“Some of Distinction Here Are Warm for the Part of America”: Knowledge of and Sympathy for the American Cause in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1763–1783 Open Access

Abstract

In 1774 the British ambassador in Vienna complained that “every idle fellow talks of America.” By analyzing the quantifiable levels of knowledge about and reception of the American Revolution within Central Europe, this article examines the reasons behind this observation, not just in Vienna but across the Habsburg monarchy. Books, newspapers, diaries, personal correspondence, and theater works are used to demonstrate the fact that subjects in the Habsburg monarchy were not at all ignorant about events in late eighteenth-century North America. Moreover, this article reveals how this knowledge found a sympathetic audience in one of the most autocratic states in Europe.

Introduction

Subjects in the Habsburg monarchy were not ignorant about events in late eighteenth-century North America. In 1774 the British ambassador in Vienna, Sir Robert Murray Keith, complained that “every idle fellow talks of America.”¹ It was not just “idle fellows” and aristocrats who fixated on events in the American colonies, however. Throughout the Habsburg monarchy and across many societal strata, people became enamored with the latest developments from mainland America. Habsburg subjects developed a deep and nuanced understanding of the American Revolution in particular on par with that of other nations in Europe. This knowledge and reception of events in turn produced an affinity toward the revolutionary cause for certain circles within the Habsburg population—including, it is possible to say, some members of the imperial and royal family themselves.² When the American militia diplomat—an uninvited representative—William Lee arrived during the Revolutionary War, he jubilantly reflected on this sympathy and wrote home, “Some of distinction here are warm for the part of America.”³ How and why did such a sentiment develop in the Habsburg monarchy? This article argues that the profusion of American material that professed a sympathetic view toward the American cause and that came to audiences at all societal levels throughout the Habsburg lands is responsible.

This piece examines this pattern not just in Vienna but across the Habsburg monarchy by analyzing the quantifiable levels of knowledge about and reception of the American Revolution within Central Europe. Books, newspapers, diaries, personal correspondence, and their networks are used to demonstrate the considerable knowledge of North American events across the Habsburg realm. The first section addresses the mediums through which Habsburg subjects learned about North America and the unfolding revolutionary drama of the 1770s. Transmission occurred not only through printed material—in the form of smuggled books or domestic and foreign newspapers—but also through personal contacts with Americans whose correspondence was shared among a wide range of people. In this regard the personal letters between Jan IngenHousz in Vienna and Benjamin Franklin in Paris are used extensively as a case study.

These avenues of transmission were key to the development of a supportive sentiment. This knowledge transformed a curious audience into a group of American sympathizers in one of the most autocratic states in Europe. These sentiments exist in the writings and actions of several prominent Habsburg subjects, and in a second section of the article, an analysis of Franklin's wider Habsburg correspondent network uncovers proof of these surprising expressions of support for the American cause. People in the Habsburg monarchy not only obtained a substantial understanding of the American Revolution but also reacted positively toward its outcome.

I. The Transmission of Knowledge

Printed Americana: Books, Newspapers, and Periodicals

In the eighteenth century the printed word counted as one of the most effective means of communication. The contemporary historian David Ramsay famously noted in his first chronicle of the American Revolution, “in establishing American Independence, the pen and press had merit equal to that of the sword.”⁴ The minds of revolutionaries in North America reached the inhabitants of the Habsburg monarchy through books, newspapers, and periodicals containing Americana.

Newspapers functioned as the greatest means of dissemination about the American Revolution. At least fourteen newspapers in operation across the Habsburg monarchy printed coverage of North America. Some were national organs, like the Wienerisches Diarium; some dealt with domestic news, like the Provinzialnachrichten; and some focused on poetry, literature, and the arts. Combined together, these newspapers crossed the Habsburg monarchy so that an individual in every corner of the empire could read or hear about news from across the Atlantic in a variety of languages. No Habsburg newspaper had a direct correspondent in North America, however. Instead news was obtained from other German papers based in Hamburg and Hanover, which in turn were informed by publications in London, Paris, and Amsterdam. This meant that “even under the most favorable conditions an American event could be known in only about six weeks after its occurrence.”⁵

The newspapers that enjoyed quasi-state support or were based in the regional metropolises, such as Vienna and Pressburg (Bratislava), cropped passages from the international papers or from each other. International newspapers like the famous Gazette de Leyde and the pro-American Gazette Warszawska were read also in Vienna and across the monarchy. Precision naturally suffered from reprinting these sources, which were “inaccurate, incomplete, or simply propaganda of a rumour that had arisen elsewhere” into one coherent narrative.⁶ Separating fact from fiction was a tricky process, and some inaccuracies went into print.

Unfamiliar names, places, or terms also troubled editors. Habsburg readers, therefore, became familiar with regular figures like “Syrus Deane” and “John Hankok,” reported president of the “Amerikanische Stände”—a term often muddled to mean estates, assemblies, and sometimes just states.⁷ Some fared worse than suffering misspellings. Franklin's age at one point was inflated by thirteen years, “although his vivacity makes him appear as a sixty-year-old.”⁸ The most notable error concerned George Washington, however, the believed “dictator of the American states for six months,” who received several premature obituaries.⁹ Despite delays and inaccuracies, these newspapers performed a vital function and became an undeniable conduit of information about the American Revolution. Even one of Benjamin Franklin's closest friends who resided in the Habsburg monarchy first learned the “astonishing news” of Franklin's return to Europe in 1777 from the local Viennese press.¹⁰

The most prolific newspaper on American events was the Wienerisches Diarium—later renamed the Wiener Zeitung—which satisfied “an intense interest in the events of the American Revolution,” in the words of historian Paul Köpf.¹¹ The twice-weekly publication was the most circulated in Habsburg lands and held the privilege of being the official state newspaper, but this honor also earned closer scrutiny from court censors. The newspaper's editor, Konrad Dominik Bartsch, was a well-connected man who knew English and displayed some liberal tendencies. His correspondence with more radical jurists in Hungary, such as József Hajnóczy, belies the neutrality of his editorship as he often sought out American political texts.¹² Hence the Wienerisches Diarium began coverage of disturbances in the British colonies early on, though always superficially without comment—partly from fear of censorship but also to stay true to protojournalistic impartiality.¹³

The American Revolution occupied a huge proportion of the newspaper's output in the 1770s and 1780s; from the first news about the Boston Tea Party published in 1774 to the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781, around thirty-five hundred pages described the unfolding events in intricate detail.¹⁴ Much of this material came from British newspapers, but Bartsch was careful to avoid the biases associated with such sources. As a result, the Wienerisches Diarium utilized reports from both pro- and antigovernment newspapers such as the favorable London Gazette and the critical London Evening Post. The latter reproduced original American newspaper entries, which Bartsch also reprinted for Viennese readership. In April 1779, the first separate “American News” section premiered in the newspaper.¹⁵

This enabled the Wienerisches Diarium to disseminate actual Americana to its wide audience within the Habsburg monarchy. The earliest piece came in late December 1774, when the newspaper published a translation of Summary View of the Rights of British America by “Herr Jefferson.” This was also the first mention of Jefferson's name in the Habsburg monarchy.¹⁶ In the opening months of 1775, two more pieces followed: the full fourteen articles of the Continental Association appeared in the edition of January 14th, and on February 4th, the paper featured an Address to the people of Great Britain sent by the Continental Congress.¹⁷ In October 1775, another of Jefferson's writings, this time developed by John Dickinson as the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms, appeared in translation and was followed by Franklin's Articles of Confederation, which received mention a week later and finally received publication in late January 1776.¹⁸ This Americana contained explanations for their grievances with Great Britain. The fact that the official newspaper of the Habsburg monarchy published these accounts is astonishing since it came without hindrance from the censors.

Yet it is possible to see certain limits in their publication, either as the result of censorship or as self-censorship. For example, when the Articles of Confederation was published, Article 1, which declared the new name for the emerging political unit as “the United Colonies of North America,” was omitted. Another clear instance can be seen in the discussions of migration across the Atlantic. Before 1776, Atlantic migration to North America was a common topic in the newspaper.¹⁹ However, these references abruptly stopped, and no mentions of any migration featured at all between 1776 and 1781.²⁰ Just as old books regarding travel or depictions of America became prohibited, the news also felt the level of censorship once the protests turned to violent rebellion and bloody revolution.

Only once, however, did the newspaper cause problems with its coverage of the American Revolution. A piece published in the edition from December 20, 1777 came to be known as the “American Catechism,” which outlined the then-radical reactions to the British struggle to reinstate control. The offending article featured a question-and-answer format that posed ideological questions to the rebellious Americans. The first asked, “Why do you fight the King of England?” and was answered, “He has begun it, we merely protect ourselves.” The next asked, “Why do you disobey him? Answer: Because that which he asks of us is unjust,” followed by “Question: Had you not sworn him your loyalty though? Answer: He had sworn to make us happy [and] by breaking his solemn oath he has relieved us of ours.” The final exchange proved the most alarming. “Question: But what shall pass if you should be defeated? Answer: We would set everything ablaze and kill ourselves, our women and children.” Bartsch knew such seditious comments would not be tolerated and so published them as part of an editorial to highlight the delusions of the American cause. “How easily political fanaticism could lead entire populations dangerously astray,” argued the accompaniment, “through the misguided notions of the rights of rulers and subjects is shown in the following extract of a catechism placed in the hands of the common folks of several disruptive American colonies.”²¹

When this edition reached Maria Theresa, however, she was incensed that such an article had been passed through the censors. Joseph II agreed in thinking it was improper to disseminate an article that clearly challenged the authority of monarchy. Count Christian August von Seilern, the then-governor of Lower Austria and previously the ambassador in London, sympathized with the article's message and attempted to reason with the monarchs, insisting that their monarchical authority had not been questioned.²² He tried in vain. The newspaper had done no good in showing the disillusionment of the colonists by including such incendiary remarks in the first place, and its transgressions brought on an even higher level of scrutiny.

Bartsch attempted to temper any biases toward the American situation by informing the public about the reaction in Great Britain as often as he could. Naturally, this occurred because of the availability of sources, but if we look at the amount of British content reprinted in full, it is still possible to see a greater tendency toward the American perspective. Between 1774 and 1776, for example, the Diarium featured only two major documents from the British side: the Proclamation of Rebellion from August 1775, and the discussions regarding the Olive Branch Petition, which Bartsch presented across three lengthy articles in late September and early October that year.²³ Combined with a rising number of sources selected indirectly from American newspapers, the American voice sounded louder in Vienna than the British one owing to the sheer volume of reprinted Americana.

A case in point arose from the classic debate over who shot first at the Battle of Lexington and Concord. Like many of his contemporary editors across Europe, Bartsch found it difficult to determine who exactly was to blame, the British or the American patriots. Interestingly, Bartsch chose an American newspaper as his trusted source on the exact details of the encounter. This source, cited as the “Salemzeitung,” was in fact the Essex Gazette of Salem, Massachusetts, where the edition from April 25th laid the start of the conflict squarely with “the troops under the command of General Gage.”²⁴ Although Bartsch explained on June 21st that British forces resolved “not to fire first” and to act with “all possible tenderness,” the Diarium edition from June 24th clarified the Essex Gazette version of the clash.²⁵ Viennese readers therefore believed the British were the cause of the bloodshed that was to flow from the fields in Massachusetts.

The general rhetoric around the early stages of the American Revolution also fostered more sympathies for the American cause. One of the earliest reports from January 1774 in the wake of the Boston Tea Party described the reasoning of the Americans behind the protests. “The colonies claim,” the Diarium reported, “they were just as free as the inhabitants of England” before the introduction of particular duties and taxes.²⁶ This expression of sympathy toward the American side of the conflict also shined that year when the newspaper covered Franklin's resignation as a colonial agent and postmaster general after the humiliating treatment by Alexander Wedderburn. Unlike the majority of the British press, which vilified Franklin's obvious siding with the colonists, the first mentions of “Herr Francklin” in the Diarium relating to the revolution praised him as “a rare example in these turbulent times.”²⁷ Less than a week later another article reflected the Americans' resolve “to all die rather than to become slaves.”²⁸ These sentiments portrayed the revolutionary resistance as a justified and rather dignified undertaking in a population increasingly interested in the outcome.

This interest and sentiment was further reinforced by the continued coverage and republication of Americana in the Diarium. In 1776 Bartsch printed excerpts from “Brief eines Pachters,” which was the translated version of John Dickinson's Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania.²⁹ The most popular radical tract, Common Sense, received mention, but its authenticity came into question since most editors on both sides of the Atlantic struggled to identify the correct author. In the end, Bartsch only felt confident enough to attribute the text to “Herr Adams,” but without stipulating which one.³⁰

The same caution came when the most sensitive issue arose, the Declaration of Independence. First news of a sort of announcement came in mid-August 1776, but on August 17th, Bartsch relayed to the Viennese, “We have news from America, which reports that the General Congress has finally declared itself independent with a small majority.”³¹ The fact that Congress's adoption was unanimous and only New York abstained was lost on the Diarium. The Declaration was not immediately reproduced. On August 31st, only the concluding paragraph appeared, and it wasn't until several weeks later that the immortal lines of the preamble featured in the newspaper's edition of September 11th, 1776.³² The substantive body of the Declaration, the parts that enumerated the grievances against King George III, were omitted entirely. Despite these missing passages, the publication of the most ideological segments is still considerable.

The Wienerisches Diarium exemplifies many of the issues of coverage, attribution, and censorship that editors of other newspapers experienced. While it is not possible to discuss each newspaper in detail in this article, some summary points are worthy of mention. First, Hungary was well supplied with news about the American Revolution, more so than the rest of the Habsburg monarchy. The kingdom featured the German-language newspaper Pressburger Zeitung and two Hungarian-language newspapers, Magyar Hírmondo, founded in 1780, and the Magyar Kurir, founded in 1786. All newspapers provided Hungarian speakers with news about the revolution and its aftermath in their respective languages. Together, the level of coverage of these three papers matched that of the Wienerisches Diarium and rivaled its analysis.

The Pressburger Zeitung maintained different correspondent networks across Europe than the Wienerisches Diarium and featured news from the more liberal papers in Poland. This network led to an even wider variation of news about the American Revolution to be disseminated. At points, the Pressburger Zeitung produced more news than the official Diarium, as evidenced in the chart below. The Hírmondo also consistently featured Americana. The first article published after a change in editors in 1784 testifies to this as the new incoming editor remarked, “A few short years ago, our Magyar Hírmondo's coverage of the newly established American Commonwealth was comprehensive nearly on a daily basis; let us not forget this.”³³ Ferenc Kazinczy, the famous Hungarian author and later revolutionary Jacobin, also praised the paper's importance in this regard, stating, “What be our gatherings in villages until now than mere discussion of which hound is more worthy, the tan or the black, and what number among us knew whether the Atlantic Ocean lies East or West?”³⁴

Periodicals focused on literature, arts, and general interest items also informed the populace about North America. In Vienna, several of these publications produced Americana for their readers. The Wiener Realzeitung printed vivid descriptions of the key American cities and also passed judgment on the extraordinary events across the Atlantic, such as in 1776 when it remarked that “the current conflict of Pennsylvania shows how quickly a colony can create a bloody situation for itself.”³⁵ Another periodical, the Historisches Portfeuille, reproduced several personal letters of the American diplomat Silas Deane outlining the zeal and healthiness of the emerging American state.³⁶ In November 1782, the periodical also featured a biographical sketch of George Washington.³⁷

Books published by Americans or foreign writers often wound up on the official censor's prohibitive list; between 1776 and 1800, thirty such texts that dealt with a direct American theme were banned.³⁸ Ten of these texts were banned during the Revolutionary War and immediately after the United States became a sovereign nation. In 1776 three books entered the list under the second-strongest grade of “damnatur” (prohibited). These texts had been previously available and published as far back as 1752, showing that the escalation of the conflict in North America brought about a restriction of general American themes. This reasoning is obvious. Each of these books contained escapades in North America that relayed the sense of excitement in the New World and touched on themes of emigration or adventure. A later piece told the story of an “American refugee”—in other words a loyalist—that the censors suppressed. Discussion of violence breaking out in the colonies was forbidden. All other pieces dealt with the political situation of the Americans and explained or sympathized with their cause in some way.

The first political tract to deal directly with the American Revolution was the eight-volume Letters Concerning the Current Discord Between the American Colonies and the English Parliament, published in German by an unknown author in 1776, which the authorities banned in the following year. Another homegrown piece written in German, entitled Regarding North America and Democracy – A Letter from England, was equally discouraged. The greater threat, however, lay in translated works, which made up the bulk of prohibited Americana during wartime. The translated volume of Scottish writer William Russell's History of America, which included a sympathetic account of the revolution so far, along with images of revolutionary leaders like Franklin and Washington, received a ban within a year of the German edition. The most incendiary must have been the translation of Samuel Adams's American Independence speech given at Philadelphia in 1776. It circulated in the German-speaking lands from 1778 before being banned in 1780. American-authored texts were never allowed through the censors. As such the periodical collection by journalist Christian Daniel Ebeling, called the “American Library,” was banned almost as soon as it appeared.³⁹

The full list of prohibited Habsburg Americana is revealing of the wider position of the Habsburg elites toward the stirrings of the American Revolution. Clearly censors wished to shield the literate populace from works that either showed personal mobility between the Old and New Worlds or espoused sympathetic explanations of the revolt by colonists. The absence of some works is also telling. Translations of works by revolutionaries like Franklin, the most noted figure of the revolution, did not receive a retrograde ban by the authorities as other authors suffered. Indeed none of Franklin's works were banned until Polly Baker in 1794 and his autobiography, translated into French, in 1798. Key texts such as Paine's Common Sense earned a ban only in the 1790s, and a work like Dickinson's Letters from a Farmer were completely legal in the Habsburg monarchy. This can be explained only by an ignorance of the most influential works by the censors or a very radical departure from their entrusted duties. Either way, this allowed for pivotal and radical American texts to proliferate within Habsburg readership. Paine's “sparks from the altar” certainly landed in Vienna.

The proliferation of smuggled books or censors turning a blind eye out of personal interest or bribes meant there were more books that also came into Habsburg readers' hands. From this underground method even original American texts found their way past the censors and checkpoints. These texts often relied on personal connections or came through the trading zones. At Trieste, the main Habsburg port on the Adriatic Sea, the governor himself obtained John Dickinson's Letters of a Farmer as well as a fresh copy of William Robertson's History of America. After he had poured over Thomas Paine's Common Sense, he excitedly noted in his diary that it “was written to draw fire against the King of England.”⁴⁰

Translation into the vernacular often filled the void for individuals who could not comprehend English or French works about the American Revolution. Between 1763 and 1783, around two hundred books appeared in German about the New World.⁴¹ One of the most translated American authors was Benjamin Franklin. His scientific writings permeated throughout the intelligentsia of Central Europe. In Habsburg-controlled Milan, the polymath Carlo Amoretti published passages from Franklin's Poor Richard's Almanac from a manuscript he received personally.⁴² Two years later the same passages appeared from Johann Ferdinand Baumgartner, who published the earliest Austrian selection of the almanac as Das Mittel reich zu werden – deutlich erwiesen in einer vorrede eines alten Almanachs aus Pennsylvannien. Translations of Franklin's texts secured his early fame as an enlightened thinker from across the Atlantic in Central Europe. Translations of his pamphlets were deposited in the Imperial Court Library, now the Austrian National Library, where they still reside. In 1792 a compendium listing the most notable places in Vienna for inhabitants and foreigners featured the library's extensive collections and highlighted the “American writings from the actual symbols and figures mentioned in Robertson's History of America.”⁴³ Franklin's notoriety as a polymath and thinker meant not only that vast swaths of the Habsburg populace became aware of him but also that he came to embody the revolution and thereby lent to it an enlightened credibility.

Private and Public Spheres: Letters, Salons, and Plays

Personal correspondence functioned as the other main artery for transmission of American ideas and pro-American sentiment. Private letters sent through personal networks were instrumental in ensuring this connection, but at the same time the prominence of American figures also ushered in a wave of interaction between adherents of liberty. Franklin in this regard became the embodiment of the revolution, and letters soon flooded to him from across the Habsburg monarchy. Historians of Franklin's written networks have paid extensive attention to his correspondents in Western Europe, with considerable research focusing on his “London years” (1757–1775). But his furthest contacts in Central and Eastern Europe remain obscured.⁴⁴

From 1772 to 1789, Franklin received at least 177 letters from forty-eight people who were either born, lived, or wrote from within the Habsburg monarchy. Notorious for never keeping up with his vast correspondence, Franklin replied to only thirteen of these individuals, in approximately fifty letters.⁴⁵ While Franklin replied mostly in English and sometimes instructed his secretary to respond in French on occasion, the most popular language of his Habsburg correspondence received was written in French (around 58%), followed by Latin (9%) as well as German (2%) and Italian (1%). English was a well-commanded language amongst Habsburg onlookers, and around 30 percent of them chose to pen their letters in English. Moreover, when compiled together it becomes immediately apparent that letters crossed the borders with some ease. Throughout the War of American Independence, Franklin received on average fourteen letters per year from Habsburg authors. The biggest spike came in 1783 since news of peace ushered in numerous letters of congratulations from Habsburg supporters.

Dr. Jan IngenHousz, who received half of Franklin's total replies and sent over a third of his Habsburg mail, was by far Franklin's most prolific contact in terms of letters sent and received by him. Franklin and IngenHousz enjoyed a close friendship since they first met in London thanks to their common scientific interests. IngenHousz, a Dutch-born experimenter, had successfully trialed inoculations against smallpox that, thanks to the Habsburg ambassador in London, won the favor of Maria Theresa, who invited him to Vienna to inoculate the imperial family and serve as the court physician. Despite his relocation, IngenHousz remained in touch with his London contacts, and so the correspondence with Franklin from Vienna stretched some fifteen years from 1773 to 1788. Though scientific endeavors were a frequent theme in their writing, they also talked politics or the progress of the war. In addition to scientific texts, IngenHousz often pressed Franklin for political tracts and treatises that were not available in Vienna. Despite its imbalance—Franklin penned twenty-seven replies to IngenHousz's sixty-one letters—this correspondence provides a unique and fascinating perspective into how Americana was transmitted privately within the Habsburg monarchy.

In several letters, IngenHousz outlined the methods needed to continue their interaction. The use of bankers, especially IngenHousz's favored firm Tourton & Baur at Paris, became one of the most trusted methods.⁴⁶ IngenHousz first recommended this tactic in June 1777 but argued that word of mouth was “safer in the present circumstances, as they could search my pockets and find letters which they could suspect.”⁴⁷ A few months later he suggested to Franklin, “It would be safer to put a fictitious name under your letters.”⁴⁸ IngenHousz clearly understood the consequences and risks involved with corresponding with his friend-turned-revolutionary. In February 1781, IngenHousz feared sabotage or censorship since, he explained to Franklin, “now they know that I am known and correspond with a man of such a great public concern as you are.”⁴⁹

As a result, IngenHousz imposed stricter measures on their correspondence and stated he would write only unaddressed letters to Franklin via Tourton & Baur but requested of him “that either your grandson or some of your own people (but no servants, who are too often unfaithful and paid by the police) deliver the letter in hands of Mr. Tourton himself or his son.” He even warned Franklin, “Your letter must be shut with a wafer … [and] without any direction, which Mr. Tourton will write upon it as I will with this post inform him.”⁵⁰ IngenHousz was not aware Franklin simply neglected to write to him at times.

The most secure lines IngenHousz arranged through the diplomatic channels and the use of official couriers who routinely operated between Paris and Vienna. The Habsburg ambassador at Paris, Count Mercy-D'Argenteau, proved the most stable throughout this period. Franklin informed IngenHousz in June 1782 that “the Imperial Ambassador has had the Goodness two or three times to offer the Conveyance of Letters,” which went against Mercy-D'Argenteau's protocol but reveals his sympathies in contrast to other Habsburg representatives like Belgiojoso.⁵¹ Mercy-D'Argenteau likely helped the bulk of their wartime correspondence and for this reason IngenHousz confided to Franklin, “Letters delivered to Count Mercy will surely Come to hand.”⁵²

Yet even this mode of transmission was not entirely safe once it arrived in Vienna. In early 1784, IngenHousz made a stark discovery. “I got a few days ago three parcels of American newspapers and the Pennsylvania Almanac which you did send me a year and a half ago. It was kept all that time in the Custom house at Vienna though I had inquired about it. I complained immediately of this misconduct to the ministry and they gave me the satisfaction of reprimanding the last house officers and establishing such new regulations as will very likely put a stop to such negligence in those transactions.”⁵³ The rest of his letter relays the more covert methods his network employed to import Americana into the Habsburg monarchy and under the noses of the censors. “As I suspected this misconduct to exist, I have, a long while ago solicited from Mercy to wrap a cover over each parcel directed to me, to seal it and direct it A Monsieur de Spielman Chevalier de l'ordre de Saint Etienne, conceilier anlique de cour et d'etat. This gentleman receiving first all the paper receives then my parcels among them, and sends them to me directly.”⁵⁴ IngenHousz's details here are significant. Baron Anton von Spielman worked at the very heart of the Habsburg administration and held a powerful role among courtiers as chief secretary to both the state chancellor and the imperial vice chancellor. His complicity in IngenHousz's scheme not only highlights the level of sympathy but also demonstrates the need for such powerful allies—court secretaries, ambassadors and so on—in order to be able to transmit and secure access to Americana.

Despite the delays, IngenHousz was well supplied with Americana and firsthand news about the American Revolution throughout the war. Even Franklin's remarks about the progress of his fellow patriots provided IngenHousz with unrivaled knowledge. As early as 1776, IngenHousz requested this service of his friend and explained the reason why it was so important. “I may expect the favour of a few lines and be informed of the state of your health, and of that degree of happiness or unhappiness which may at that period of time have befallen your country; that I may be qualify'd to give some satisfactory answer to those illustrious persons, who very often inquire about you, and ask whether and what news I got from you, [with] whom they know I have been so many years intimately acquainted.”⁵⁵ In essence IngenHousz quenched the thirst of his “illustrious” friends at court in Vienna for news about the American Revolution. Over the course of the Revolutionary War, IngenHousz supplied many circles with the latest gossip and reports from Franklin. Table conversations were a usual manner through which he relayed information to his audience. IngenHousz seems to have cultivated this following from even before he received news from Franklin. A diary entry from the celebrated diarist and prominent courtier Count Karl von Zinzendorf described a conversation “with Ingenhousz about the colonies, [where] he explained the origins of the conflict to me.”⁵⁶ Franklin complied with IngenHousz's requests throughout the war and, as we saw above, even provided him with American newspapers both in English and German for IngenHousz to disseminate among the court at Vienna.

IngenHousz shared his channel with Franklin beyond the lower ranks of the court to the very highest levels of Habsburg government and even with the monarchs themselves. As a confidant of Maria Theresa, IngenHousz, as he explained to Franklin, reported directly to “to [his] Imperial Mistress some pieces of news or some particular intelligences or reflexions upon the present affaires of the world which she could not so well be informed of by her own ministers,” and for this information IngenHousz requested Franklin “to communicate to me sometimes some information which may interest her and keep her in good humour towards me.”⁵⁷ This appeal came in 1777 as IngenHousz was abroad in the Netherlands and Great Britain to give the celebrated Baker lectures at the Royal Society, so his motive seems to have been more about informing the Habsburg monarch rather than in keeping her personal favor. Franklin's replies are presumed lost, but he did respond to his friend's wishes.⁵⁸ On December 29th, 1777, IngenHousz forwarded a long report to one of the queen's secretaries, Baron Karl Joseph von Pichler, which summarized Franklin's letter. This report clearly differed from the usual gossip-news of the revolution as IngenHousz knew his receiver's interests; it made clear the war atrocities committed by the British, the losses of their Hessian recruits, and the significant victory of the American army at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. One line most evidently spoke directly to a ruler rather than a courtier. “If America without England can become formidable, what would become of England combined again with America? Those who know the natural insolence of the British Nation will think that the common interest of Europe is to keep these two nations separate.”⁵⁹ IngenHousz's familiarity with the highest echelons of Habsburg power, combined with his proximity to Franklin, provided an intermediary link between an American revolutionary and a Habsburg ruler that no other nation in Europe could surpass. Even at the Court of France, the American ambassadors had to wait for an invitation to speak with the French king; in Vienna their desired words could be translated and delivered personally to the Habsburg monarchs.

IngenHousz continued this avenue of dissemination throughout the War of American Independence. Around the same time, he penned for the queen his own reflections, entitled Remarques sur les affaires presente de l'Amérique septentrionale. This lengthy treatise dealt primarily with the dispute between Lord Wedderburn and Franklin in the infamous Cockpit Trial and defended Franklin's reputation by repudiating the common allegations in England that he devised the whole colonial uprising. Instead, IngenHousz argued, the mistreatment by the English Parliament was the real “source of discord and of the current insurrection.” This essay was another tract clearly meant for Maria Theresa as well as the wider court since it also concluded that the defense of American rights was a matter for all of Europe to be concerned with, especially the Habsburg monarchy.⁶⁰ IngenHousz provided a store of information like this to Maria Theresa. At certain points he wrote short reports on his correspondence with Franklin, whereas at other times he forwarded translations of Franklin's works.⁶¹ One report he completed in 1782 based on a lost letter of Franklin's is also missing.⁶² In 1783, he possibly penned his final account of the conflict.⁶³

IngenHousz's high-level dissemination of pro-American news did not end with Maria Theresa's death in 1780. In 1782 he wrote to Franklin, “I read the article of your American [news] to the first Lord of the Bedchambre [Count von Hatzfeld] and gave him a translation of it in French for the Emperour [Joseph II].” In the same reply he also told how he used the latest letter to counteract the fake reports—“for some English people here so flattering”—that the United States had broken its alliance with France and Spain.⁶⁴ IngenHousz and many of his followers turned to Franklin's authority when faced with devastating news about Benedict Arnold's defection, which was reported in the local press. IngenHousz a few days later wrote “I am astonished at gen. Arnold's defection, and wish to know the conditions which were contracted between him and Gen. Clinton, which conditions will disclose the true motifs of so extraordinary a treachery. What impression has this event made in the minds of the Americans?”⁶⁵ Franklin's reply enabled IngenHousz to downplay the defection since Franklin noted that Arnold “tried to draw others after him, but in vain not a Man followed him”, and instead made clear to IngenHousz that Arnold's “effigies [were] treated at Philadelphia.”⁶⁶ Pro-American explanations like this helped rehabilitate the American position amongst courtiers reading the headlines.

It is important to remember Franklin's messages reverberated beyond Jan IngenHousz. Acquired texts were not retained by just one person. A common feature of the eighteenth century was the lending of popular texts among friends or visitors to private collections and libraries. Furthermore, many of these texts were read in groups or discussed after reading at dinner tables. It is hard to calculate the effective reach of a particular work, but its footprint surely existed beyond the recorded mention of one individual reader or owner. Salons were an instrumental space for this transference, and their emergence occurred earlier in the same period under the reign of Maria Theresa.

In Vienna some of the most notable salons were Anglophone. Two countesses, Maria Wilhelmine von Thun and Philippine Gabriele von Pergen—particularly notable as the former lover of Joseph II and wife of the head of the secret police Count Johann Anton von Pergen, respectively—kept prominent English-speaking salons. One English visitor of the time commented, “No capital in Europe can produce … minds more liberal and enlarged, than the Countesses Thun and Pergen: the houses of both are rendezvous of every person who pretends to refinement, and form the best resource for the English [speaker] during their stay in this capital.”⁶⁷ The salons formed some of the most well-connected sites of transmission where courtiers, nobility, and foreign diplomats met and where conversation tended toward events of the day. The events breaking out in North America naturally piqued the attention at such salons, and discussions spread among women who participated within the court circles there. Overwhelmingly these Anglophone salons became enamored with the American cause.

The fact that Anglophone salons existed also points toward the comprehension of English within Vienna and the wider Habsburg monarchy. Professors in Prague, Salzburg, and Kassa analyzed English texts, and notable courtiers such as Zinzendorf—the Trieste governor and reader of Paine, Dickinson, and Robertson—as well as prominent bankers such as Count Moritz von Fries spoke and read well in English. The wife of Count von Fries, likewise, commanded strong English skills and penned a friendly letter to Benjamin Franklin in that language rather than the fashionable French.⁶⁸ She was not alone; around one-third of the correspondence from Habsburg-based authors to Franklin chose to write in or demonstrated some command of English. In this sense linguistic ability was not only an enabler for readership but also a means to an affinity for the new republic.

Moreover, these sympathetic salons had close ties to the monarchs, another avenue through which American sympathies came to them. Emperor Joseph II himself was known to frequent several salons. One of his closest friends, Count Joseph Nicholas Windisch-Grätz, showed sympathetic tendencies toward the American Revolution and socialized with the emperor in an informal circle or societé alongside many prominent courtiers during the 1770s and 1780s. This group discussed various aspects of the arts and sciences but especially the political developments of the day. Although little direct evidence remains of their personal discussions, the American Revolution would have certainly come up in conversation. Windisch-Grätz showed an interest in American affairs, as IngenHousz mentioned to Franklin that he “received some American newspapers by Count Windischgrätz.”⁶⁹ Rather than simply a digester, he was one of the disseminators at the Viennese court. His likely source was Franklin himself, whom the count corresponded with during the 1780s, primarily to exchange such manuscripts and to promote his own essays tracts.

Another prominent circle within Joseph II's social life was the societé formed around the “five princesses” and known as the “Charmed Circle,” which featured the wives and princesses of some of the most noble houses in the Habsburg monarchy.⁷⁰ Joseph II frequented this group, often bringing along his two other stars of the court, Field Marshall Franz Moritz Lacy and Count Franz Xaver Orisini-Rosenberg. The Charmed Circle met four times a week to discuss politics both foreign and domestic. Here again the American Revolution was of great interest, and disagreements between the aristocratic women and men of the court sometimes broke out. The most prominent member of the five dames, Eleonore Liechtenstein, even questioned the policy of Habsburg neutrality and lambasted the emperor and his courtiers for not having taken a side in the conflict. As she noted, the Russians and the French had done so.⁷¹

Another of the princesses, Eleonore's sister-in-law Leopoldine Liechtenstein, enjoyed a friendship with Lady Juliana Penn, the daughter-in-law of Pennsylvania founder William Penn, whose loyalist family estates were confiscated in the War of American Independence without compensation. Lady Penn protested to little avail but even wrote to Princess Leopoldine Liechtenstein to ask if she could arrange any protection or compensation from the emperor himself.⁷² Such familiar and tightknit aristocratic connections, both across the Atlantic and within the court, ensured greater reception of the American Revolution in Vienna from both sides of the conflict.

The elites who frequented salons also socialized within theatrical spaces, and here too they found themselves exposed to the American cause since the visual arts acted as a great transmitter of Americana. Culturally the Habsburg monarchy was a confluence of many artistic centers that were being impressed by American revolutionary ideals. In this way it has been claimed that Vienna, in particular, “participated in the formation of a modern Viennese-European-Atlantic network foreshadowing our present global age.”⁷³ There, Joseph II established the National Theatre as a vehicle for educating the masses. These lessons often contained overtones related to the revolutionary ideals of America, and plays commonly introduced, cemented, or problematized the popular perception of the New World during this period. The playwright Joseph Marius Babo, for example, penned Das Winterquartier in Amerika in 1778 with the line “aber hier, die gutherzigen, frommen Leute um Freiheit, Vermögen und Leben!” (but here, the good-hearted people enjoy freedom, wealth, and life!). Both Niccolò Piccinni's L'Americano (1772) and Voltaire's Alzire ou les Americains (1736) were performed throughout the Habsburg lands, not just in Vienna.⁷⁴ At Prague, Johann Albrecht wrote two revolutionary-themed plays, Die Befreyung and Die Engländer in Amerika. And at the Esterházy court in Eisenstadt just outside Vienna, the famous composer Joseph Haydn set music to a new libretto of Il Mondo della Luna, which contained the lines “Reason sits in the heart, [as] Queen of Thoughts” (Rafion nell'alma siede, regina dei pensieri) and in which the main protagonist, a nobleman, is taken allegorically to an egalitarian society on the moon.

II. The Extent of Reception and Sympathy

In his correspondence with Franklin, IngenHousz made endless mentions of “illustrious persons” who begged him for information about the American Revolution, and by 1783 such inquisitions had come from “people of every rank.”⁷⁵ Their expressions of constant interest reflected the level of knowledge about American Revolution's cause, development, and consequences, which saturated public and private discourse in the Habsburg monarchy. From their digestion of the facts, Habsburg inhabitants from across society, not just among elites, became increasingly enamored with the events unfolding in North America. Feelings of curiosity became sentiments of sympathy. People in the Habsburg monarchy not only followed the American Revolution but were also deeply supportive of its primary cause and purpose, namely, the overturning of tyranny and the establishment of a more enlightened democratic state. Here we will examine exactly who these “illustrious” sympathizers “of every rank” were and why they were drawn to such a seemingly diametrically opposed American cause.

One of the clearest overviews of American sympathizers in the Habsburg monarchy comes from the letters that many of them felt compelled to write to Franklin. Few requests for information or assistance to join the revolutionary war were met by a response from Franklin; however, the act of sending a letter itself shows the seriousness with which his correspondents took their interest in the American Revolution. In this sense even the very existence of such communication reveals a level of sympathy. Moreover, one letter could contain many voices. Letters passed on compliments from others who did not write directly to Franklin themselves. From the 177 letters Franklin received from Habsburg correspondents, a majority (40%) came from nineteen Austrian authors, followed by eight Tuscans and seven Hungarians. An overwhelming majority of these correspondents wrote with a request. From these letters it is possible to group together individuals by nationality and social rank in order to see the distribution of sympathy across the Habsburg monarchy. Two groups from this network are discussed in this article: the intelligentsia and the imperial courtiers.

Intelligentsia

Doctors, or learned men, communicated their sympathies to Franklin and offered to use their intelligence for the good of the new republic or to buy passage through their potential usefulness. Some of them, like Dr. Henri Thibaut Hennessienne, who was secretary to the French ambassador in Vienna, came across as a fraudster with his supposed discovery of “neutralised gunpowder,” which he was willing to trade for settlement in America or 8,000 florins.⁷⁶ Another, Dr. Jakob Oberleithner from Vienna, had similarly self-interested motives in 1778 when he shared with Franklin his belief the war would increase the need for qualified doctors like himself. He offered to help for a prearranged salary.⁷⁷ Some had rather more humble objectives in mind. Professor Jakob Augustus Hoppe, a self-described “hater of despotism” and regional school intendant, sent the furthest letter from Bochnia in northern Galicia and expressed his desire to move to America to even work in the fields and share the meals of servants rather than stay in his current occupation.⁷⁸ Another schoolteacher, Johann Christoph Baumberg, wrote a similar plea “in search of bread and luck” (mein Brod und Glück zu suchen) on behalf of himself and his family to John Adams from what is today the Lower Austrian capital of St. Pölten.⁷⁹ In these examples both sympathy and the lure of opportunity was more interwoven.

There were also more notable members of the intelligentsia, or educated classes, who showed unabashed sympathy for the American Revolution. These learned sympathizers tended to be the elites of their profession and were employed in universities across the monarchy. Františka Steinského, for example, was the professor of auxiliary sciences in the philosophy department at the Charles University in Prague and, like Franklin, a gifted polymath. Between 1780 and 1781 he toured Europe on an allowance from Maria Theresa and used his freedom to visit Franklin in Paris, where Steinského collected his autograph in an album.⁸⁰ From their personal meeting a natural friendship sprang up, much like that between Franklin and IngenHousz. Their friendship blossomed so much that Steinského became his primary correspondent in the Habsburg monarchy, and their friendship spanned Prague, Paris, and Philadelphia from 1781 until 1789. At several points they gifted each other copies of manuscripts and discussed Bohemian manufactures as well as science.⁸¹ Their friendship even forged links between the works and members of Franklin's American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia and the Royal Bohemian Society of Sciences in Prague.⁸² Scientific interest also produced political sympathies, and Steinského wrote to Franklin in August 1783 to congratulate him on the establishment of the United States. “I am truly glad to have known this great genius. The heavens which have led your happy steps to this end, preserves and assists you in your wise designs so that you may see that this great work which you have so successfully commenced has been completed. Oh the happy people, who are the only people in the history of the world who find themselves in the most perfect state of joyousness; for what people could ever say: Here we are at the moment of choosing a government that is best for us.”⁸³

The sentiments espoused by the professor in Prague were very similar to sentiments expressed by a professor at Kassa, then in northern Hungary but now known as Košice in Slovakia. At the Royal Academy of Kassa, Professor János Zinner taught universal history.⁸⁴ His contact with Franklin started in October 1778 after Zinner, having missed his chance to meet with the American envoy, returned from Vienna. In his first letter to Franklin he expressed his desire to complete his two works on the American Revolution, both to be published in Hungary in Latin as Historical Notes on the United Colonies in America and Of Some Illustrious Americans.⁸⁵ Until then gazettes from across Europe taught Zinner about America, but with some deficiencies—his major faux pas was to call Franklin a Bostonian. Even discerning the details of a figure who interested him greatly, Benedict Arnold, came with some difficulty; “he is sometimes made a German of Mainz, sometimes an American of Connecticut, sometimes a lapsed Capuchin monk, and sometimes a grocer of Norway,” he moaned with some exaggeration.⁸⁶ To rectify this he asked Franklin for material.

Although the manuscripts for Zinner's texts are presumed lost and no reply to his letter has been found, Franklin surely replied since Zinner published a work in German entitled Remarkable Letters and Writings of the Most Famous Generals in America in 1782.⁸⁷ Spread across some three hundred pages, Zinner's text offered a selection of writings from every major American revolutionary figure in addition to an accompanying biography of each individual. Before the War of American Independence had come to an end, one of the most comprehensive and earliest accounts of its primary characters had been published in Central Europe by a Bohemian-born professor at a Hungarian institution.⁸⁸ Historians might want to reconsider David Ramsay's role as the American Revolution's first chronicler in this sense. Although Zinner explained he did not intend for his work to be political in nature, he did mean for it raise the esteem for Americans across Europe. In his letter to Franklin about his earlier Latin texts, he confessed, “I was born the subject of a great monarchy and under a government whose rule is mild … but I cannot tell you what joy I feel, when I hear or read of your progress in America. To speak the truth, I look upon you and all the chiefs of your new republic as angels, sent by heaven to guide and comfort the human race … and to give public manifestation of this sentiment I am composing these works.”⁸⁹

Zinner's reasoning as explained to Franklin here is remarkable; not only did he write this knowing his letter could be intercepted, just as IngenHousz's were from Vienna, but he openly asserted his happiness at the success of Americans. Moreover, “when I hear or read” also suggests the word-of-mouth medium throughout which news about America permeated deeply into the Habsburg monarchy, at least in this case as far as northern Hungary.

Zinner's circles at the Royal Academy in Kassa shed light on a group of sympathetic intellectuals and jurists. There he mingled with an academic circle keenly interested by the British political system, especially the role of the British constitution. One colleague, the Hungarian Lajos Török, for example, produced a book called Comparison of the English and Hungarian Governments. Török, it has been suggested, helped fuel Zinner's interest “in the Anglo-Saxon world, especially the emergence of American society,” by asking him to translate the text A Statistical Dissertation on the Exercise of Power by the King of England.⁹⁰ Török and Zinner were in a vanguard of legal theorists who saw similarities between the English constitution and the colonies with the condition of Hungary within the Habsburg monarchy; the British colonies were subordinate within an established British monopoly, whereas the Hungarian economy played second fiddle to the development of the Austrian core region through the imposition of levies and tariffs.⁹¹ What occurred between Britain and the colonies of North America greatly interested them.⁹²

The Imperial Court

Personnel at the centers of administration in the Habsburg monarchy also expressed sympathy for the American Revolution. Baron János Podmaniczky von Aszód, a Protestant member of the Hungarian peerage, enjoyed a meteoric career into the high offices of state and became one of the leading reformers in Hungary. Despite his description by contemporaries as a “tiny, hunchbacked little man,” his “bubbling with intelligence” earned him great respect. He was noted as one of the foremost minds in Buda and a talented pianist who later became Franz Liszt's first patron.⁹³ In 1780, Podmaniczky became a member of the Royal Society of Great Britain, and during his return from London that year he detoured via Paris to pay his respects to Franklin, whom he contacted through their mutual friends of the Society.⁹⁴ No record exists of their conversation, but Podmaniczky's actions highlight once again the affinity with Franklin and his revolutionary cause.

Similar sentiments came from other administrators. The custodian of the court library Paul Strattmann, for example, also visited Franklin on his mission to France to collect books for the imperial library in Vienna. There he passed on Viennese letters of admiration and offered Franklin his own services “if [he] were fortunate enough” (si j'etois assez heureux, de pouvoir me ranger au nombre de vos serviteurs).⁹⁵ Some of those who worked in the government bureaucracy dreamed of moving to the United States throughout the Revolutionary War. In 1779, a mysterious character who named himself only “Bek” since he worked as an accountant in the War Ministry wrote Franklin that reading Robertson's “History of America has inspired me with so much taste for this Country, that I desire only the happiness of establishing and ending my days there.”⁹⁶ He requested Franklin to write to Vergennes or to his superior, Count Zinzendorf, in order to secure his release.

At the end of the war in 1783, even Count Grävenitz-Whalm, one of the members of the Aulic Council, or Reichshofrat, one of the most powerful institutions within the Holy Roman Empire, petitioned Franklin for help to retire to the United States, where he was certain the new nation would need “experienced and accomplished men.” For this purpose the former privy councilor wished to relocate to Georgia, to either of the Carolinas, or even Virginia if it were not too remote.⁹⁷ The enthusiasm for North America permeated throughout all levels of the ministries.

Finally, the foreign diplomatic corps based in Vienna showed signs both of sympathy and antipathy toward the Revolution owing to the competing influence of the British and French delegations. Baron de Breteuil, the French ambassador, supported early American diplomatic efforts to gain a foothold at the Viennese court in 1778 by hosting the first American envoy, William Lee.⁹⁸ His predecessor, Cardinal Prince Louis de Rohan, offered to arrange a meeting for IngenHousz and Franklin while his secretary ferried letters for them across the Habsburg border.⁹⁹ Outside of the French delegation, the Dutch also acted warmly toward proponents of the Revolution. The ambassador Count Wassenaer had his secretary forward letters on their behalf as well. IngenHousz even described this “Mr. Collard” as “my friend.”¹⁰⁰ Representatives closer to the British circles worked against revolution, however. Count von Degenfeld supplied newspapers back in the Netherlands with material harmful to America's diplomats.¹⁰¹ Sympathies expressed by diplomats within Vienna not only affected the conduct of Habsburg diplomacy but also acted as further avenues for the American and British causes.

Conclusion

Despite the lack of an Atlantic coastline, the Habsburg monarchy was not insulated from events within the Atlantic world. Thousands of pages of Americana flooded into the Habsburg monarchy during the late eighteenth century, meaning inhabitants from Linz to Galicia and from Prague to Trieste were well informed of the emergence of the United States. Networks were an important part of this learning. Newspaper editors functioned as nodes through which international news from America passed, and actual accounts by the Americans themselves could reach the coffeehouses and salon tables of the Viennese. Elsewhere personal contact with Benjamin Franklin was key to dissemination. One of his greatest friends transmitted Americana directly to the rulers of the Habsburg monarchy and among the courtiers of the Holy Roman Empire.

The Habsburg monarchy was not solely reliant on Franklin as an information middleman, however. Other personal friendships among the Habsburg intelligentsia connected to Franklin in a way that should force us to rethink our conceptions about the limits and edges of the republic of letters. Professors in Hungary concerned themselves enough with the similarities between the Hungarian position within the Habsburg monarchy and the colonial struggle across the Atlantic that they wrote numerous volumes about the War of American Independence. Likewise the foreign book market supplemented this domestic interest in the American Revolution, which Habsburg censorship did relatively little to counteract. As a result, the American voice resonated clearly in all parts of Central Europe.

Reception of the American cause also galvanized sympathy toward the United States throughout the Habsburg monarchy. Circles around those who directly collected American sources became enthused with the revolutionary republican spirit. This was the chatter and endless discussions that the British ambassador already bemoaned in 1774. Figures like Franklin, Washington, and even the firebrand Samuel Adams colored their impressions of the Revolution toward an impassioned but enlightened struggle against despotism. When the first American representative to the Habsburg monarchy, William Lee, arrived, his celebrity was already ensured thanks to these sympathizers and their appetite for anything American.¹⁰² After Lee left, even administrators in the highest echelons of power within the Habsburg state also wished to do the same. The long history of connection between the Habsburg monarchy and the United States, therefore, rested on a solid base of receptive sympathy already established during the War of American Independence. People in the Habsburg monarchy were not unknowing onlookers but rather avid supporters of revolutionary events across the Atlantic.

Footnotes