Policing the Empire:
Austrian Gambling Regulations during the Napoleonic Wars

Abstract: In this paper I analyze gambling practices and their suppression by the police in the Habsburg monarchy during the Napoleonic wars (1792-1815). I focus on the so-called Glückshafen, a variation of Lotto, a popular gambling institution that was forbidden by the Austrian authorities in 1807. I use this institution as a prism through which to explore imperial connections in the Habsburg monarchy. This paper highlights the multi-vectored relations between Vienna and its provinces. I explain how decisions regarding one province impacted social norms and politics in the entire monarchy, how Vienna’s decisions concerning Italy were contingent upon the situation in (formerly Polish) Galicia, and vice-versa.

In 1781, one self-proclaimed intellectual from Vienna staged an unusual enterprise in his home. Surrounded by books, he decided to do two things at once: organize a gambling event and clear his library of useless books. Ninety books were put on display. Ninety winning lots were accompanied by nine thousand losing tickets, a one to one-hundred chance of success. By the dawn of April 1, a group of intellectuals started gathering by the house. Eager to get the books, they were at first reluctant to gamble. But after some initial hesitation, the enterprise proceeded with great success: They “laid down 3 groschen and gripped into my books.” Apparently the visitors enjoyed what seemed to be a rather unusual combination of entertainment and intellectual zeal.[1]

The work of fiction from which this episode is taken was published in Vienna in 1781. The book fair may or may not have taken place, but the story itself reveals the overwhelming presence of varied gambling practices across eighteenth-century Europe. This particular Viennese intellectual brought into the domestic sphere a familiar model of popular entertainment, known as a “Glückshafen” in German, or “Ola Fortuna” in Italian. Such Glückshäfen operated on similar premises to lotto, but were temporary installments, lasting only a few weeks at a time. Organized by wandering merchants, the Glückshäfen accompanied the yearly markets held in cities across Europe. While lotto was almost always a privilege of the rich, the Glückshäfen were almost always a destination of the poor. Lots were sold in a similar manner to lottery lots, with the proportion of wining and losing combinations varying from enterprise to enterprise. All lots were placed in a jar, and young children – most often orphans – made the draws.[2]

Both lotto and the Glückshafen first emerged in Europe in the fifteenth century and existed concurrently through the early nineteenth century, including in the Habsburg monarchy starting in the sixteenth century. While lotteries have survived to the present day, the Glückshäfen are now nowhere to be seen. Neither the German “Glückshafen” nor the Italian “Ola Fortuna” translates easily into English, nor are they used in contemporary speech.[3] The language construction, much like the institution it symbolizes, has by now vanished into the distant past.

The last large Glückshafen took place in Vienna in 1807 and marked the end of an era in the history of this popular gambling institution of the Habsburg monarchy. The 1807 Glückshafen in Vienna originally proved to be a great success and provided a model for imitation. By the end of 1807, an initiative for another Glückshafen came from a different corner of the empire. In November, after the end of the market season in Vienna and weeks after the gambling pavilions in the city’s streets had been dismantled, two merchants petitioned for a permission to organize an identical enterprise in a different part of the monarchy. Austrian Lemberg was the capital of the Habsburg province of Galicia, a formerly Polish region that became part of the monarchy in 1772. A petition for the new Glückshäfen generated a series of debates between Austrian civil and police officials. Both in Vienna and in Lemberg, officials showed little enthusiasm, arguing that a new gambling enterprise would have adverse repercussions for the entire monarchy. It was precisely this imperial connection – political and social ties between German-speaking territories in the center, formerly Polish territories in the east, Italian territories in the south-west and Bohemia in the north – that eventually played a key role in determining the fate of this popular gambling institution. In 1807, the long popular institution of the Glückshafen fell victim to the empire at a time of war.

This paper explores the last Glückshafen in Vienna and the debates it generated as a prism through which to analyze the workings of imperial mechanisms. Historians have most often approached the Habsburg monarchy through the prism of unilateral relationships between the center and the provinces, granting the center absolute authority and describing peripheries primarily as an object of this authority. A close analysis of popular entertainment and the modes of its suppression in Austria during the Napoleonic wars, however, opens a view of a different kind of polity: an empire in which provincial administration played a key role in the decision-making process; an empire that was governed by its provinces as much as it was governed by its center; an empire where decisions concerning Vienna depended upon political contingencies in the provinces.

The yearly market season opened in Vienna’s most popular avenue, the Graben, in April 1807. The Glückshäfen were as popular as the yearly markets themselves, which emerged on Vienna’s central street as early as 1700.[4] The pavilions on the Graben were erected on 13 April and demolished on 6 May, bringing an end to a first phase of the market season in the capital. In July, similar (if not the same) pavilions were to be seen in Leopoldstadt, another well known district of Vienna located just outside of the city center. A third trade season occurred in October on the Margaretenmarkt, at the city’s outskirts.

The gambling pavilions arrived at the Graben, Leopoldstadt, and Margaretenmarkt days before the official opening of the respective market seasons. These pavilions also lingered after the market’s official closure. Thousands of lots were sold. The pavilion owners were private merchants and spared no efforts to advertise the rewards, among them gold and silver coins, jewelry, watches, even portraits of the imperial family. The real chance of winning was, however, rather miniscule: about 1 to 239 in Leopoldstadt in July 1807. [5] Low winning chances and rather conspicuous rewards notwithstanding, the 1807 Glückshäfen in Vienna proved an unprecedented success. Attendance was unusually high, as were the profits from the sale of the thousands of lots, of which only very few brought any gains to the participants.

Gambling institutions had long formed a familiar presence across the Habsburg monarchy. The Glückshafen actually preceded lotto, with the first privately-run event taking place in Vienna in 1475. The Habsburg court banned them briefly in 1581, but restrictions were lifted and reintroduced repeatedly over the next centuries. Lotto arrived almost two centuries later, in the form of “Genoa lotto” a name that points to its Italian origin.[6] In 1752, the Italian merchant Ottavio Cataldi petitioned the Habsburg Empress Maria Theresa for the right to open a new kind of gambling institution, previously unknown on Habsburg terrain. Cataldi justified his request by financial considerations. In Italy, Bavaria, and Switzerland, he explained, the game named lotto had long become an important source of state revenue. In 1752, Cataldi hoped to introduce the same enterprise in the Habsburg domains, pledging to supply part of his income to the Habsburg court.[7] In 1752, his petition was granted and Cataldi secured the exclusive right to hold lotteries in the Habsburg monarchy for the duration of ten years, from 1752 to 1762.[8] His privilege was extended in 1762 for yet another eight years, expiring in 1770.[9] From 1752 on, lottery draws took place in Vienna every three weeks, each supplying an income of 11,000 gulden to the court. In exchange, Cataldi secured his own economic protection. [10] Austrian newspapers were allowed to advertise only Cataldi’s lotteries, and were forbidden from promoting any concurrent lotteries held abroad, thus stifling private competition.[11]

Since their first appearances on Austrian terrain, both the lotto and the Glückshäfen proved a consistent success. [12] Young Mozart enjoyed his first experience of lotto in his native Salzburg. When Salzburg authorities imposed official prohibition on lotto in 1771, Mozart indulged in gambling in Mannheim.[13] Because of his social status, Mozart would have been unlikely to participate in the Glückshäfen, which were a destination of the poor. But in Mozart’s time, privately-owned Glückshäfen provided a major avenue of competition for Cataldi and his lotteries. In 1762, upon the renewal of his privilege, Cataldi complained to the Habsburg Empress Maria Theresa about the proliferation of privately owned Glückshäfen in cities across the monarchy, including Graz, Ljubljana, Linz and Klagenfurt. During Cataldi’s time, private merchants Friedrich Gloissner (or Kloissner), Johan Köber and many others collected profits from the Glückshafen that formed a major competition to state-own lotteries. If lotto was designed to enrich the court, private gambling institutions could bring profit to local economies, to the cities where the pavilions were located.[14]

State support was essential to the success of Cataldi’s enterprise. Owners of Glückshäfen were required to apply for permission to their local authorities who made decisions on a case-by-case basis. On February 16, 1745, Friedrich Gloissner filed his first appeal to the Vienna city council, requesting permission to build gambling pavilions during a market season in Vienna. The council rejected the application, and follow-up appeals to the city high court fared no better. Unwilling to relent, Gloissner filed another appeal to the city magistrate; after the third rejection, he petitioned Maria Theresa directly. Each of Gloissner’s successive petitions was rejected, but not all cases ended up in such deadlock. Johan Köber had more success in 1761, when he arranged gambling pavilions in Brno, the provincial capital of Moravia.[15]

Empire at War

If markets and gambling institutions long became common on Austrian terrain, the year 1807 was nothing but unusual. The empire had been in turmoil since the explosion of the French revolution in 1789 and the subsequent French revolutionary wars, which began in 1792. A dynasty of German princes, the Habsburgs had gradually consolidated their rule over a large portion of the European continent. The nucleus of Habsburg imperial power was concentrated in a relatively small territory in today’s south-western Germany. A series of marriages and territorial expansions increased Habsburg power. During the late fifteenth and the early sixteenth centuries the dynasty acquired the kingdom of Hungary and Bohemia. In the eighteenth, the Habsburgs added Transylvania, a border region between Hungary and the Ottoman Empire; part of Italy, including Lombardy and Venetia, in the south; the southern part of the Netherlands, which had previously belonged to Spain in the north-west; and formerly Polish Galicia (on the border with Poland and later Russia) in the south-east. Habsburg domains spanned today’s Italy in the west and Ukraine in the east, reaching the Russian border in 1795.

Starting with the reign of Empress Maria Theresa in the 1740s, Habsburg rulers hoped to impose uniformity upon the heterogeneous terrain of the monarchy. By the late eighteenth century, uniform institutions had been established in the different provinces of the monarchy, from Italy to Galicia. The emulation of German-style Austrian politics, education, and culture was strongly encouraged in the provinces and was facilitated by a new Austrian German-speaking officialdom, appointed and controlled by Vienna. But imitation, like the administration itself, soon spun out of control. Popular entertainment, gambling institutions and patterns of crime were also subject to replication, defying regional and national differences across the vast Habsburg lands.

The Habsburg monarchy found itself in a particularly precarious situation during the French revolutionary wars, since it made up a very large part of the Europe that the revolutionaries planned to reorganize. Austrian politicians initially expressed little concern about the revolution, considering it a matter of French domestic politics that would have had little impact upon Austrian territories. But imperial connections and family ties proved impossible to ignore. The French queen Marie Antoinette was a born Habsburg, a daughter of Maria Theresa (r. 1740-1780). Marie Antoinette had hoped to find refuge from revolutionary events in her family’s Austrian domains. The rest of the story is well known: the French royal couple was stopped at the border by a diligent border guard, and in 1793, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were executed by the enraged French revolutionaries. Even before that, the French mobilized their forces against the Habsburgs, who were implicated in a plot to subdue the French revolution by supporting French royalty.

The Habsburgs anticipated an easy victory, and they could not have been more mistaken. The Habsburg monarchy formed a core of several consecutive international coalitions that joined forces in an effort to defeat the French revolutionary armies. After 1799, they faced a particularly precarious enemy with the quick accession of Napoleon Bonaparte first as the First Counselor and later as Emperor, which opened a new phase in the wars. For many years between 1799 and 1812, Napoleon’s armies seemed invincible. By 1807, the French had conquered some of the Habsburg core territories, including Italy and Illyria (which today is part of Croatia). In 1805, the French got close to Vienna for the first time, a feat they repeated in 1809.[16] Both in 1805 and in 1809 and many times in between, the very survival of the Habsburg monarchy as an entity was put into question. A real change came only in 1812, when the armies of Napoleon Bonaparte suffered a devastating defeat in Russia from which they never fully recovered.

Far away in the provinces, members of the local elites often took an ambivalent stance towards the French victories and Austrian defeats. Remote regions like Lombardy and Venetia on the south-west and Galicia on the east posed particular dangers to the monarchy. The French were not entirely unwelcome in Lombardy, where Napoleon offered an alternative to Austrian rule, considered to be foreign by at least some of the Italian elite. The situation was similar in Galicia. Galician Poles, Ruthenians (today’s Ukrainians) and were Jews split in their allegiances. A significant number of Polish aristocrats welcomed the Napoleonic wars as a real chance of restoring the independent Poland that had been erased from the political map of Europe in 1795. Those Italians who favored French over Austrian officials and those Poles who looked to Napoleon as Poland’s savior had the potential to become foes from within, more dangerous than enemies from the outside.

In 1806, Napoleon disbanded the Holy Roman Empire and formed a conglomerate of German states, known as the German Federation. In 1807, he took parts of the Polish territories from Prussia and formed them into a new political unit, the Duchy of Warsaw, officially part of the Russian Empire. Even though not a fully autonomous state, the Duchy was the closest thing to an independent Poland since 1795. At least some Austrian Polish subjects in Galicia expected that the Duchy would become a ground for future Polish independence and that Galicia could eventually join that state. Napoleon’s political designs, even when they did not directly interfere with Austrian politics, almost always posed a serious threat to the domestic and geopolitical stability of the entire monarchy.

Between Vienna and Lemberg

In 1807, inhabitants of Vienna would still have remembered the French conquest of the city in 1805. Polish residents of Galicia would have been more likely to recall Napoleon’s promise to restore an independent Poland. In the monarchy’s south-west, in Lombardy and Venice, Italians were adjusting to life under the French regime. In the midst of war and the dire political crisis, the people of Vienna were looking for normalcy in a sea of abnormality. The war not only reduced the monarchy’s territory, it also caused a significant reduction of revenue, impacting individual financial capacities across social divides. In 1807, yearly markets and popular entertainment defied political and military emergencies.

That same year, gambling pavilions in the Vienna’s markets were subjected to close police supervision. The police counselor La Rozze headed the so-called Glückshafendirektion–the commission designed to supervise popular entertainment and gambling during Vienna’s market season. The commission included a number of prominent merchants and artisans from Vienna, a silverware artisan named Kern, a coffee-merchant named Kaiser, and the gallantry artisan Sieber, among others.[17] Areas of supervision included strict observance of rules and regulations, both on the part of the merchant-owners and the gamblers. Police observers noted the unprecedented interest in the entire gambling enterprise, predominantly among the city’s poor. Prices of lots increased with each passing day as the interest in the Glückshäfen grew stronger among the general population. The daily income from the sale of lots reached unprecedented heights. Sold at the original price of 30 Kreuzer each, thousands of lots could procure a daily income equivalent of 21,000 Gulden and more.[18]

In 1807, war contingencies probably contributed to the unprecedented interest in gambling. High inflation caused a significant reduction in the value of paper-money, and people, it seems, were more at ease with losing money than they would have been under a more stable economic and political regime. It appears that only a small portion of the collective income reached its main destination, which was a fund for the poor. Most of the profit remained in the private hands of individual merchants, who often came from other regions of the monarchy.

With the opening of the third market season in Vienna in October of 1807, the security and the moral and political danger of popular entertainments came to raise increasing concerns among the civil and police authorities. Rumors about the unprecedented popularity of Glückshafen and feverish gambling reached well beyond Austrian terrains. On November 18 of 1807, the German Allgemeine Zeitung published its report about the new market season in Vienna and the popular entertainments that accompanied trade pavilions.

The end of October marked the opening of the new Glückshafen in Vienna, third time in a year. The attendance is unprecedented, especially from the lower social strata, not without a damaging impact upon morals. A substantial part of the pure profit (which in the two first draws made up 90,000 gulden) should go to a charity fund.[19]

Austrian papers commonly published news from outside of the Habsburg monarchy. News about Vienna in German magazines were not uncommon either. But in 1807, the market season in Vienna received no coverage in Austrian newspapers. War emergencies, which seem to have stimulated the general public’s interest in gambling, had the opposite effect upon the publishing industry. The major government daily newspaper, the Wiener Zeitung, experienced substantial difficulties and was published with delays, skipping weeks and sometimes even months in 1807.

The markets and Glückshäfen drew much attention from civil and police officials across the monarchy. The political debates surrounding the 1807 Glückshäfen in Vienna peaked after the closing of the markets in late 1807 and early 1808. The stimulus for debate came from the monarchy’s remote periphery, specifically the province of Galicia, rather than from Vienna itself. In late 1807, two merchants from the Galician capital Lemberg asked for permission to organize new gambling pavilions during their 1808 market season. [20] Entrepreneurs Bauer and Hoberwien emulated the most recent Glückshafen in Vienna, apparently encouraged by its success. As in Vienna, the new Glückshafen in Lemberg was to supply income to a charity foundation for the poor.[21] The Galician Gubernium, the top administrative institution in the province, processed a first round of petitions. Johan Wurmser, at the time a vice-president of the Gubernium, became directly responsible for Bauer and Hoberwien’s case.

In November of 1807, Wurmser wrote to Vienna inquiring about the most recent Glückshäfen in Vienna. At the same time, his senior colleagues from Vienna questioned plans for a similar institution in Lemberg. Neither Wurmser nor his Viennese colleagues showed particular enthusiasm for the enterprise, as all were concerned about the potentially dangerous moral and political impact of the institution both in Vienna and in the provinces.

On Christmas Eve the head of the Austrian Police, Ley, filed a lengthy report revealing his view of the Glückshäfen, stressing the inherent moral and political dangers of gambling. Even though the financial benefits to charities during the latest markets in Vienna had been admittedly high, fraud and speculations outweighed all the potential benefits, the police chief argued.[22] A large part of the income came out of the pockets of the city’s poorest citizens, who formed the majority of the audience at Vienna’s Glückshäfen. The Glückshäfen thus created a paradox: designed to alleviate the sufferings of the poor by supplying profits to a charity poor relief fund, the gambling institution itself drew its profit from the income of the city’s poorest: “Most of Vienna’s educated public share the opinion that the Glückshafen provides no adequate means for charity, that no other state would tolerate this game due to its dangers.”[23]

The ease with which people were willing to spend their last money on a predictably hopeless enterprise did not escape the attention of contemporary observers: “The poorest of the poor were willing to bring their money to these operations, but a group of more respectful citizens–workers and artisans–succumbed to gambling temptations as well, thereby wasting their hard-earned money.”[24] Financial speculations raised different kinds of concerns. Owners of Glückshäfen enriched themselves personally in regions other than their native ones by exhausting, rather than supplementing local economies across the monarchy. In 1807, one of Vienna’s residents who preferred to remain anonymous complained to the police about the exorbitant income earned by individual merchants at the Glückshäfen.[25] High income generated much envy. Economic motives must have influenced individual decisions concerning gambling as well as other institutions in the monarchy.

The abovementioned Johan Wurmser illustrates how financial matters could impact political decisions, and vice versa. In 1804, Wurmser filed a round of petitions in Vienna that concerned his personal, rather than professional, standing. A career official in the Austrian civil services, Wurmser became involved in an inheritance battle, struggling to secure the right to inherit at least part of his late mother’s money after her death earlier that year. When his sister claimed all of the money, Wurmser resorted to political means in an effort to secure his proper share.[26] The struggle, a rather typical family affair, nevertheless revealed one Austrian official’s self-perception as destitute and abandoned by the state.[27]

Wurmser’s complaints about his personal financial situation must, of course, be taken with a pinch of salt. High-ranking officials such as presidents and vice-presidents of local Gubernia were treated quite generously by the Habsburg court, each receiving a yearly salary of about 20,000 gulden, compared to 300 gulden or less for their less prominent colleagues within the same Gubernia. A salary of 20,000 gulden per-year, accompanied by generous housing allowances, promised a rather care-free life-style for its recipient. Even though rents in Lemberg were as high as in Vienna and timber was even more expensive (as Wurmser liked to complain), Wurmser’s salary as a vice-president and later president of the Gubernium should have kept him away from serious financial difficulties.[28] But individual financial issues and the relative perception of financial hardships could have a major impact upon political decisions of individual bureaucrats in their day-to-day interactions with Austrian subjects across the monarchy’s terrains. Austrian officials, including Wurmser, long regarded popular gambling as morally and socially dangerous. But gambling, of course, could also have adverse economic consequences. High individual incomes could forge envy not only from merchants’ direct competitors but from members of the civil and police administration as well. At the same time, high individual profits during the war would be a sharp contrast to the financial strains experienced by the majority of population.

When filing their petitions, Bauer and Hoberwien seemed to neglect completely the political context of the monarchy at war. But the political crisis was very much on the agenda of Austrian officials in Lemberg, who in late 1807 processed Bauer’s and Hoberwien’s requests. In the spring of 1807, when the market season was in full swing in Vienna, Wurmser reported to Vienna on the current political situation in Galicia and the new military and political dangers on the monarchy’s eastern periphery. The Duchy of Warsaw in the immediate proximity to Galicia was one obvious point of concern. In May 1807, Wurmser sent to Vienna an excerpt from a newspaper from the Duchy capital Warsaw:

May 3 will always be a very significant date in Poland’s history books. Today is a time of greatest happiness. The mighty hands of the great and invincible Napoleon destroyed the source of our unhappiness.”[29

May 3 was of the anniversary of the 1793 Polish Constitution, a date that marked the peak of Polish reform efforts before the final demise of Poland in 1795. In 1807, for the first time since 1795, Poles had reason to celebrate the anniversary with much joy and expectation. Napoleon’s field victories were impressive; the restoration of an independent Poland seemed possible. As Poles of the Duchy anticipated the restoration of a Polish state, Austrian Polish subjects could anticipate that Galicia could also become a part of this new Polish state.

In the midst of Polish jubilation and Austrian defeat, Galician merchants petitioned for their right to hold gambling institutions in Lemberg. If dangerous for Galicia, new gambling institutions would also have inevitable repercussions for other provinces, particularly Habsburg Italy, which became stereotypically known for its gambling. [30] Abolishing gambling in Italy was an impossible enterprise, as Austrian police agents observed at the wake of the Napoleonic Wars. [31] But just containing gambling fever in Italy implied required imposing limits in gambling in other parts of the Habsburg monarchy as well.

The final decision concerning the Glückshäfen in Lemberg and the fate of the Glückshäfen in the monarchy at large was contingent upon all these considerations: political emergencies in Vienna and in Lemberg, as well as the connections between different territories. If the residents of Vienna were allowed to gamble, permission must also be given to residents of every other large city across the monarchy. Vienna, Lemberg, Prague, Trieste and Budapest all became linked in a circle of events and regulations that concerned them all without mentioning each place individually. One of the Austrian officials reported in 1807 that “The imitation of this gambling enterprise (Hazardspiel) should be subjected to scrutiny.”[32]

In January 1808, Johan Wurmser rejected Bauer’s and Hoberwien’s petition, stressing the adverse moral effects of the Glückshafen upon the people of Galicia. “We were unable to deal properly with the remarkable immorality of the lowest social strata among the local residents, and we cannot afford to stimulate this immorality further. ”[33] But because Wurmser represented only an intermediate authority in a long administration chain, his decision did not mean the ultimate rejection as yet. In February 1808, an unnamed official from Vienna shared his concerns in a report to his colleagues in Galicia. “The new Glückshäfen in Lemberg would serve as a point of reference for similar institutions that could spread all over the monarchy.” [34] In March 1808, the Austrian police still considered popular gambling to be legitimate, but suggested imposing strict limitations upon the time and place of gambling institutions. The most recent Glückshäfen in Vienna lasted for several weeks each. A new regulation specified that any subsequent Glückshäfen should be limited to four days during the most popular Jubilate markets in Vienna.[35]

In the meantime, the French danger became ever more severe; Johan Wurmser was promoted from the position of vice-president and became head of the Austrian administration of Galicia. More of Wurmser’s colleagues in Vienna leaned towards a negative decision concerning the Glückshäfen in Lemberg. [36] On April 15 of 1808, three months after Wurmser’s decision concerning Lemberg, the Austrian police imposed a ban on Glückshäfen across the entire monarchy.[37] The closing of the most popular Glückshäfen in the Habsburg monarchy in October of 1807 marked an end to the institution as such.[38]

Conclusion

The particular interest in gambling and the fate and abolition of the 1807 Glückshäfen can only be understood within the specific context of an empire at war. The imperial context is indispensible for our understanding of the modes of police supervision and social and political control in different places across the Habsburg monarchy between the late eighteenth and early twentieth centuries.

It is a conventional paradigm in the historiography of the Habsburg monarchy and its provinces that the German elites ruled the provinces somewhat unilaterally from the center, that German officials in these provinces only followed the instructions from the center, and that Austrian subjects in the provinces – the vast majority of them speaking languages other than German – were objects of forcefully imposed regulations. But the relationships between the center and the provinces and between different branches of political and police administration were always more complex. Decisions in Vienna were often based on input received from the provinces, and provincial officials often expressed diametrically opposing views than their superiors in Vienna. In 1807, one popular gambling enterprise—the Glückshäfen—fell victim to the reciprocal policies of empire.

 


Iryna Vushko is a historian of East-Central Europe and the Habsburg monarchy,
with a special focus on the history of institutions. She holds a Ph.D from
Yale University, and she is currently a fellow at Imre Kertész Kolleg
at Friedrich-Schiller University in Jena.


Notes:

1. Cited after Der Glückshafen für gelehrte Maulaffen (Vienna, 1781), 3.

2. A more detailed description of rules of play can be found in Josef Pauser, “Glückshafen und ‘gute Policey’. Zur Rechtsgeschichte der Warenausspielungen in Niederösterreich
gegen Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts,” in Gerhard Strejcek ed., Lotto und andere Glückspiele. Rechtlich, ökonomisch, historisch und im Lichte der Weltliteratur betrachtet (Vienna: Linde, 2003), 99-126.

3. On “Ola Fortuna” and the definition of Glückshafen see: Harry Kühnel, “Der Glückshafen. Zur kollektiven Festkultur des Spätmittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit,” in
Helmuth Feigl, ed., Festgabe des Vereins für Landeskunde von Niederösterreich.
Zum Ostarrîchi-Millennium.
Part 1 (Vienna: Verein für Landeskunde
von Niederösterreich, 1996), 319.

4. Gustav Adolph Schimmer, Das alte Wien. Darstellung der alten Plätze und merkwürdigsten jetzt größentheils verschwundenen Gebäude Wiens. II Heft (Vienna: Druck und Verlag von J.P. Sollinger Witwe, 1853), 10.

5. Manfred Zollinger, Geschichte des Glückspieles. Vom 17. Jahrhundert bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 1997), 200.

6. Günther G.Bauer, “Das Österreichische Zahlenlotto 1752-2002,” in Dem Glück auf der Spur. 250 Jahre Österreichisches Zahlenlotto. 285 (Sonderausstellung des Historischen Museums der Stadt Wien, 2002), 61. On the “Italian lotto” see also Das Lotto-Recht
oder Rechtliche Betrachtungen über diejenigen Vorfälle so sich bey dem Zahlenspiel oder sogenannten Lotto theils schon zugetragen haben, und theils in der Zukunft noch zutragen möchten
(Coburg: Rudolph August. Wilb, 1771), 5.

7. Sigmund Kanner, Das Lotto in Österreich. Ein Beitrag zur Finanzgeschichte Österreichs. Inaugural Dissertation (Strasburg: Buchdruckerei C.& J. Geller, 1898), 3.

8. Ibid, 6.

9. Lotto Privilegium an Octavio Conte die Cataldi, 1.04.1762–31.03.1770.

10. On state monopoly over Lotto in early modern Europe see Rudolf Sabath, Das Glücksspiel. Seine strafrechtliche und wirtschaftliche Bedeutung (Berlin: Verlag von Struppe & Winckler, 1906), specifically 14.

11. Kanner, Lotto in Österreich, 7-10.

12. First prohibitions were imposed almost immediately after the emergence of lotto and continued through the nineteenth century. On state-imposed prohibitions see Werner
Ogris, “250 Jahre Lotterieverbot. Lotterien—Ja oder Nein? ” in 250 Jahre Österreichisches Zahlenlotto (Vienna, May 2002), 84-99.

13. Bauer, “ Das Österreichische Zahlenlotto,” 60.

14. In 1761, Johan Köber petitioned for a right to hold the Glückshäfen in Brno, justifying his requests in reference to the potential profit his Glückshafen could bring the city
of Brno, the capital of Moravia. See Julius Leisching, “Glückshafen und Bildlotterie,” Sonderdruck aus den Mittheilungen des Maehrischen Gewerbe-Museums, Brünn XVIII (1900), 3.

15. Ibid., 3-4.

16. For a description of Vienna during the Napoleonic conquest, and more specifically, 1805, see Anton Pfatz, Die Franzosen in Wien im Jahre 1805. Nach den besten Quellen bearbeitet (Deutsch-Wagram: Verlag des “kriegerdenkmalfonds,” 1905).

17. Zollinger, Geschichte des Glückspieles, 199.

18. Ibid., 200.

19. Allgemeine Zeitung, N 322 Mittwoch 18 Nov 1807. Cited from ÖStA, (Österreichisches Staatsarchiv), AVA (Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv), PHST (Polizeihofstelle),1808: 4476/a. Plan eines Glückshafens.

20. On the request: ÖStA, AVA, PHST, 1808: 4476/a: Wurmser, Lemberg 20 Jan 1808.

21. On the plan see: ÖStA, AVA, PHST,
1808: 4476/a: Dekret an den Herrn Hofrath und Polizeichef v. Ley; VA. PHST,
1808: 4476/a: Dekret an den k.k. Hofrath und Polizeioberdirektor, Ley, Wien,
20 Dec 1807.

22. Ley’s report: ÖStA, AVA, PHST, 1808: 4476/a: Wien, 24 Dec 1807.

23. ÖStA, AVA, PHST, 1808: 4476/a: Ley, Wien den 24ten Dec 1807.

24. ÖStA, AVA, PHST, 1808: 4476/a: Dekret an den Polizeidirektor, Wien, Mar 1808.

25. Zollinger, Geschichte des Glückspieles, 205.

26. HHStA (Haus-Hof-und Staatsarchiv), Kabinnettsarchiv, Kaiser Franz Akten, Karton 86: Berichte von Wurmser, 1804.

27. Complaints about financial destitution and “abandonment” became a common
motive in the interaction between different lower-ranking bureaucrats and their superiors. An excellent example of the complex network of social and financial relationships within the (central) Austrian bureaucracy is offered by Waltraud Heindl, Gehorsame Rebellen. Bürokratie und Beamte in Österreich 1780 bis 1848 (Wien: Böhlau, 1991).

28. On Wurmser’s personal assessment of his financial situation: HHStA, Kabinettsarchiv, Kaiser Franz Akten, Karton 86: Berichte von Wurmser, 1804.

29. HHStA, Kabinettsarchiv, Kaiser Franz Akten, Karton 86: 1807 Auszug aus der 36 Nummer des Warschauer Correspondenten, 5 May 1807.

30. See Giovanni Dolcetti, Le Bische e il Guoco d’Azzardo a Venezia 1172-1807 (Venice: Aldo Manuzio, 1903), 23.

31. ÖStA, AVA, PHST: 5010/1815: Glücksspiele, Italien.

32. ÖStA, AVA, PHST, 1808: 4476/a: Dekret an den Herrn Hofrath und Polizeichef v. Ley.
Wien, 6 Nov 807. Because these documents are badly damaged, it is unclear
who exactly filed the report.

33. ÖStA, AVA, PHST, 1808: 4476/a: Wurmser, Lemberg 20 Jan 808.

34. ÖStA, AVA, PHST, 1808: 4476/a: Schreiben an den Präsidenten des galizischen Landesguberniums, Grafen von Wurmser, Wien 19 Hornung (February) 1808.

35. ÖStA, AVA, PHST, 1808: 4476/a: Dekret an den Polizeidirektor, Wien 25 Mar 1808.

36. ÖStA, AVA, PHST, 1808: 4476/a: Schreiben von dem Vize-Präsidenten des galizischen Landes-Guberniums. An Grafen v/Wurmser, Wien 10 Jan 1808.

37. ÖStA , AVA, PHST, 1808: 4476/a: Dekret an die Polizeidirektion, Wien, 15 April 1808.

38. One last Glückshafen took place in Vienna in 1809, though apparently smaller in scope than ever before See Schmimmer, Das alte Wien, 10.

IWM Junior Visiting Fellows’ Conferences, Vol. XXX

© 2011 by the authors

Readers may redistribute this article to other individuals for noncommercial
use, provided that the text and this note remain intact. This article may not
be reprinted or redistributed for commercial use without prior written permission
from the author. If you have any questions about permissions, please contact
Klaus Nellen at IWM.

Preferred citation: Vushko Iryna. 2011.
Policing the Empire: Austrian Gambling Regulations during the Napoleonic Wars. In: Disappearing Realities. On the Cultural Consequences of Social Change, ed. A. Dwyer, and M. Bucholc,
Vienna: IWM Junior Visiting Fellows’ Conferences, Vol. 30.