MARIA TERESA of Habsburg, EMPRESS. — Born in Vienna on 13 May 1717, died there on 29 November 1780. Daughter and heir of Emperor Charles VI, she married Francis Stephen of Lorraine (12 February 1736), giving rise to the Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty, the last reigning branch of the Habsburg dynasty. This marriage also gave rise to the so-called Habsburg «secondogeniture» of Tuscany, with the grand-ducal throne assigned to Francis of Lorraine (9 July 1737), to be transmitted in the cadet line.
The inheritance of the Habsburg dominions fell to M. T. by virtue of the Pragmatic Sanction issued by Charles VI on 19 April 1713, which established, in the absence of male heirs, direct female succession. However, upon her father’s death (20 October 1740), her rights were challenged by the husbands of the daughters of Joseph I, Charles VI’s predecessor: Charles Albert of Bavaria and Frederick Augustus of Saxony.
The European powers intervened in the War of the Austrian Succession, eager to diminish Habsburg power and enlarge their own possessions at its expense. After eight years, the conflict ended with the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle (18–23 October 1748). M. T. succeeded in preserving the unity, if not the integrity, of her ancestral possessions. Particularly significant was the loss of Silesia, ceded to Frederick II of Prussia, and the consequent blow to Habsburg prestige in Germany. Nevertheless, 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 September–4 October 1745).
After Aix-la-Chapelle, M. T.’s efforts were directed toward preparing revenge against the Prussian king. The ancient antagonism with the Bourbons was erased by the new one with the Hohenzollerns, and, out of hostility toward them, Kaunitz (v.) succeeded in transforming the traditional rivalry with France into an alliance (1 May 1756). Russia was also won over to the coalition. In the Seven Years’ War that followed (1756–63), however, Frederick II of Prussia succeeded in overcoming the trial. M. T.’s attempt to annihilate her German rival had failed: in German history, that Austro-Prussian dualism was opening which was to find its solution only a century later.
The appointment of her son Joseph II as co-regent, after the death of her husband (18 August 1765), reduced the Empress’s initiative in the field of foreign policy to a predominantly supervisory activity, exercised in a moderating sense. An important aspect of Theresian diplomacy lay in matrimonial policy, which achieved its most brilliant success in the marriage of Marie Antoinette to the Dauphin of France. The greatest political weight, however, was exercised by the Italian marriages: that of Maria Amalia to the Duke of Parma, that of Maria Carolina to the King of Naples, and that of Ferdinand to Maria Beatrice d’Este, which secured the duchy of Modena for a Habsburg third-born line, thus added to the «secondogeniture» of Este. Having secured direct or indirect influence over the entire peninsula, the Empress could speak of her «four Italian colonies».
M. T.’s historical importance is not exhausted by her task of saving the monarchy from dissolution and preserving its rank among the European powers. M. T. occupies an eminent place among the great reforming sovereigns, on account of 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 wars. Instead of resorting to the customary tax increases, the Empress addressed the problem of a radical revision of the system of collection, so as to make it more productive for the state and less burdensome for the taxpayer. A radical reform of the administration led to the overcoming of local particularisms and the strengthening of central power; the revision of the tax system, with the principle of proportionality of burdens and the elimination of exemptions, had important social repercussions, affecting the prerogatives and privileged positions of the higher estates.
The Theresian reforms differ from the subsequent reforms of Joseph II through the absence of that doctrinal inspiration which characterizes the latter. The distinction is particularly evident in the ecclesiastical sphere. For Joseph II, the age-old disagreement between Church and state was compounded by the opposition of the «lights of the century» to tradition and the Catholic religion. The Empress, animated by sincere religious faith, did not share this new spirit. Ecclesiastical measures were adopted almost exclusively during the period of her co-regency with her son: the initiative did not come from the Empress, who acted, rather, as a brake. If, as a reforming sovereign, she was prepared to assert the rights of the state against the Church, as a believer she did not understand the religious sphere in the name of a philosophy that remained entirely foreign to her. Nevertheless, she was unable to prevent the reforming zeal of her son and Chancellor Kaunitz from going beyond purely political limits. Thus, in addition to measures intended to affirm state authority (placet regio, limitations on ecclesiastical jurisdiction and the right of asylum, etc.) and those of an economic and financial nature (measures against tax exemptions and mortmain; restrictions on the purchasing power of ecclesiastical institutions, control of their administration, etc.), there were others that invaded the sphere of ecclesiastical organization, especially with regard to religious orders. The Enlightenment inspiration asserted itself clearly in the reform of education carried out after the expulsion of the Jesuits: the Extraordinary Court Commission for Studies aimed to emancipate the school from the religious influence that had hitherto predominated, in order to give it a secular character and subject it to the obedience of the state.
The attitude adopted toward the Jesuits significantly reflects the character of Theresian policy. She did not desire their expulsion and deferred to papal decisions, but her respect for the will of the Pontiff came to a halt before political and financial interests.
Concern for the state was the Empress’s constant guiding principle throughout the forty years of her reign. The «matriarchal» character of her policy represents the initial phase of the reforming period, in which the realistic element still prevailed over the doctrinal factor, which, by contrast, would give its tone to the reign of her son, Joseph II.