MARIA THERESA of Habsburg, EMPRESS. – Born in Vienna on 13 May 1717, died there on 29 Nov. 1780. Daughter and heir of Emperor Charles VI, she married Francis Stephen of Lorraine (12 Feb. 1736), thereby founding the Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty, the last ruling branch of the House of Habsburg. From this marriage also derives the so-called “second-born” Habsburg line in Tuscany, with the assignment of the Grand Ducal throne to Francis of Lorraine (9 July 1737), to be transmitted in the cadet line.
The inheritance of the Habsburg dominions devolved upon M. T. by virtue of the Pragmatic Sanction issued by Charles VI on 19 Apr. 1713, which established direct female succession in the absence of male heirs. However, upon the death of her father (20 Oct. 1740), her rights were contested by the husbands of the daughters of Joseph I, Charles VI’s predecessor: Charles Albert of Bavaria and Frederick Augustus of Saxony.
In the War of the Austrian Succession, the European powers intervened, eager to diminish Habsburg power and to enlarge their own at its expense. The conflict concluded after eight years with the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle (18–23 Oct. 1748). M. T. succeeded in preserving the unity, if not the integrity, of the patrimonial possessions. Particularly painful was the loss of Silesia, ceded to Frederick II of Prussia, and the consequent blow to Habsburg prestige in Germany. Yet the House of Habsburg regained the imperial crown, which Charles Albert of Bavaria had managed to wrest from it: upon the rival’s death, Francis of Lorraine was elected and crowned emperor (13 Sept.–4 Oct. 1745).
After Aix-la-Chapelle, M. T.’s efforts were directed toward preparing revanche against the Prussian king. The old antagonism with the Bourbons was set aside in favor of a new alliance with the Hohenzollerns, Kaunitz (v.) succeeded in transforming the traditional rivalry with France into an alliance (10 May 1756). Russia was also drawn into the coalition. In the ensuing Seven Years’ War (1756–63), Frederick II of Prussia nevertheless managed to survive the ordeal. M. T.’s attempt to annihilate her German rival had failed: in German history, the Austro-Prussian dualism opened, which was to find its resolution only a century later.
Upon assuming the role of co-regent with her son Joseph II after the death of her husband (18 Aug. 1763), the Empress’s initiative in foreign policy was reduced to a predominant activity of control, exercised in a moderating sense. An important aspect of Theresian diplomacy lay in marriage policy, which reached its most brilliant expression in the marriage of Maria Antonia to the Dauphin of France. Yet the greatest political weight was exerted by the Italian marriages: that of Maria Amalia to the Duke of Parma, of Maria Carolina to the King of Naples, and of Ferdinand to Maria Beatrice d’Este, which secured the duchy of Modena for a third-born Habsburg line, thus adding to the “second-born” Tuscan line. Having secured direct or indirect influence over the entire peninsula, the Empress could speak of her “four Italian colonies.”
The historical importance of M. T. is not exhausted in the task of saving the monarchy from dissolution and preserving its rank among the European powers. She occupies an eminent place among the great reforming sovereigns for the work of reconstruction and renewal of the state that she undertook. The impetus arose from the need to remedy the financial crisis afflicting the monarchy as a result of continuous warfare. Instead of resorting to the usual fiscal exactions, the Empress tackled the problem of a radical revision of the tax system, making it more productive for the state and less burdensome for the taxpayer. A sweeping reform of administration led to the overcoming of particularistic privileges and to a strengthening of central authority; the revision of the fiscal system, based on the principle of proportional burdens and the elimination of exemptions, had important social repercussions, impinging upon the prerogatives and privileged positions of the higher estates.
The Theresian reforms are distinguished from those later undertaken by Joseph II by the absence of that doctrinaire inspiration which characterizes the latter. The distinction is evident especially in the ecclesiastical sphere. For Joseph II, to the perennial conflict between state and church was added the opposition of the “enlightenment of the age” to tradition and Catholic religion. The Empress, animated by sincere religious faith, did not share this new spirit. Ecclesiastical measures occur almost exclusively during the period of co-regency with her son: the initiative does not come from the Empress, who rather acts as a brake. While as a reforming sovereign she is prepared to assert the rights of the state against the church, as a believer she does not understand the religious sphere in the name of a philosophy entirely foreign to her. Yet she was unable to prevent the reforming zeal of her son and of Chancellor Kaunitz from exceeding purely political limits. Thus, alongside measures aimed at asserting state authority (placet regium, limitations on ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the right of asylum, etc.) and those of an economic-financial nature (measures against fiscal exemptions, mortmain; restriction of the purchasing power of ecclesiastical bodies, control over their administration, etc.), there were others that encroached upon the field of ecclesiastical organization, especially with regard to religious orders. The Enlightenment inspiration is clearly evident in the reform of education carried out after the expulsion of the Jesuits: the extraordinary Aulic Commission for Studies aimed to emancipate education from the hitherto predominant religious influence, giving it a secular character and subordinating it to the state.
The stance taken toward the Jesuits significantly reflects the character of Theresian policy. She did not desire their expulsion and deferred to papal decisions, yet her respect for the Pope’s will stopped short when political and financial interests were at stake.
The interest in the state was the constant norm of the Empress throughout the forty years of her reign. The “matriarchal” character of her politics represents the initial phase of the reforming period, in which the realistic element still prevails over the doctrinaire factor that would instead characterize the reign of her son, Joseph II.