The Peasants of Ottobeuren, 1487–1726

Abstract

The Peasants of Ottobeuren offers an interesting perspective on one of the enduring problems of early modern European history: the possibilities for economic growth and social change in rural society. Based on the voluminous records of the Swabian Benedictine monastery of Ottobeuren, this study underscores the limitations of the traditional narrative of a sixteenth-century boom which foundered on the productive rigidities of the peasant economy and then degenerated into social crisis in the seventeenth century. Population growth did strain resources at Ottobeuren, but the peasantry continued to produce substantial agricultural surplus. More importantly, peasants reacted to demographic pressure by deepening their involvement in land and credit markets, and more widely and aggressively marketing the fruits of their labour. Marriage and inheritance underwent a similar process of commercialization which made heavy demands on the peasantry, but which maintained a degree of social stability through the devastations of war, plague and famine.

Rural Economies and Transitions to Capitalism:Germany andEngland Compared (c.1200–c.1800)

“…While these efforts did have some success in the east‐Elbian regions, this was generally the case only from the second half of the sixteenth century, until which point the status, property rights and living standards of peasants were normally still relatively good in comparison to regions further west (Wunder , ; Hagen , 89–116; Melton , 321–22, 326–7; Hoffmann , 353–69; Čechura , 109–29; Enders , 190–7, 318–45, 373–85, 392–416; Scott , 182–97; Enders , 147–56, 171–200; Cerman , 22–38). In southern Germany, by the late sixteenth century peasants tended to have factually secure and heritable tenure, few or no regular labour services ( corvée ) were owed, and despite a greater constriction of movement than was the case in England because of personal bondage, most rural people may have been less economically oppressed by specifically feudal burdens than they had been in the fourteenth century (Sabean , 19–35, 45–99; Rebel , 21–42; Rösener ; Wunder , ; Robisheaux , 28–36, 186–90; Scott , 153–82; Sreenivasan ; Blickle , 40–89, 111–31; Sreenivasan , 9–50; Scott ; Warde , 101, 105, 212).…”

“…The period between 1200 and 1600 also saw an increase in the various perquisites of lordship, coupled with the growth of fiscal territorial lordships and states; the burdens these imposed on the rural population often had little connection to landholding, as lords' incomes from jurisdictional rights of various sorts, as well as tithes, increased significantly, as did the exactions of the states (Schulze ; Heimpel , 30–6; Rösener , 103–4, 107, 118–20, 126–7, 131, 146–7; Isenmann ; Blickle , 69–71, 126–8; Sreenivasan , 139–41; Scott , 59–67; Bahlcke ; North , 145–54). These payments almost always had to be in coin, and thus even if peasant rents remained mainly in grain and did not rise much, the need to raise cash for various non‐rent payments almost certainly grew.…”

“…The majority of the rural population did not, therefore, actually live from grain production: animal husbandry, horticulture, seasonal wage labour of various kinds, cultivating cash crops and spinning were the main sources of income for most people, often permanently rather than as a stage in the life cycle (Grees , esp. 10–51, 84–158; Rebel , 93–113; Robisheaux , 77, 84, 156; Hille ; Scott , 48–55, 176–8; Sreenivasan , 43, 153–4; Scott ). Fullholding peasants were also, however, increasingly dependent on realizing a cash profit in order to maintain access to their holdings, in order both to pay cash rents and taxes, and to pay off debts incurred to inherit their lands, since they generally – as in many parts of England (Whittle , 135, 143–4, 158; Wrightson , 62–4; Dyer , 180) – had to make substantial settlements with the yielding heirs and often also the retiring peasants.…”

“…Fullholding peasants were also, however, increasingly dependent on realizing a cash profit in order to maintain access to their holdings, in order both to pay cash rents and taxes, and to pay off debts incurred to inherit their lands, since they generally – as in many parts of England (Whittle , 135, 143–4, 158; Wrightson , 62–4; Dyer , 180) – had to make substantial settlements with the yielding heirs and often also the retiring peasants. Thus there emerged a system of credit dependency on the part of the wealthiest of the peasantry: they needed money to inherit, and they then needed to realize a profit in order to be able to pay off their loans and retain access to their lands (Rebel , 87–91, 113–7; Robisheaux , 186–90; Sreenivasan , 155–203). This created a dependence on the market: at Ottobeuren, for example, cash was raised from increased textile production, as well as the sale of wood, livestock, dairy products and the growing export of grain to profitable urban markets, including especially, from the end of the sixteenth century, those in Switzerland (Eitel , 512–15, 517–18; Sreenivasan , 101, 266–71).…”

“…Brenner has already been criticized on empirical grounds by a number of scholars, but the critique has almost exclusively concerned developments in England (Aston and Philpin ; Glennie ; Hoyle ; Mate ; Whittle ; Hatcher and Bailey , 67–120; French and Hoyle ); exceptions that concern Germany are the brief interventions of Heide Wunder and (less explicitly) Govind Sreenivasan (Wunder , ; Sreenivasan ). In addition, Terence Byres has presented an alternative theoretical approach comparing the rise of capitalism in America and Prussia (Byres , ), and more recently also argued, in this Journal , that Brenner paid too little attention to processes of pre‐capitalist differentiation (Byres ; based principally on Hilton , 66–78).…”