¹ Hajós, Géza, Schönbrunn (Vienna, 1976), 58.Google Scholar

² Zweig, Stefan, Marie Antoinette: Bildnis eines Mittleren Charakters (Leipzig, 1932), 14Google Scholar: “[D]ie dreizehnjährige Toinette, zart gewachsen, anmutig, schlank und unbezweifelbar hübsch, tollt und spielt unterdessen mit Schwestern und Brüdern und Freundinnen temperamentvoll in den Zimmern und Gärten von Schönbrunn.” The title of Zweig's biography further modernizes the Habsburgs by stressing Marie-Antoinette's “normal” or “average” character.

³ Vocelka, Karl, Glanz und Untergang der höfischen Welt. Repräsentation, Reform, und Reaktion im habsburgischen Vielvölkerstaat (Vienna, 2001), 32–33.Google Scholar

⁴ Elias, Norbert, The Court Society, trans. Jephcott, Edmund (New York, 1983), 41–65Google Scholar. For a further discussion of the relationship between palatial architecture and royal power, see Berger, Robert A., A Royal Passion: Louis XIV as a Patron of Architecture (Cambridge, Mass., 1994), 184–88Google Scholar. For an application of Elias's ideas specifically to the Habsburg court in Vienna, with emphasis on the pre-Theresian emperors, see Ehalt, Hubert Ch., Ausdrucksformen absolutistischer Herrschaft. Der Wiener Hof im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1980).Google Scholar

⁵ Schönbrunn's close proximity to central Vienna, which made it reachable by coach in less than half an hour, allowed for frequent day trips even when the court was in residence at the Hofburg. Joseph, in particular, often traveled to Schönbrunn only for required functions, after which he returned immediately to the Hofburg. For the seasonal use of Habsburg palaces, see Khevenhüller-Metsch, Johann Josef Fürst, Aus der Zeit Maria Theresias. Tagebuch des Fürsten Johann Josef Khevenhüller-Metsch, Obersthofmeisters 1742–1776, 8 vols. (Vienna, 1907–1972), passimGoogle Scholar; and Benedik, Christian, “Die Repräsentationsräume der Wiener Hofburg in der ersten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts,” Das 18. Jahrhundert und Österreich. Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Gesellschaft zur Erforschung des 18. Jahrhunderts 6 (1990–1991): 15–16.Google Scholar

⁶ See Iby, Elfriede and Koller, Alexander, Schönbrunn (Vienna, 2000), 90–100Google Scholar, for a detailed discussion of the building phases in the 1740s and 1750s that produced the arrangement I discuss here. Before 1746, the imperial couple lived in a suite of rooms on the garden side of the palace's western wing, which later became the apartment of Francis's sister, Charlotte of Lorraine.

⁷ For this and the following, see Benedik, , “Die Repräsentationsräume,” 11–13Google Scholar. Here and elsewhere, I employ American floor designations; Schonbrunn's second floor was located one story above ground and was termed the noble étage because it housed the court's official reception and audience rooms.

⁸ For a discussion of the Habsburg “economy of privilege” that lent high value to questions of rank, see Spielman, John P., “Status as Commodity: The Habsburg Economy of Privilege,” in State and Society in Early Modern Austria, ed. Ingrao, Charles W. (West Lafayette, 1994), 110–18.Google Scholar

⁹ Benedik, , “Representationsräume,” 15.Google Scholar

¹⁰ My comments on Versailles are based principally on Walton, Guy, Louis XIV's Versailles (Chicago, 1986), 13–34Google Scholar; and Lemoine, Pierre, Guide du Musée et Domaine national de Versailles et Trianon (Paris, 1995), 71–93, 97–114Google Scholar. The classic analysis of national differences in European palace design is Baillie, Hugh Murray, “Etiquette and the Planning of State Apartments in Baroque Palaces,” Archaeologia 101 (1967): 169–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Klingensmith, Samuel John, The Utility of Splendor: Ceremony, Social Life, and Architecture at the Court of Bavaria, 1600–1800, ed. Otto, Christian and Ashton, Mark (Chicago, 1993), 115–18, 122–25Google Scholar. For a different view of Central European palace design, stressing local and Italian models, see Kauffmann, Thomas DaCosta, “Alternatives to Versailles in Central and Eastern Europe,” in Versailles: French Court Style and Its Influence, ed. Collinson, Howard Creel (Toronto, 1992), 89–101.Google Scholar

¹² Klingensmith, , Utility of Splendor, 125Google Scholar. Marie Antoinette also expressed surprise to her mother that so many people were allowed to view her lever. From a letter of 12 July 1770: “A midi on appelle la chambre et là tout le monde peut entrer, ce qui n'est point des communes gens. Je (mets) de mon rouge et lave mes mains devant tout le monde, ensuite les hommes sortent et les dames restent et je m'habille devant elles.” In von Arneth, Alfred, Maria Theresia und Marie Antoinette. Ihr Briefwechsel während der Jahre 1770–1780 (Osnabrück, 1978), 6.Google Scholar

¹³ Contemporaries considered the Spanish protocol to be the strictest and most elaborate in Europe, and for this reason also the most unpleasant and uncomfortable. For its early history, see Hoffmann, Christine, Das Spanische Hofzeremoniell von 1500–1700 (Frankfurt, 1985)Google Scholar. Although Maria Theresa and particularly Francis I both disliked the Spanish protocol, its grandeur and pomposity effectively conveyed the dynasty's high status. Francis simplified protocol slightly, yet neither ruler changed it drastically. Instead, as I will demonstrate, they sought ways to escape or excuse themselves from ceremonies whose complexity required hours of preparation and participation. See Beales, Derek, Joseph II, vol. 1, In the Shadow of Maria Theresia, 1741–1780 (Cambridge, 1987), 32–33.Google Scholar

¹⁴ From Küchelbecker, Johann, Allerneueste Nachricht vom Römisch-Kayserl. Hof (Hanover, 1730)Google Scholar. Quoted in Klingensmith, , Utility of Splendor, 117.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For an analysis of la vie privée in eighteenth-century thought, see Radisich, Paula Rea, Hubert Robert: Painted Spaces of the Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1998), 2Google Scholar, which analyzes the phrase's appearance in the writings of the Baron d'Holbach and Diderot.

¹⁶ Habermas, Jürgen, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Burger, Thomas with the assistance of Frederick Lawrence (Cambridge, Mass., 1989), 7.Google Scholar

¹⁷ I develop the following from Khevenhüller-Metsch, who uses these terms to describe various events at the Theresian court.

¹⁸ See Habermas, , Structural Transformation, 1–26Google Scholar, for the history of these and related terms.

¹⁹ On the spatial organization of the imperial apartment, see Raschauer, Oskar, “Zur Geschichte der Ausstattung des Schlosses Schönbrunn zur Zeit Maria Theresias,” in Josef Strzy-gowski. Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag (Klagenfurt, 1932), 137–41Google Scholar; and for a comparative study of the Hofburg's imperial apartment, which paralleled Schönbrunn's arrangement, see idem, “Die kaiserlichen Wohn- und Zeremonialräume in der Wiener Hofburg,” Anzeiger der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse 95 (1958): 283–91Google Scholar. The following discussion takes as its subject the appearance and arrangement of the imperial suite as it stood in 1765. It should be noted, however, that the suite was renovated in two building campaigns: the first from 1743–49, which initially rendered it inhabitable for the new empress's court, and another beginning in 1754 that involved renovation of several spaces, including the Grosse Galerie. Furthermore, Maria Theresa left some spaces at Schönbrunn deliberately unaltered, most notably the Blaue Stiege, whose ceiling fresco by Sebastiano Ricci dates from 1701–2. My focus here is less the building history of these spaces than the conceptual frameworks suggested by the arrangement of palatial space before and after 1765.

²⁰ Glaser, Josef, Schönbrunner Chronik (Vienna, 1990), Plan III.Google Scholar

²¹ Klingensmith, , Utility of Splendor, 123.Google Scholar

²² Ziskin, Rochelle, The Place Vendôme: Architecture and Social Mobility in Eighteenth-Century Paris (Cambridge, 1999), 49.Google Scholar

²³ Beales, , Joseph II, 33.Google Scholar

²⁴ Ziskin, , Place Vendôme, 24.Google Scholar

²⁵ Khevenhüller-Metsch, , 6 10 1748Google Scholar, describes how a birthday celebration for Archduchess Maria Anna was transported from the empress's apartments to the emperor's to facilitate the large crowds in attendance.

²⁶ Although the emperor and empress did have audiences with noblewomen, the majority of their visitors were male. Male pronouns are used throughout this article for convenience and readability.

²⁷ Maria Anna and Joseph, as the eldest imperial children of each sex, occupied individual apartments on the palace's noble étage overlooking the Herrenhof, the entry courtyard immediately to the north. The imperial family's numerous younger children shared a series of apartments on Schönbrunn's third floor, to which Maria Theresa enjoyed special access via a hidden staircase.

²⁸ The following analysis is derived from a survey of the Hofzeremonienprotokolle between 1760 and 1773, which lists in detail the procedure used for every major reception held in a Habsburg palace during these years. Österreichisches Staatsarchiv; Hof-, Haus-, und Staatsarchiv, Vienna. Receptions, of course, differed somewhat according to individual circumstances.

²⁹ Such closeness to the empress was reserved for those whose regular counsel she required, such as Prince Kaunitz, as well as those who had developed a familiarity with her through repeated visits.

³⁰ For the many staircases by which various individuals could access different court spaces, see Iby, , Schönbrunn, 92–97.Google Scholar

³¹ Ibid., 101–7.

³² Lorenz, Hellmut, “The Imperial Hofburg: The Theory and Practice of Architectural Representation in Baroque Vienna,” in State and Society, ed. Ingrao, 93–94.Google Scholar

³³ Ingrao, Charles W. and Thomas, Andrew L., “Piety and Patronage: The Empresses-Consort of the High Baroque,” German History 20, no. 1 (2002): 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ Female succession had first been promoted by Emperor Leopold I, who in his pactum mutuae successions of 1703 had allowed for it in the absence of male heirs; likewise, he stressed the indivisibility of the Austrian-Bohemian-Hungarian lands under Habsburg rule. See Ingrao, Charles W., The Habsburg Monarchy, 1617–1815, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 2000): 129Google Scholar; and Vocelka, , Glanz und Untergang, 84–87Google Scholar. For further analysis of the Pragmatic Sanction's influence on the arts, see Wagner-Rieger, Renate, “Die Pragmatische Sanktion und die Kunst,” Der Donauraum 9 (1964): 67–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁵ Ingrao, and Thomas, , “Piety and Patronage,” 38.Google Scholar

³⁶ Numerous references to Maria Theresa's habit of sequestering herself from public view or living in isolation are documented in Khevenhüller-Metsch's diary, as the following samples demonstrate. 15 October 1765: “[A]ls an Theresiae Tag ware zwar die Kaiserin-Königin invisible und hatte sich schon seither gestern auf acht Tage eingesperret.” 18 May 1770: “[V]erblibe die Kaiserin wegen der heutigen Epoque des achzehntenden Tag des Monats gewöhnicher-massen retiriret und speiste allein in die Cammer.” On occasion, remaining alone required the empress to abandon Schönbrunn in favor of the Hofburg, as on 31 August 1771, when Khevenüller-Metsch reports the following: “[An diesem Tag] übernachtete die Kaiserin in der Statt, weil sie wegen der traurigen Epoque du jour niemand sehen wollen.” “Epoque” seems to be Khevenüller's gently sarcastic shorthand for those times when the empress entered a state of prolonged isolated mourning.

³⁷ Pregnancy, too, had provided the empress with a necessary escape from court tedium. See Beales, , Joseph II, 32.Google Scholar

³⁸ Khevenhüller-Metsch, , 4 07 1765Google Scholar, in the context of explaining why the empress chose Innsbruck as the site of her son's wedding: “Ville [many at court] verfiellen dahero auf die Vermuthung, die Kaiserin hätte bei diser Gelegenheit das Stifft Hall nochmahlen besehen wollen, weil sie, wie man aus ein und anderen ihr entfallenen Reden abnehmen zu können vermainet, mit dem Gedancken in geheimm umgehe, sich, im Fall dem Kaiser etwas menschliches zustossen solté, dahin zu retiriren, wo ohnehin verschiedene Erzherzoginnen ihr Leben heilig beschlossen haben.” This interesting reference suggests that the empress at least pondered the possibility of retiring to a convent.

³⁹ von Moser, Friedrich Carl, Teutsches Hof-Recht, 2 vols. (Frankfurt, 1754)Google Scholar. Moser's treatise describes an ideal German court, its preferred organization, and optimal staffing. See especially his section “Von den Wittwen und deren Rechten,” 1:609–32.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Unfortunately, we lack a modern study of this building that would allow precise comparisons between it and Schönbrunn. Christian Witt-Dörring briefly mentions Maria Theresa's renovations there in the context of furniture design at court, and records indicate that court artists were active at Hetzendorf between 1743–45. Witt-Dörring further cites Khevenhüller-Metsch's diary from 11 July 1743, in which the author writes that Maria Theresa gifted this palace to her mother because of its healthy surroundings and because it lay a short ride from Schönbrunn. Witt-Dörring, Christian, “Die Möbelkunst am Wiener Hof zur Zeit Maria Theresias (1740–1780)” (Ph.D. diss., University of Vienna, 1978), 12.Google Scholar

⁴¹ For which see the excellent article by Lange, Barbara, “Artemisia als Leitbild: Zum Herrschaftlichen Witwensitz beim Übergang zum Absolutismus,” Kritische Berichte 24, no. 4 (1996): 61–72.Google Scholar

⁴² The notion that Habsburg monarchs needed to prepare themselves for death has a long history, traceable at least to Charles V's retreat to the monastery of Yuste at the end of his life. For the continued importance of Spanish imperial traditions in eighteenth-century Austria, see Ollinger, Elisabeth et al. , Der Traum von Weltreich. Österreichs unvollendeter Escorial (Klosterneuburg, 1999)Google Scholar; and for Charles VI's apartments at Klosterneuburg, which combined imperial and biblical symbolism, see Weigl, Huberta, “Die Kaiserizimmer im Stift Klosterneuburg: Programm und Austattung der Gemächer von Karl VI and Elizabeth Christine,” Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 51 (1998): 115–44.Google Scholar

⁴³ There is a growing literature on widowhood in medieval and early modern Europe; for a recent overview, see Cavallo, Sandra and Warner, Lyndan, eds., Widowhood in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (London, 1999).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Khevenhüller-Metsch, , 7 09 1765Google Scholar: “Von dem jungen Herren gienge ich sodann hinüber zu der verwittibte Kaiserin, welche absolutement ihr voriges Apartement beziehen wollen. Der junge Kaiser blibe ebenfahls in seiner vorigen Wohnung; mithin blibe das ganze Appartement von der Cammer an biss in die grosse Anticamera lär.”

⁴⁵ Khevenhüller-Metsch, , 31 10 1766Google Scholar: “Wiewollen dises Appartement plus riant und lichter freilich nicht sagen, dass es für eine solche Frau aussehe, welche nicht als Wittib, sondern also König und Souveraine bewohnet sein sollte.” This notation indicates confusion about whether Maria Theresa's sovereignty or widowhood took precedence in determining her status at court.

⁴⁶ For the history of earlier imperial widows and their architectural activities, see Iby, , Schönbrunn, 40–42, 44–45, 72Google Scholar. The modern palace, begun by von Erlach, Fischer in 1696Google Scholar, was built on the site of an earlier structure destroyed during the Turkish siege of 1683. This earlier building shared similarities with its eighteenth-century successor, serving intermittently as a hunting lodge and widow's retreat. Recent research has shown that this earlier palace was built on the ruins of considerably humbler structures, some dating to the twelfth century, and that Eleonora Gonzaga was largely responsible for its architectural reconfiguration in the 1640s. See Hassmann, Elisabeth, “Das Lusthaus zu Katterburg, der Vorgängerbau der Schloßanlage Fischers von Erlach. Archivialischer Beitrag zu den Ausgrabungen in Schönbrunn,” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege 55 (2001): 435–52Google Scholar; and idem, “Katterburg unter der Stiftsherrschaft Klosterneuburg. Zur Frühgeschichte Schönbrunns von 1171/76 bis 1569,” Jahrbuch des Stiftes Klosterneuburg, neue Folge, 18 (2002): 247–329Google Scholar. Hassmann's important findings will appear in a forthcoming book titled Von Katterburg zu Schönbrunn. See also, Iby, Elfriede, ed., Schloβ Schönbrunn. Zur frühen Baugeschichte (Vienna, 1996).Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The rooms' current decoration dates from the nineteenth century, when they served as Emperor Francis Joseph I's apartments.

⁴⁸ Iby, , Schönbrunn, 139–40Google Scholar. Joseph's role in policy formation was limited until his mother's death; she allotted him control of the imperial armies, but in other areas he was required to negotiate his wishes with both her and Chancellor Kaunitz.

⁴⁹ Raschauer, Oskar, “Geschichte der Innenausstattug des Lustschlosses Schönbrunn” (Ph.D. diss., University of Vienna, 1926), 281–88Google Scholar. The exact context of this room's renovation remains unclear. Signs of its former military decoration emerge in the symbolism of the room's rococo woodwork, which includes swords, lances, and helmets, all quite out of place alongside the nuptial paintings hanging below.

⁵⁰ Reference to this practice is found throughout Khevenhüller-Metsch's diary, as on 7 September 1765: “[S]o wurde nach der Hand dise letztere [the Rathstube in the Hofburg] auch schwarz spalliret; der Saal aber oder die grosse Anticamera blibe wie sonsten ausser des schwarzen Baldachins, weil selbe voll Boisirungen und Spiegeln, an der Contour des Plat-Fonds starck vergoldet ist, so sich dann alles zur schwartzen Deckung nicht wohl geschickt hatte.” The practice of draping black cloths over important buildings after a prominent individual's death has roots at least into the Renaissance and continues to this day in Austria on occasions of national mourning.

⁵¹ Raschauer, , “Geschichte der Innenausstattung,” 269–70Google Scholar. This interpretation has become commonplace in the critical literature on Schönbrunn.

⁵² The primary studies are Merrick, Jeffrey W., The Desacralization of the French Monarchy in the Eighteenth Century (Baton Rouge, 1990)Google Scholar; and Monod, Paul Kléber, The Power of Kings: Monarchy and Religion in Europe, 1589–1715 (New Haven, 1999).Google Scholar