers of declaration forms are stated in the HKA letter ref. to in n.8. The Stiftungs-Buchhalterei appears as the responsible authority in all the documents consulted. The emperor had suggested its use in his agenda of 15 Jun. 1782. Its place in the elaborate Hofrechenkammer structure is shown in the Hof- und Staatsschematismus or Court Calendar. For Zinzendorf as president see Pettenegg, E. Graf von, Ludwig und Karl Graf en und Herren von Zinztndorf (Vienna, 1879); Dickson, II, 87Google Scholar; and n. 13 below. Joseph II, not untypically, was dissatisfied with the HRK's ecclesiastical statistics, and censured Zinzendorf for this, Hock–Bidermann, p. 422n.

¹⁰ A debate on church taxation, and a possible state survey of church wealth in the central lands, began in the 1750s and ran through the 1760s, Dickson, 1, 65 n.; 11, 33, 266–70. Maass, Josephinismus, 1, Introd., argues that Kaunitz's experience in Lombardy from the 1760s influenced his advice on church policy in the central lands. It seems plausible to infer that practice in investigating church property etc. was also transferable. Another precedent was the ending of the Jesuit order in 1773, referred to by Joseph in his instruction for dissolving the contemplative orders. Haugwitz's System of 1748–9 was confined to the Austrian and Bohemian lands, and therefore left church revenue in the Hungarian lands uninvestigated. For Bohemian–Austrian clerical numbers in the censuses of the 1760s, see p. 8 below.

¹¹ See Dickson, 1, 28 (census) and 11, 206 (Contribution).

¹² Ibid. 1, 29 (Hungarian census); idem, ‘Joseph II's Hungarian Land Survey’, EHR, CLVI (1991),611–34.

¹³ For Puechberg see Dickson, , Finance and government, II, 26Google Scholar, 29, 34, 361, 366, 429; Mikoletzky, H. L., ‘Johann Matthias Puechberg und die Anfänge der Hofrechenkammer’, Jahrb. des Vereines für Gesck. der Stadt Wien 17/18 (1961/2), 133–48Google Scholar. Joseph's statistical approach to government appears in most sectors: population, taxation, government finance, church affairs. For Schroder and the concept of statistics as ‘Staatsbrille’, see Sommer, L., Die Österreichischen Kameralisten (Vienna, 1920–1925), II, 113–18Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Dickson, , Finance and government, I, 68–70Google Scholar, and Table 4.1. This account was based on HHSA Nach. Zinzendorf Hs. 146b, ‘Fondations’, which drew on official returns but is less detailed.

¹⁵ Dickson, 1, 73–5. For the monastic laity see n. 20 below.

¹⁶ See n. 8 for the new HKA source, and n. 17 for the new HHSA material, which shows the position in 1790. The former gives figures for Bohemia, Tyrol and Vorarlberg (separately) and Further Austria. Dickson, 1, 74 has no figures for Bohemia, and erroneously treats those for Tyrol and Vorarlberg as being for Tyrol and Further Austria combined. For exact refs. see Table 1.

¹⁷ See Table 3 and accompanying text.

¹⁸ Protestant ministers and Orthodox priests were scarce outside the Hungarian lands, only 37 pastors being registered in 1782, 142 in 1788, Hock–Bidermann, p. 351 n. The census clergy was thus overwhelmingly Catholic and Uniat.

¹⁹ [Kropatschek, J.], Handbuch aller unter der Regierung des Kaisers Joseph des II. für die k.k. Erbländer ergangenen Verordnungen und Gesetze (Vienna: 18 vols., 1785–1790), II, pp. 130–2Google Scholar, ‘Verzeichniss aller vom Jahre 1782 bis 1783 inclusive in den sammtlichen k.k. Staaten erloschenen Manns- und Frauenorden’; Ibid., vi, 520–1, similar return for 1784 and 1785. These list 203 dissolved monasteries and convents, with a population of 4,994 ‘Seelen’, in the central lands outside Hungary, and a further 10 with 246 ‘Seelen’ in Hungary. The Hungarian figures are probably defective.

²⁰ Figures for mendicants are from Table 2 below, with Galicia added (HHSA Nachl. Zinzendorf Hs. 146 b, fo. 465). Begging monks were a burden on an already poor population. It was also to these houses that lay brothers were attached in substantial numbers: 29 % of the mendicant population in Lower Austria, 20 % in Galicia, 24 % in Hungary, 22 % in Bohemia. Endowed houses had few lay brothers. Joseph's belief that mendicants exacerbated the problem of (secular) begging, and must be concentrated in the towns and stopped from taking novices, appears in his agenda of 15 June 1782, see n. 6 above. They were ordered in Oct. 1782 to take no more novices and in Oct. 1789 to cease collecting alms, Hempel-Kürsinger, m, 510–11 (Verordnung 1 Oct. 1782); 636–7 (Hofdekret, 6 Oct. 1789). Under the second decree they were to be paid from the Religtonsfond. It seems doubtful if this took effect, but a small subsidy of 120,000 fl. to the mendicant orders in 1788 is shown in Hock–Bidermann, p. 427. All monastic houses were assigned a limit for their numbers, and this was not to be overstepped, Hempel-Kürsinger, III, 530–1, Patent of 24 Oct. 1783. For mendicant wealth (or lack of it) see below.

²¹ Clerical figures for 1768 computed from Grossmann, H, ‘Die Anfänge und geschichtliche EntwicklungderamtlichenStatistik in Österreich’, Statistische Monatschrift, N F 21 (1916), 331–423Google Scholar at pp. 402–3, 406, substituting the 1762 results, however, in Lower Austria and Krain. The total was 24,203 clergy, of whom 15,076 were regulars and 9,127 seculars. The Galician clergy total in 1786 in Table 1 comprised 1,925 Catholics (378 of them regulars), 59 Armenians and 5,553 Uniats (2,291 of them regulars). In Portugal, half the population was allegedly dependent on the church in the earlier eighteenth century. In Spain, the 1787 census showed 2,067 monasteries, 1,122 convents, 62,249 monks and 33,630 nuns, when overall population was just over 10 million, Schieder, T. (ed.), Handb. da Europäischen Geschichte, Iv (Stuttgart, 1968), pp. 573Google Scholar, 581. Total Spanish clerical numbers are given there as 191,101, but in fact 59,000 of these were lay servants. The date 1787 is misprinted as 1778.

²² Kaunitz's opinions are discussed by Arneth, A. Ritter von, Gesch. Maria Theresia's (10 vols., Vienna, 1863–1879)Google Scholar, IX, ch 3, and are printed at length in Maass, , Josephinismus, 1, no. 158/36 (probably 1768)Google Scholar and n, nos. 6, 8–9, 144 (21 Jun. and 2 Jul. 1770). He was not wholly consistent: in 1766 he had defended monks against Joseph's criticisms, Beales, pp. 446–7. For government orders that the clergy should register government edicts, and read them from the pulpit, see Hempel-Kürsinger, III 482–3 (11 Mar. 1780), 502–3 (17 May, 28 Sept., 11 Dec. 1782), 514–5 (4 Jan. 1783), 602–3 (13 Mar. 1787). Hofrat von Kees in 1781 said that ‘the statesman must regard the clergyman (Geistliche) in the state as having the position of a state servant (eines Staatsbeamtm)’, Mitrofanov, , p. 795Google Scholar. It is significant in this context that a Hofdekret of 11 Jun. 1787 denied the emperor's rumoured intention of abolishing clerical celibacy, ibid. 700. The composition of the secular clergy is discussed below.

²³ For the numbers of religious houses, and the revised total of church revenue, see Dickson, 1, 446, Table 4.1, corrected by inclusion of over 1 m. fl. church income in Further Austria, erroneously included there with Tyrol. Table 2 corrects ib. Table 4.2, where the same mistake is repeated. Lower Austrian monastic revenue is also set too low there, and the Croatian clergy excluded from the Hungarian total. For the average revenue of dissolved houses see ib. I, 75 and n. 29 below.

²⁴ See Table 7 below and accompanying text. Secular revenue in the returns from 1783 is stated as being ‘from all Beneficiaten of the secular clergy from the bishop to the last Stipendiaten’. The income of religious houses is divided into ‘all…religious houses (Klöster)’ and ‘endowments for masses, litanies, candles etc.’ Simple benefices are defined in Grosses vollästandiges Universal Lexicon (64 vols., Halle-Leipzig, , 1732–1950)Google Scholar s.v. ‘Beneficia simplicia’ and ‘Pfrülnde’. Cathedral prebends are given there as an example.

²⁵ For the S.J., see Dickson, 1, 65–8. The Austrian Jesuits were in fact quite poor. The evidence reviewed here suggests that this was comparatively true of the whole Austrian church. It was presumably standard Enlightenment theory that the opposite must be so. Mitrofanov emphasizes the church's wealth, (Joseph II, pp. 683Google Scholar, 691–2) and is followed by other authors. For the partial evidence of relatively low episcopal revenues see n. 44 below.

²⁶ See Dickson, 1, 69–70, and n. 29 below. The generalized, though not inaccurate, statement by Professor Wangermann, E. in New Camb. Mod. Hist., VIII (1965) p.292Google Scholar is typical of the modern literature: ‘The secularized property of the suppressed monasteries constituted the basis of the Religionsfond with which the government financed a wholesale diocesan and parochial reorganization… Old parishes were reorganized and new ones created’.

²⁷ As a partial check, the numbers in the table for the Bohemian and Austrian lands and Galicia, less Tyrol and Further Austria, come to 23,877. The 1790 population census, excluding Tyrol and Further Austria, listed 24,051 clergy in this area, Dickson, 1, Table 3.2. As already noted, in the Hungarian lands the large numbers of Protestant pastors and Orthodox priests included in the census totals make similar corroboration unfeasible.

²⁸ For 1768 see Grossmann, p. 403. This excluded Tyrol. Three returns were for 1763. The partial data for nuns in Table 1 above, however, suggest that they were proportionally much less important than in Spain even before Joseph's reforms.

²⁹ J. Pezzl's statement in 1790 that there were 2,024 religious houses ‘in the Austrian states’ with 63,000 monks and nuns, and that Joseph dissolved 700 houses, reducing numbers to 27,000, is most often cited, but variations exist, see Dickson, 70. In Tapié, V.-L., Monarchic et pays du Danube (1969), p. 243Google Scholar the same numbers are applied to Bohemia alone. On the present state of the evidence, 530 out of 1,188 houses in the central lands were dissolved, Dickson, 1, 76. Dividing this into the 3–6 m. fl. revenue of the Religious Fund (see Table 6 below) gives an average revenue per dissolved house of 6,830 fl.

³⁰ Numbers of regulars at the start of the dissolutions were c. 25,000, as argued above. Deducting c. 11,000 (Table 3) in service in 1790 leaves 14,000 persons. The returns in HKA Oberster Rechnungshof A.94 refer to 186 monks used as priests in Bohemia, 64 in Tyrol, 33 in Further Austria. Presumably they continued to serve even if their houses were later dissolved. A Hofentschliessung of 21 Jul 1786 ordered that pensioned ex-religious should be brought into parish duties (Seelsorge), Hempel-Küirsinger, III, 588–9. Cp. also n. 33 below.

³¹ ‘Benefiziaten’ was applied in the earlier returns to all who ha d a share in church revenues, see n. 24. In Table 3 it is obviously less inclusive. It may include holders of ‘simple benefices’, discussed ibid. For the sees involved, see the notes to the table.

³² For the composition of the Galician clergy see n. 21 above. The 1786 figs, were simply repeated in 1790. The issue of Moravian Protestantism is most recently discussed in Beales, pp. 465–73.

³³ Handbuch alter Verordnungen, II, 219–24 prints the often-cited patent of 24 Oct. 1783 stipulating creation of new priests and local chaplains wherever people were more than an hour from their parish church. The patent stated that 263 new ‘Seelsorger’ had already been installed in Lower Austria, partly from ex-religious. The term ‘Seelsorger’ (someone with cure of souls), often employed in government edicts, blurred the distinction between priests and lower grades of clergy.Cp. Mitrofanov, p. 703, citing government decrees: ‘a thick net of parishes was now extended over the whole country’, 263 in Austria (sic), 158 in Styria, 180 in Moravia.

³⁴ The General Seminaries, state-supervised institutions for clerical training, were in Vienna, Prague, Olmütz, Graz, Innsbruck, Freiburg-im-Breisgau, Lemberg, Pressburg and Pest, the last an amalgamation of two others, ex inf. Dr R. J. W. Evans. Three more were established in Louvain, Luxembourg and Pavia. Episcopal and monastic training colleges were closed and their resources transferred to the seminaries, Hempel-Kürsinger, in, 518–19 (30 Mar. 1783), 548–9 (8 Jun. 1784).

³⁵ The 24 beneficed persons in Table 5 must have been the canons of the three new cathedrals: cathedrals were in future to have eight each, Hempel-Kürsinger, III 598–9, Hofdekret 2 Feb. 1787.The three bishops and their chapters were paid 120,000 fl., see p. 19 below. For the emperor's episcopal plans see Schlitter, n, 59–66, based on Joseph's undated letter to Plus VI of 16 or 17 Nov. 1783; Aretin, I, 137–47, tne fullest account, though not drawing on Schlitter; Maass, , Josephinismus 11, documents of 1783–1789Google Scholar, especially those of 1787 on the proposed archbishopric for Laibach; Warming, T. C. W., Reform and Revolution in Mainz 1743–1803 (C.U.P., 1974), pp. 213–15Google Scholar; GlassI, H., Das Österreichische Einrichtungswerk in Galizien (1772–1790) (Wiesbaden, 1975), pp. 126–35Google Scholar. For the Hungarian bishoprics, see the notes to Table 4. It seems clear from GlassI that the acquisition of Galicia forced the issue of new sees on the Austrians, and formed a precedent for Joseph. The absence of an entry for Tarnów in Table 5 is curious. The failure to enter St Polten under Lower Austria is perhaps due to its being a merger rather than a fresh creation, Hempel-Kürsinger, III, 530–1, Hqfentschliessung 21 Nov. 1783, bishopric of Wiener-Neustadt to be transferred to St Polten.For discussions after 1803, see Maass, , Josephinismus, IV (1957)Google Scholar, introd. section 4 and 1804 docts., esp. 46, Colloredo to emperor, 11 Apr. 1804.

³⁶ Dividing combined numbers of secular clergy including students, in Tables 4 and 5 into the population of 1790 in Dickson, 1, Table 2.2. Claims for much greater reductions were made at the time.

³⁷ For this patent see n. 33 above. The passage about the remaining clergy runs ‘von Bischofe anzufangen mithin auch Stifter, KlÖster, Pfarreien un d Benefiziaten bleiben vollkommen beiihrem ietzigen Genüsse’. Mitrofanov, , p 702Google Scholar, treats the salaries of 600 fl., 350 fl. and 250 ft. as applying to all clergy, citing a Hofdekret of 18 June 1785. This in fact referred only to the new appointments, Hempel-Kürsinger, III, 568–9.

³⁸ HHSA Kaiser Franz Akten, Karton 72 (includes old refs. 73–75a) 75a fos. 1–3, ‘Verzeichnis der neu-errichteten Pfarren sowie der aufgehobenen u. weiter bestehenden Stifte und KlÖster in den osterreichischen Erblanden’. None of the figures in this return can be accepted uncritically. The conflict over numbers of new clerical appointments is referred to in Hock–Bidermann, pp. 423–4., but not examined systematically. Tomek, , Kirchengeschichte, III, 449Google Scholar gives numbers of new appointments in Upper and Lower Austria which appear to be taken from Kressel's return. This is also true of Wodka, J., Kirche in Östeneich (Vienna, 1959), p. 309Google Scholar, figures for Upper Austria and Styria (those for Lower Austria are higher).

³⁹ Hock–Bidermann, pp. 427–32, the only account based on archival material, though not systematic in treatment. Table 6 shows that the estimate of 3·3 M. fl. for the revenue of the Religious Fund in Dickson, , Finance and government, I, 76Google Scholar is too low. The source for the table gives the Fund's expenditure as 2,650,073 fl. in the Austrian–Bohemian lands and Galicia and 872,139 ft. (842,569 ft. in Hungary) in the Hungarian lands, a total of 3,522,212 ft. The capitalized value of the revenues is stated as 16,449,372 fl. in the Hungarian lands and 44,422,682 fl. in the remainder, giving a total of 60,872,054 ft., the ‘60 million gulden’ often cited in the literature. The capitalization took land at 5 % (i.e. 20 years' purchase). No analysis of revenue is given for the Hungarian lands, but on this basis rents there cannot have exceeded 800,000 fl. In the remainder, land was worth 25,854,280 ft., implying a revenue of 1,292,714 ft., the capital value of bonds was 18,194,908 ft., and 373,494 fl. was held in cash. The figures are close to those in Hock–Bidermann, p. 427. The data show that applying 20 years' purchase to the whole revenue of the Fund, as in Dickson, Finance and government, gives too high a valuation. The question of monastic sales has not been satisfactorily examined, though the literature always makes large general statements. A modern treatment of the dissolutions in Lower Austria, Winner, G., Die Klosteraufhebungen in Nederösterreich und Wien (Vienna, 1967)Google Scholar contains a mass of confusing detail, but no overall picture. It seems clear from the existing evidence that while movables (church ornaments etc.) were sold or given to seculars, there was no extensive sale of monastic lands before Joseph's death.

⁴⁰ See also n. 24 above. The statement about church bondholdings assumes that the interest received was 4%.

⁴¹ For the views imputed to Joseph see Mitrofanov, p 792, Barthelemy to Vergennes, 16 Jun 1781, ‘On connait depuis longtemps la volontéqu ‘al’ Empereur de s'emparer des biens du Clergéet son peu de respect pour la propriét de ses sujets.’ For Joseph's view that expropriation was the surer policy, see Hock–Bidermann, p. 41911., , Joseph to Hofrat Kressel, 17 01 1783Google Scholar, also in Schlitter, 11,58–9. The official line was that the church was only a trustee for the lands that it held, and that the state had the right to appropriate any surplus over and above clerical needs, Hock–Bidermann, p. 418, citing Joseph's patent of 5 Oct. 1782. Plus VI feared in Aug. 1782 that Joseph meant to confiscate all church property, leading him to compare the Emperor to Wycliffe and Hus, Schlitter, 11, 51–2. For Hofrat Heinke's scale of proposed clerical salaries, dated 14 Mar. 1781, see Maass, , Josephinismus, III, 284–91Google Scholar. In this plan, which was supported by the arguments just referred to, all clergy would remain in possession of their property, but pay its revenues into a ‘Religions- und Pfarr Cassa’ in each land. Archbishops would then draw 24,000 fl. yearly, bishops 6–18,000 fl., other clergy 2,000 down to 200 fl. Mitrofanov, pp. 683–4, 701–2 says episcopal property was expropriated and the archbishops, bishops and clergy placed on fixed salaries, and has been followed by later writers.

⁴² As seen, the patent of 24 Oct 1783 stated that the clergy were to retain their existing revenues. However, the emperor wanted initially to redistribute church revenue surpluses towards poor clergy and new clergy, as his agenda of 15 June 1782 (n. 6 above) show. An intention to restrict clerics to self-assessed levels of ‘necessary’ income, and cream off the surplus for new clergy and the retained regulars, is clear from the returns procured by the Geistliche Hqfkommission (see Table 1). These contained a series of columns for this purpose, under the heading ‘Future need’ (Kiinftiger Bedarf). Significantly, apart from Lower Austria all are left blank. Beidtel, Book 2, argues that the church, save the dissolved houses, kept its property, but was subjected to strict state supervision and became gradually poorer.

⁴³ Cp.Mitrofanov, p. 695, a report from Vienna to the Duke of Hesse (sic), 24 Sept. 1785: all the religious houses will be dissolved if war comes. Beidtel p. 65 states, though as usual without adducing evidence, ‘Under Joseph II people did not believe that religious houses would last long. The plans of many persons of importance envisaged their complete dissolution.’

⁴⁴ In Galicia, the archbishop of Lemberg's revenue in 1777 was 20,000 fl.; the richest bishopric, Przemysl, had 41,0008., the Uniat bishop of Lemberg 15,0008., the Armenian Catholic archbishop of Lemberg 1,250 fl., Glassl, , Einrichtungswerk, pp. 128–30Google Scholar. In Hungary in 1784, the vacant archbishopric of Kalocsa was credited with a gross revenue of over 79,000 fl., reduced by compulsory deductions to 47,000 fl. The net revenues of the vacant sees of Györ (Raab) and Nyitra were put at 28,000 fl. and 20,000 fl., Magyar Orszagos Levéltar, A.39, 1784/10, 112.1 am grateful to Professor Kosáry for sending me photocopies of the relevant Chancellery documents. Austrian domestic bishoprics were small: Wiener-Neustadt, Gurk, Seckau, Lavant. Greatreligious houses like Melk, which remained undissolved, did not have princely incomes, see Dickson, 1, 98. The evidence about bishoprics is admittedly suggestive not conclusive.

⁴⁵ Metternich's advocacy of loosening control over the church and recruiting its political support is sketched in Srbik's biography, and documented at length in Maass, , Der Josephinismus, vols. IV and v. The variations in his policy towards the papacy 1809–1838Google Scholar are examined in detail in Alan Reinerman, J., Austria and the Papacy in the Age of Metternich (Cath. U.Amer. P., 2 vols. 1979Google Scholar, 1989). While definitive for state policy, these studies do not discuss church structure or finance. Other literature on this subject in the period 1815–48 is also unsatisfactory. Wandruszka and Urbanitsch, Die Konfessionen and Tomek, Kirchengeschichte, III, are not informative. Nor is Hosp, E., Kirche Österreichs im Vormärz 1815–1850 (Vienna and Munich, 1971)Google Scholar, though containing much other information. Beidtel, Books 4–6, covering 1792–1848, and Beer, A., ‘Kirchliche Angelegenheiten in Österreich (1816–1842)’, Mitt. d. Inst.f. Österr. Geschichtsforschung, XVIII (1897), 493–581Google Scholar are similarly unhelpful.

⁴⁶ Tqfeln zur Statistik der Österreichischen Monarchie fur die Jahre 1847 und 1848 (2 vols., Vienna, 1853)Google Scholar, Tafel Io, ‘Clerus in den Jahren 1847 und 1848’ In Galicia, the secular clergy at this date comprised 1,761 Catholics, 2,335 Uniats and 301 Greek Orthodox. In the Bohemian–Austrian lands and Galicia, only 208 Protestant pastors are shown. Hungary had 6,358 Catholic priests, 1,128 Uniats, 1,830 Greek Orthodox and 2,422 Protestant pastors. In Transylvania, these figures were 299, 1,490, 1,043 and 1,672; in the Military Frontier, 547, 131, 706 and 194.

⁴⁷ ‘Auf Pfarreien angestellt’, p. 4. This practice undoubtedly existed earlier, but its extent requires investigation. In 1780 there were 141 Hungarian monasteries and 13 convents, Dickson, 1, 446.

⁴⁸ Tafeln 1847–8, pp. 1–2.

⁴⁹ Tafeln zur Statistik…für die Jahre 1845 und 1846 (2 vols. Vienna, 1850–1851)Google ScholarTafel 39, returns of 1845 for ‘Nicht dotirte Fonde, Stiftungen und Anstalten’ shows a total church revenue outside the Hungarian lands of 12,878,640 fl. (The relevant volume for 1847 is not in the British Library.) ‘Nicht dotirte Fonde’ are defined, (Tafel 39 p. 15)Google Scholar as ‘those which, under government oversight (Oberaufsicht) follow public purposes, but receive no regular yearly endowment from the state.’ This is relevant to the issue of supposed confiscation of church revenues discussed earlier.

⁵⁰ Tafel 39 p. 18. Several of the figures there for monastic revenue are close to those of 1790.