Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 36. (1983)
COONS, Ronald E.: Reflections of a Josephinist. Two Addenda to count Franz Hartig's „Genesis der Revolution in Österreich im Jahre 1848”
Reflections of a Josephinist 221 genehm, mit Andern jetzt über die Sache sprechen zu müßen“ ®2). Given these testimonies, at least one conclusion is inescapable. If Archduchess Sophie and her family conspired against Metternich, she and her son did not exult in their first moments of success. In a brief introduction it is impossible thoroughly to evaluate Hartig’s addenda to the Genesis or to treat every problem of interpretation that arises. Nevertheless, enough has been said to indicate that the following discussions of Emperor Franz, Count Kolowrat, and Archduke Franz Karl merit attention even if their author occasionally draws misleading conclusions. Writing for his own satisfaction rather than for publication, Hartig reported what he as a well-informed bureaucrat believed to be true. He provides, therefore, insight into the values and the prejudices of the high bureaucracy of the Habsburg Monarchy during the closing years of the Vormärz. Himself experienced in affairs of state and conscientious in the performance of his duties, Hartig was highly critical of an egotistical monarch, a scheming official of the Staatskonferenz, and an inappropriately ambitious member of the imperial family, all of whom hindered bureaucrats in their difficult task of administering the diverse lands of the monarchy. Identifying, moreover, primarily with the central institutions of the state rather than with the political interests of the aristocracy into which he had been born, he opposed the provincial diets in their bid for greater power and influence. Profoundly conservative in his politics, he also opposed reforming the diets along the lines of western European parliamentary institutions 63). Finally, seemingly unaware of those concrete conditions which made the overthrow of the political system he served not only possible but even necessary 64), he saw the origins of the revolution of 1848 not in terms of social or economic forces but essentially in terms of personalities acting either individually or as members of distinct political entities. Therein lies Hartig’s chief weakness as an historian but his major strength as a contemporary source. What he overlooked helps explain why he and his colleagues were unable to save the monarchy from revolution in March 1848. Hartig’s manuscript is reproduced below with all its stylistic and orthographic idiosyncracies. Where individuals mentioned in the text require ®2) Geheime Notizen 138. The archduke’s reference is presumably to the tutoring in political matters which he had previously received from Metternich. os) Hartig’s post-revolutionary opposition to western constitutionalism is apparent, for example, from the views he expressed in his letter to Metternich of April 20, 1851 (Metternich—Hartig 96—97), in which he summarizes the arguments he advanced in his anonymously published pamphlet Nachgedanken des Publicisten Gotthelf Zurecht (Leipzig 1851). 64) Wolfgang Häusler Von der Massenarmut zur Arbeiterbewegung. Demokratie und soziale Frage in der Wiener Revolution von 1848 (Wien—München 1979) provides a discussion of the social and economic aspects of the revolution and of its origins.
