42
DYNASTIC JiMPIRE, c. 1765-1867
itself, "was, however, less dramatic than it sounded. Only personal serfdom was annulled, not the economic obligations oi'robota labour service. The Alpine provinces claimed that their peasants had never been serfs [Leibeigene) anyway, but Erbuntertane (hereditarily subject) with already guaranteed freedom of marriage. Moreover, the Styr-ian and Galician versions of tire Patent granted freedom of movement only to peasants who found a replacement to work their plot. Peasants liable to military conscription still required permission from the state authorities to travel. In the Monarchy's more backward lands, however, there could be no doubt about the innovative, impact of the reforms, which helps explain the caution in delaying a:; corresponding patent for Hungary till 1785.
The 1781 Patents are best seen as steps in a pro-peasant policy, begun in the 1 750s, whose ultimate effect was to enhance peasants'! personal status and security of tenure and to integrate landlords' patrimonial jurisdiction into a developing network of local administration. Thus requirements for legal training for patrimonial officials! led to the amalgamation of many patrimonial courts. The Joseph!-! nist vision of the future on the land was that already implemented! on a small scale for Maria Theresa by her adviser Raab: the replace! ment of the robota system by the division of landed estales (including] the demesne) among rent-paying tenants. In 1783 Joseph ordered the extension of Raab's scheme to all cameral estates in Bohemia! and Moravia. The ultimate implication of this policy was the emergence of a legally homogenous peasantry in place of the old dis Uriel tions between dominical and rustical peasants, 'bought-in' and ies|! secure 'non-bought-in" tenures and the like. It pointed to new principle of social organisation, as did the extension of official supervision] to private forests in 1 784, anticipating commercial forestry's imparl tance to the Alpine noble economy of the next" century. But systemic changes are always easier to see in hindsight, and Joseph left his noblj commissioners free to implement the Raab reform in a fairly conservative and pro-landlord spirit.
Indeed, there were important points of detail on which the Jose^ phinist agrarian regime was uncertain or ineffective. Should a peasant's plot be divided among all his children, in line with: theories linking demographic and economic growth, or should primogenittnlj be favoured, because land-holding peasants were exempt from milij] tary servicer1 The 1 786 Civil Code affirmed the first alternative.butag edict of 1787 inclined to primogeniture. Should the village common lands be divided up?"Repeated Josephinian edicts were in favouriIf
JOSEPH II AND HIS LEGACY 43
this,' following the original ordinance of 1768, but their reiteration suggests the prescription was largely ignored.
;'= In religious matters, too, Joseph capitalised on an existing momentum for change. The toleration granted in 1781 had been strongly urged ■by Kaunitz on Maria Theresa. It applied only to specified m denominations and did not permit non-Catholic places of worship to
ji.....have bells or a prominent site. Prospective converts to Protestantism
s.....could only apply singly, not en masse, and had to submit to a course or
instruction by a Catholic priest betöre confirming their intent. The ilinewly 'formed Protestant consistories were supervised by Catholics Ijlahd' Catholic priests retained the right to ices from Protestant bap-liffisrhs and marriages. Much of this testified to a fear of widespread underground Protestantism which was hardly borne out in the event; by 1785 some 151,000 had registered as Protestants in the non-Hungarian lands. Within its limitations, however, the reform was carried iijoutwith all Joseph's principled thoroughness. The Governor of Bohe-jlili'lost his post because of his obstructive attitude and a Protestant IJftSs* appointed head of the Vienna teachers' training college. Too jffiüch has been made of Joseph's practical motives in introducing tol-jpiation to encourage non-Catholic businessmen. His mother had Ulready felt free to ennoble a Swiss Calvinist banker, Johann Fries. ]Butwhereas, with individual exceptions, she espoused religious uni-lorirhty as a key interest of the state - T speak politically, not as a SristiarT '-■ Joseph already had a different vision of thestate interest, illphich a confessionally even-handed polity asked only for civic loy-jffipfrom its citizens and was strengthened by the gratitude of reli-ii§pus minorities. In this essentially modern concept faith became a jiljftätter between man and God in which the state need not: intervene. Si|'$Phis= -approach underlay Joseph's policy to the Jews, responsive iitugh it was initially to the Court Chancellery's cautious instincts, 'i lie Patent of 1 782 repealed dress restrictions on Jews and widened I; the range of professions they could follow, but did not imply a willing-Hiiiis'ito see an increase in the number and size of Jewish-urban settle-II äüilts;• Nor did it apply to the Monarchy's most Jewish province, Galicia. There decrees of 1 785 and 1789 wentiurlhcr, abolishing the jjJjSMfish'Directory or separate administration which Maria Theresa I §|§fioped' would keep Jews and Christians apart and requiring Jews jpsgerlorm military service [initially in the transport corps); henceforth I HUyiicöuld marry only on proof that they had attended a German ;fj§iJ$ÜlNo lose what Joseph called their 'repellent Jewish character-||ipisf:;vi!For manyjews this was the unacceptableiace ofintegration.