80
DYNASTIC EMPIRE, <:. 1765-1867
misrepresent the relationship of estate managers, large-scale met -chants, small-town burghers and professionals at this time, but historian.-; now ascribe a bigger role to pre-1848 elements in the||| shaping of the later bourgeoisie than they once did. The number of state officials and professionals (excluding clergy and clementaryiii teachers) is estimated to have risen in the Austro-Slav lands frorri:!«lf some 17,300 to 36,775 between 1790 and 1846 and from 5,000:to||| 24,000 in Hungary over a similar period. 11 One result was to create the trained bureaucracy for which theHf Enlightenment had striven. From 1774 educational qualifications ji; for various government grades were successively established butlli only after 1800 did they reflect practice rather than aspiration;;!" New service regulations emphasised (as Joseph's exhortations ha$ff not} unquestioning obedience to superiors, while constantly revised! academic programmes increasingly side-lined politically suspeMlill theoretical and historical disciplines. Uniforms were made tmiyeMifj sal, even for the members of provincial diets. Conservative ls&"ifjj§§ might be, however, the imperial bureaucracy retained the 1787"!! principle of advancement by seniority of service, not social raiikj||[|| Between 1840 and 1870 only 10% of departmental secretaryshjf^jjfl were to be held by members of old established noble familial!! Hence, perhaps, in part, the bureaucracy's preponderant commiiMli ment to economic liberalism against traditional guild priviiegSljjjj and Francis's own preferences. Early nineteenth-century Austrianjjl government was both continuator of the Josephinian project;atj.$§f its subvertrr. Mill How far Emperor Francis was aware of these contradictions!!!!!! unclear. He appears to have been sustained by a belief in the speci|lll character of the Viennese, exempting them from the ills of the tiriieilll Yet in the midst of these seeming certainties he could retain an inyiijlif! cible paranoia. On Christmas Eve 1830 he ordered troops to;n§pjJ! St Stephen's cathedral in the capital, on reports that conspiratapll had timed an uprising for the midnight mass. For his part Metterm|jfSS believed that hundreds of thousands of Italians belonged to sefjMfjH societies. This lurching in leading figures from complacency to pS|i§j noia exposed the inner uncertainties of a regime which claimed jti|j||jj at the heart of Europe while sedulously keeping out European irffigjjj; races. For all that, Francis's Austria was not the Russia' of'ifsHjj; Nicholas I. Tt is the very sense of its potential normality, in Eurojjjijjf§|§j terms, which makes the caution and unimaginativeness of the :Ff;|S|ii ciscan era seem a chance missed. Jill!
METTKRNICH'S AUSTRIA 81 Industrialism Takes Root
pUbis impression is increased when the economic fortunes of the Mon-iJUJcchy in the early nineteenth century are considered. Metternich's ipyclical view of history overlooked the beginnings of irreversible eco-PiSmic change. The Austrian case lends support to Sidney Pollard's ilijlggestion that European industrialisation should be seen as a single process, in which bursts of economic activity moved, not from one state to another, but from region to region across boundaries, as J!$£vourably endowed areas were drawn into a network of reciprocal relationships, at first dependent on forerunners3 expertise but later liable to open up fresh outlets of their own. The marked regionalism !i!of;Austrian industrialisation, the heavy reliance on English techni-tljpes and entrepreneurs, the role of proto-industrialisation in the ; gro\vt h of textile manufacture, the development of the iron industry: |!§|!.[this can be related to a wider pattern, particularly now that the HjRostowian model of dramatic take-off to industrialisation is no iglonger seen as the standard path to this goal.
lili&rowing interest in the Habsburg economy of the first half of the
IllBiltury reflects confidence that its scale in that period can now be at |iSst.approximately quantified. Whether it is Rudolph's estimate of !|j|§|% annual industrial growth between 1830 and 1845, based on Ilpinqiiehnial production figures, Komlos's annual index of 2.5% Ifgrpwth over the same period, Gross's deductions from accelerating [lll^lconsumption from the 1820s or Good's conclusion that, industry advanced at 2.3% a year between the 1820s and the J 850s, a general (pattern seems to emerge. It is one of a widely diffused and subse-Ifffently sustained upturn from post-war depression in the late 1820s. llffitty; per cent of industrial production was in textiles, with the lljlfchanisation of cotton spinning gathering pace in the 1820s and jljpat of wool in the 1830s. While the eighteenth-century staples, ;:svooi and linen, made limited progress, cotton production grew at llUjiaiyear. Austria had 157 cotton mills in 1847 and more cotton iiJjjB|iidles than the German fyllverein. She also by then made more Igjjgijron per head than Germany, Bohemia having doubled iMlPoutput of iron and quadrupled that of coal since the 1820s. IffiSWo thousand industrial enterprises in 1841, those with modern llfUipment were already producing three times as much as those §§iiP°w and craftshops combined. Though her tally oJ'stcam engines flagged far behind the French (550 to 4114 in the mid-1840sJ her luMitstriai output per capita was on a par and her percentage of