THE GERMAN PEASANTRY ON THE EVE OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION

DIEDRICH SAALFELD*

During the eighteenth century the growth of the rural and urban population of Germany proceeded hesitant]\,. but slowly gathered momentum. By 1740, or thereabouts, the great population decrease of the Thirty Years’ War (1618-48) had been overcome. Whereas an estimated twenty-eight inhabitants occupied each square kilometer in 1700. this density had risen to thirty-two in 1740 and to forty-four in 1800. By this date the numerous German states(excluding .4ustria) counted twenty-four million subjects.’

Demand for foodstuffs. industrial raw materials and commodities grew’ steadill-. chiefly to the advantage of independent farmers and in particular the great landlords who were able to profit from the trend. But the traditional agricultural system found it increasingly difficult to cater for the rise in demand and this led to the diffusion of new crops, new production methods and alternative forms of agrarian organisation. However. the trend also accentuated soclai contrasts and the mobilit) of the work force which had been limited since the advent of absolutism in Germany. The surplus population generated in the course of the centuc stood little chance of obtaining sufficient land to live on. Instead. the! sank to the loosest levels of rural society.

The shifting relationship between suppI\ and demand and the social pressures within landed society during the climactic phase of German absolutism will be discussed in detail in the rest of this article.

GERMAN RURAL SOCIETY Ih‘ THE EIGHTEENTH CEh-TUR1

In the eighteenth centur>- ‘Germany’ consisted of 258 sovereign territories (or 243 according to another calculation). .4round 1?50 roughly 75 per cent of the population lived in the seven clerical and secular electorates; 9.5 per cent in the twenty-six clerical principalities and 1 I per cent in a further thirty-seven secular territories. The remainder was distributed among small estates of the realm (42 abbeys. 95 counties and knighthoods. 50 towns!.’ The great bulk of the

population (between three quarters and four fifths) were tied to the land. The) belonged to the Third and lowest Estate (Bauernsrand).

THE DEMOGRAPHIC TRANSITION, 1740-1804

Until the 1740s the population of Europe increased slowly, but in the second half

l Institut fiir Wlrrschafts-und Sozialgeschichte der UniversiCit Gtittingen, D-3400 GBttingen. West German!.

3.FI

352 Diedrich Soalfeld

of the eighteenth century the annual growth rate accelerated rapidly from under 0.5 per cent to I per cent and more. Around 1750 Europe counted between 120 and 140 million inhabitants, whereas the population had increased to between 180 and 190 million by 1800. In Germany the population grew from approximately 18 to 24 million during this period; and in the kingdom of Prussia-the most populated and geo~aphically expansionist state in Germany- the number of inhabitants virtually trebled from 3.5 million to 10 million between 1748 and 1804. largely as a result of the Polish partitions.’

The explanation of these phases of demographic development lies in the shifting relationship between birth rate and death rate in pre-industrial societies. With an average life expectancy of around 35 years, the figure for annual births was 35 to 45 per 1,000 persons, white under normal en~~ironmental conditions the death rate amounted to between 35 and 40 per 1,000, giving an annual growth rate of 0.5 per cent. A number of factors could negate this natural increase such as infectious diseases, poor harvests and the gradual deterioration of the climate. which seems to have improved again, though slowly in the eighteenth century. From time to time epidemics. famines and wars reached catastrophic proportions and the death rate would more than double during those years. Recurrent outbreaks of ‘drseases of the people’ such as pfague, tuberculosis, cholera, dysentery, small pox and typhoid claimed proportionately many more lives in the tightly packed large towns and congested villages, than in sparsely settled agricultural areas.

Mortality also possessed a class-related dimension. The poorly nourished urban and rural lower classes suffered more from disease and bad harvests than more resistent well-to-do families. The latters’ prosperity, resting on a regular and adequate supply of food and acceptable housing and living conditions. provided the first line of defence against the sudden onset of natural disasters.

The death rate in north-western Europe dropped sharply from the 1740s and about one generation iater in eastern Europe, yet the birth rate remained as high as ever. The fall in the death rate to under 25 per 1,000 in the course of the eighteenth century can be explamed in terms of a decline tn infant mortalit).’

THE SOCIAL ORDER OF ABSOLUTIST GERMAKY

From the Middle Ages until well into the nineteenth century the position of the individual and of his family in the social and economic life of the village and town in Germany and Europe was determined by his political and legal rights, b? property and wealth. and by birth and profession. The most important criterion of social differentiation was therefore parentage. Everyone was born into the professional and sociaf stratum to which his parents belonged. People at the time were ver! conscious of this fact. As Benecke aptly remarks: ‘Before the birth of human rights in the eighteenth century. European society recognised as self- evtdent that there were basic inequalities of law between different groups of people and their dependants, according to weahh, birth and profession. Even so. early modern social structures were not rigid and caste-like. but movement within them was individual and erratic: one can talk of cumulative effects but not of rational change’.’

The Peasantry of German?, 353

Thus in Germany the population was organised on strictly hierarchical lines. As the dominant social group, the nobility constituted the First Estate. Equipped with a wide range of powers and privileges, they stood at the top of the social pyramid. Beneath them lay the less privileged bourgeoisie or the Second Estate whose members had the right to live within the city walls and who enjoyed the special privilege of engaging in commerce and of carrying on independent business. The entire rural population formed the lowest. largest and most oppressed social group of the pre-industrial period.6 The distribution of the various social strata in Germany is presented in Table 1.

From circa 1720 to 1800 country dwellers and townspeople contributed equally to the growth in the population of Germany from 16 to 24 million inhabitants. However, there were significant shifts within these social categories. Whereas the number of full-time farmers remained constant, the rural poor doubled. The proportion of villagers with little or no land rose from about two thirds to about three quarters of the rural population. Since the sixteenth century. moreover. great regional contrasts had developed within the German peasantry. In the west. sovereigns had successfully established their supremacy over the feudal nobility. By custom and sometimes by legal title the peasantr! had won their freedom, although they remained dependent on their landlord. Generally speaking their obligations and labour service had been fixed. In the east, by contrast, the nobility dominated political life and oppressed the villagers. ‘Seigneurs used this public power the\ possessed to restrict further peasant freedom. to demand increased dues and services and to change the terms of peasant tenure. In short. b! entire]! legal means they established themselves as the autocrats of their villages and pressed their peasants into an abject dependence on them’.‘- In eastern German\-. unlike the west. peasants often held their land at the will of their landlord who could take it from them and add it to his own demesne. Estate production geared to the market steadily increased among noble landow,ners. particularly in the second half of the centur!.

E\,en at the l.er!’ end of the eighteenth century most rural households still derl\,ed their livelihood from agriculture. either directly from their holdings. or as agricultural labourers. or by working agricultural raw materials as a cottage lnduslr>. However. it u’ac land ou,nership that should be regarded as the most impnrr;tnt criterion of rural social differentiation in pre-industrial times. As more and more families found themsel\,es with no access to the soil or to independent participation in the production process. it is possible to detect a rising tide of pauperisation. During the absolutist epoch many families were obliged 10 send out their offspring to seek employment as farm hands. da! labourers. farm servants or industrial outworkers. One of the results of exclusion from private ownershlp of cultivable land was that these countr! dwellers were denied access to common land and communal resources. Even if they managed to become owners of houses. the\- remained underprivileged and thus disadvan- taged inhabitants of the \,illage. Rural povert) and mendicancy became endemic. although we should allou for wide regional differences. AsTable 1 shows. in Germany east of the river Elbe and in Mecklenburg particularly. over 50 per cent of the land was concentrated in a few noble hands, and in middle and north- western German!, between a fifth and a quarter of landed property belonged to nobles. In the south. by contrast. the!_ held less than 10 per cent. In eastern

354 Diedrich Saalfeld

3 -- -87

The Peasamy of German? 3-r-S

Germany large and middling farmers cultivated between a third and a half ofthe arable land, a proportion which rose to between two thirds and three quarters in the west. By contrast, small farmers and land-poor households whose incidence had increased in the course of the eighteenth century from 40 to 70 per cent of the rural population, generally owned less than 10 per cent of the land. All in all, the rural lower classes were becoming the largest social group and. by the end of the century, outnumbered landowning peasants. For such poor households there was virtually no hope of ever owning land, not merely because land rarely appeared on the market, but also because the peasant farmers tended to marry within their own group thus excluding newcomers. The more sharpiy defined became the different strata within the village. the more members of each stratum tended to marry only among themselves. Intermarriage tended to concentrate possession of legal titles. titles to property. fixed assets and wealth in generaI, whilst for the lower social groups access to both property and the professions became impossible. or at the very least extremely difficult.

The information contained in Table I classifies rural social structure in terms of family or household units. but it sheds no light on the position of farm servants. The rural servant lived as a member of his or her employer’s household and although these individuals enjoyed relatively secure working conditions together with board and lodging. they lacked the elementary rights enjoyed by other villagers. The>- had no claim on the master’s family, either to a share of propert\ or wealth on inheritance. or to the provision of cash or goods on marriage. or on the termination of contract. If they managed to accumulate capital from their meagre wages with which to build a small house and to raise a farnil!. the) general& lost their permanent employment as servants and were forced toaccept a lower standard of living either as casual labourers or as industrial workers. Servants are difficult to isolate in contemporary sources as they were counted as part of employers’ households. In eastern Germany which had a high proportion of large estates. they can be estimated at between 10 and 15 per cent of the rural population around 1800: in the west where small- and medium-sized land holdings prevailed. rheh probabl! represented under 10 per cent of countr! d\seIlers.

Using such sketch! data as exists. the louer echelons of the rural population who relied entire]) on the work of their hands and that of their dependants can be estimated to have numbered beta,een six and eight million individuals. or between a quarter and a third of the total German population by the end of the century. It was the! who provided the labour force for the expansion of large- scale agriculture. This tendenc:- towards proletarianisation was one of the characteristic effects of the growing influx of capital and the increasing adaptation of German agriculture to a money and market economy which had been taking place since the beginning of modern times and which accelerated in the second half of the eighteenth centur!‘.

It should be remembered that important branches of industrial production were principally carried on in the countryside, for that was where the majorit! of people lived. Both agricultural and textile production exceeded the needs of the local population and the surplus headed towards the towns and from there into the continental trade networks and overseas. Joan Thirsk’s remarks on the growing commercialisation of the English econom! in the early modern period

3.56 Diedrich Saalfeid

can be applied to Germany as well: ‘Pin-making, stocking knitting, lace-making. vegetable. hemp. flax and wood growing employed the poor on an unprecedented scale’.* Increasingly, land-poor households found their livelihood in cottage industrial activities. They produced mainly for the needs of other country dwellers, but with the surplus being consumed in the towns. However, a growing number of small landowners, independent craftsmen and also skilled wage labourers found themselves incapable of feeding their families from their wages. Instead, they were obliged to rely not only on their own earnings, but also the regular labour of their wives and resident grown-up off-spring, not to mention the help of young children.

As the division of labour between agriculture and industry became more pronounced, specialised rural trades requiring a certain mechanical aptitude and a specific training developed in the country areas. Blacksmiths, waggon-builders and wheelwrights, carpenters and joiners had established their presence in the countryside early on, but tailors, cobblers, tilers and masons working as independent tradesmen began to populate the larger villages. Less common were glaziers, coopers and village butchers who tended to work at these trades on a part-time basis. Most millers were also to be found in the country areas: in the west they were frequently independent and counted, therefore, among those rural people of rank. In the east, however, they were subject to the landlord and

required to live on his estate along with other dependent tradesmen. Shippers and merchants could sometimes be found residing in coastal villages, but commerce generally remained the privilege of the towns. If local demand was large enough, tradesmen and artisans might become men of property and farming a secondary occupation for them. The proportion of these independent artisans and traders can be reckoned at between 8 and 12 per cent of the rural population in the west around 1800. In the east their numbers were smaller. perhaps 5 per cent. A few of them- mill-owners, ship chandlers and brewers especially-might prosper and end up holding positions of status in their villages.

INCREASING SOCIAL UNREST AND THE START OF REFORM

Conflict over manorial authority and common rights which pitted peasants against their lords could easily result m riots. In the territories of the west authority tended to be wielded by sovereigns who collected rents and dues using royal administrators, but in the lands of the east regalian powers had often been ceded to the great feudatories. As a result the nobility enjoyed substantial rights over the villages and their peasant inhabitants. Moreover. they had been allowed to extend their demesnes, usually at the expense of the holdings of their peasants who were thus dispossessed and reduced to the status of plot farmers or landless labourers. In order to boost the profitability of noble estates, labour service had been pushed as high as SIX days a week (two individuals and four horses per farmstead), particularly in Mecklenburg and m Prussia.Y

In these conditions of oppression all villagers found themselves in potential conflict with their lord. But the seigneur wielded political authority as well as powers of police: riots and revolts could be put down at once. In any case rebellion was a rare occurrence in the eighteenth century. Only- Silesia provided a

The Peasanrrl, of German}, 357

theatre for serious popular disturbances. Remote from the market centres of north-western Europe and completely dominated by noble power, the living conditions of the Silesian peasantry were inhumane. Revolts and rebellions broke out repeatedly, but they were crushed with the help of troops.

However, the ideas let loose by the French Revolution provoked a rebellious uproar in the Rhineland and south-west Germany.‘O In these regions partible inheritance had fragmented land holdings and by the end of the old regime most rural households could only make ends meet by seeking seasonal work or by practising some form of cottage industry. Their difficult situation would improve following the reforms of the nineteenth century, but in the meantime efforts to improve conditions for the lower classes of the countryside were few and far between. The nobility and the magnates were not yet willing to sacrifice any of their privileges. At most. piecemeal reforms were initiated where both the landlord and his subjects were interested. In the context of the eighteenth century, reform tended to begin with schemes for the improvement of common land. In north-west Germany the commons were jointly shared between the village, the manor and the principal peasant farmers. Landless peasants were excluded.” Enclosure of commons was introduced on the large estates of Holstein and along the Baltic coast. Here landlords also curtailed collective rights in order to produce cereals, cattle and dairy products more profitably. Manorial openfields were replaced by enclosed farmsteads, too.12 On the estates of the abbey of Kempten in Bavaria enclosure had begun in the sixteenth century and it gradually spread into the surrounding subalpine region. With its humid climate, this area invited specialisation in fodder-crop cultivation.13 However, all of these developments were tangential to the worsening plight of the growing numbers of rural poor.

FLUCTUATIONS IN THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET: DEMAND AND CONSUMPTION

In keeping with the growth in population since the 172Os, demand rose for agricultural products and foodstuffs. While the price of foodstuffs during the eighteenth century climbed well above the price minimum registered during the third quarter of the seventeenth century, the price of handicraft commodities remained at a very low level compared with the preceding century.”

The movement of prices and wages in Germany followed the general European trend (Figure 1). In urban markets to which peasants took theirproduce, the price of basic necessities increased slowly from 1660 to 1765; yet there were pauses caused by good hanests and low prices in 1688, 1722, 1730. 1750 and 1769, and price leaps triggered by bad harvests in 1684. 17 19-20,1740-41,1756-57 and most significantly between 1770 and 1772. However. during the last third of the eighteenth century’ price fluctuations accelerated. Overall the price of basic agricultural products continued upwards until 1817 to register an increase of some 80 per cent across our period. Wages. non-agricultural prices and incomes. by contrast, rose by only 20 per cent-far behind basic foodstuffs. After the bad harvests of 1771-72. 1799. 1804. 1811 and 1816 agricultural products doubled and even trebled in v,alue. During these years the greater part of the population

358 Diedrich Saalfeld

1 mD0 -9 1650-9 1700-9 1750-9 mOO-9

J

Figure I: Prices and Wages in German) in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries

was afflicted by famine, in consequence. On the eve of the outbreak of revolution in France, therefore, price-wage ratios had worsened considerably and the purchasing power of the rural poor had fallen to a very low 1evel.l’

So, in a period of rapid population growth and only marginally increasing production, real wages and non-agricultural incomes declined dramatically. The 1iCng conditions of skilled and unskilled workers, of small plot farmers and of petty craftsmen worsened and they suffered great impoverishment in the final quarter of the eighteenth century. If day labourers and other poor families had managed to gain possession of a piece of land with a house and a garden. the! v.ere generally able to supplement their wages with small-scale agricultural production. As a result, in northern Germany, they often had a relatively stable household economy. But m the densely populated agricultural zones of southern and western Germany with their highly parcellised land holding structure. the earning potential of a day labourer or an occasional labourer was much more uncertain. The majority of the rural population, therefore, had increasingly to seek a supplementary income (or even the primary income) from the processing of marketable raw materials. This trend began in the middle of the eighteenth century. In view of the low level of overall economic development, the most extensive markets were in the consumer goods of everyday- use. especially clothing. Thus the rural poor supported themselves primarily from the proceeds of the domestic textile industry (spinning. knitting and weaving). But the livelihood of such famtlies was meagre and insecure. for cottage handicrafts could rarely be relied upon to support a family; instead they usually provided resources with which to supplement the production of foodstuffs. In Silesia the weavers. and in other regions, too, a growing number of rural households found it increasingly difficult to feed their families from starvation wages. To satisfy their hunger. the poor were forced to rely on rye bread and other humble foodstuffs: peas. beans and potatoes. Setting aside potatoes, the production of which varied enormously. country dwellers found in rye their principal source of nourishment.

The Peasantr) of German] 359

The low productivity of pre-industrial agriculture condemned German peasant farmers, and particularly the wretched population of the east Elbian estates, to a very modest standard of living. Their diet can generally be described as monotonous, but robust. However, during the final quarter of the eighteenth century the increasing cultivation of the potato brought some variety to this lop- sided and carbohydrate-based diet. To some degree the potato even replaced rye bread, but bread contains three to four times as much protein as potatoes and so this substitution represented a deterioration in nutritioual in-take. In many regions of northern and central Germany the potato became the most important source of energy for the lowest strata of the countryside. This seems to have been particularly true of East Prussia, Pomerania, and the sandy and marshy districts of north-western Germany. The potato also became the principal ingredient of peasant diet in highland regions. While lacking in nutritional value compared with cereals, potato cultivation produced much higher yields and this is the reason why potatoes were extensively planted in the gardens of small farmers and agricultural workers.Ih

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT

During the last quarter of the century agricultural production in Germany slowly began to rise. Owing to a steadily increasing demand for bread grains, detectable since medieval times. arable cultivation had become the most productive branch of agriculture. And yet a continuing extension of arable cultivation was no longer feasible by the end of the eighteenth century. Accordingly, noble estate owners as well as peasant farmers sought to increase productivity by means of a greater labour input and new methods of agricultural organisation. But despite the expansion of market opportunities, production techniques remained tied inextricably to the old agrarian order based on the farmstead with its garden, a little meadow land and scatter of arable strips held within common fields. Under this regime the rural community determined the order of sowing. cultivation and harvesting of crops and. subsequently, the grazing of the stubble by stock. In all regions where the soil lent itself to corn growing. the common or three-field system had become the most widespread and profitable mode of agricultural organisation. Yields in the eighteenth century’ amounted to perhaps 6 quintals per hectare on less fertile soils and between IO and 12 quintals per hectare on the best land. With a three-field rotation averages of 8 quintals of rye per hectare could be achieved. As for stock, levels of around ten to twelve cows (plus calves), eighteen to twenty-four sheep, eight to twelve pigs and eight horses per square kilometer had been reached by 1780 (average for the whole of Germany).‘.

By 1800 population density had climbed to around forty-four persons per square kilometer and the increased demand for agricultural products was being met by improvements in productivity. In the conditions of the old agrarian regime, the most effective way of doing this was to grow foodstuffs on the fallow. Generally speaking. more vegetables and potatoes-the new root crop-were planted. not to mention clover and grass to provide fodder for more intensive stock raising. Between 1770 and 1800 the increase in foodstuff production has

360 Diedrich Saalfeld

been estimated at 20 per cent. ” However, the productive ceiling of the traditional agricultural system had clearly been reached by the end of the century. No longer able to meet the needs of an ever growing population, a thoroughgoing land reform was needed to remove the structural constraints. But unlike France, the adjustments required in the German territories were not brought about by revolution. Instead they were the product of legal reforms sponsored by the monarchs. These started in Schleswig-Holstein in 1771, on crown lands in Austria and Prussia in 1781 and in Lauenburg and Ltineburg (electorate of Hanover). After the interlude of the French occupation (1804-1814) there

followed comprehensive agrarian reforms, first in Prussia in 1807, 1811 and between 1816 and 1821, and subsequently in most of the middling and minor states of Germany (Baden, Hesse, Hanover? Brunswick, Wiirttemberg, Saxony etc.) between 1830 and 1836. Finally, reform reached Bavaria and Mecklenburg in 1848.19 As a consequence of these liberal, social and agrarian reforms. German peasants won their freedom in the legal sense. During the course of the nineteenth century they also became independent owners of the land now that their farms could be exploited on an individual basis.

AGRICULTURAL OUTPUT AND THE GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT

In the pre-industrial era (16th to 18th centuries), the living conditions of Germany’s population were frugal and for the overwhelming majority (not merely in Germany but in every European country) they were frankly grim. Spending on cereal products took about 40 per cent of the average household’s income and the proportion spent on food and drink around the turn of the century amounted to between 70 and 75 per cent. This left only 10 or 12 per cent of the family budget for other essential needs such as clothing and housing.?l

Whereas we can estimate domestic expenditure, the sources scarcely permit an estimate of global production, save perhaps in the case of Prussia.” Here rye production accounted for 18 per cent of the gross national product and other cereals 20 per cent to give a total vegetable production of about 48 to 50 per cent. Stock raising contributed around 12 to 14 per cent. The next most productive sector was that of the trades (15 per cent) and cottage industry which generated between 10 and 12 per cent. The other sectors (forestry, manufacturing and industry) each contributed between 4 and 8 per cent. Although these figures tend to overlap, it can be seen that in the eighteenth century agriculture continued to be the most important sector of the Germany economy.

Unavoidably, the bulk of each family’s income was devoted to the purchase of food. That which remained was required for no less necessary consumer goods. Some peasant households, it is true, were able to profit from the price spiral and take their farm surplus to market. but the vast majority of country dwellers experienced increasing impoverishment. Those reliant on manual wages suffered most and during the closing decades of the century begging and petty thieving became widespread.

Following the reforms of the early nineteenth century, agrarian conditions altered fundamentally. Harvest failure ceased to be the crucial factor governing living conditions and agriculture lost its key role as pace-setter and price-

The Peasan+ of German!, 361

regulator in the national economy. The lead was taken instead by industry. With technical progress and advances in machine power, the productivity of labour could be increased considerably and from the mid-nineteenth century the great mass of workmg men and women were affected by this process. The consequent rise in real incomes led to an improvement in living standards for the whole population. As for country dwellers, they drifted more and more towards the towns and industrial centres.

Institut fiir Wirtschafts-und Sorialgeschichte der Universitlit Gdttingen

Diedrich Saalfeld

NOTES

1, D. Saalfeld. ‘\!‘andlungen der bauerlichen Konsumgewohnheiten vom Mntelalter zur Neuzeit in: Essen und Trrnken in Mirrelalrer undh‘exeir (ed. by I. Bltsch. T. Ehlers.

X. van Ertzdorff) (1987). p, 68 and table 3.b.p. 74. 2. \I’. H Bruford. D/e peselisrhqftbchen Grundlogen der Goelhe:eir (Ullsteln Buch 3 142 1

19?9. p. 16: H. BBhme. Prolegomena :u emer So:ial- und W’irlschqfrsgeschichle

Deurschiands im 19. und 20 Jh.. 2. ed. 1968. p. 9. 3. A. i\rmengaud. ‘Population m Europe 1700-1914’ in: The Fonrana Econ Hisl. qf

Europeted. by Icl Clpollal 3 (19’3). pp 22-76; .Ullrheilungen des Srarisr. Bureau’s In

Berfrn. ?. 1854. pp 6-64. 4. A. E. Imhof. Eyfuhrung in drc hisrorische Demographle (Beck‘sche Elementarbdcher~

19:7: E. A. U‘rlgle!. Popularlon and Hlsrorj, (196&j.

5. G. Benecke. Socrer! and Pohr~cs In German) l.(C(j-1750 (1974). p. IO. 6. D. Saalfeid. ‘Die srandlsche Glrederung der Gesellschqfr Deutschlands im Zerralrer des

Absolurismus’ Il.ierrel/ahrschr. _f Sozral- und U’lrrschqfrsgeschlchre. 67 (1980), p. 464 ). 7. J. Blum. From ser\,irude lofreedom: in’ Our Forgorren Pas1 Ced. b! J. Blum) (1982).

P 61 5. J. Thlrsh. Etonomtr Polq and Pry/errs (1978). p. 159. 9. H. Harmsch and G. Hertz. ‘I)-utsche .4grargeschlchre des Sptirfeudalismus.’ m

Sludrenbibliorhek DDR-Geschlchlwtss.. 6. (1988). S. 16: U. Bentzlen. ‘Landbeibl- kerung und aprartechmscher Fortschrirr In Mecklenburg’. in: SrudJen zur Geschrchre. 1

I iYS3l. S. 20. 10. P. Blerbrauer. ‘Bauerliche Reiolten urn i\lten Reich. Eln Forschungsberlcht’ m: Our

Forgorren Pasrred. b! J Blum)(1982) l?3-148:H. A. Landsberger(ed.).Rura/Proresl.

Peasanr mot,emenrs and ~~CIU! change (1974): M Schuize (ed ). Aufsriinde. Revolren.

Pro:esse (Geschlchre u. Gesellschaft. Bochumer hist. Stud.. 171 (1983). Il. D. Saalfeid: ‘Die sozlalbkonomlschen Lebensbedlngungen der Cnterschlchren

Deutschlands im 19. Jahrhundert’ m: GBrr. Beltrage zur Wlrrschqfrs- und

So:Ja/geschrchre. 11 (1981). S. 189-216. 12. 11‘. Prange. Die Anfunpe der grofien Agrarrqformen In Sch/esu,Jg-Holstein bis 177 i

(Quellen u. Forsch. z Geschichte Schlesu.-Holsteins, 60) (1971). p. 633 ff. G. Meyer. DJe l’erkoppeiunp rm Hr Lauenburg (Quellen u. Forsch. z. Gesch. Nledersachsens. 66) ( 1965 I

I?. U’. Abel. ‘Geschlchre der deutschen Landwrtschaft in, Deursche Agrargeschlchre. II. (ed. by G. Franz). 3rd ed (1978). p. 310 f.

14. U’. Abel. Agriculrural_fluctuarrons in Europe (19801. p. ii?2 15. D. Saalfeld. ‘Die Prelse und Lohne’ in: Panoramo der Frrderlcionrschen Zerr. 6 68 (ed

362 Diedrich Saalfeld

b! J. Zlechmann) (1985). 638-41. 16. G. Kregelmann. ‘Volkskundliche Studien zum M’andel der Speisen und Mahlzelren’

(H. J. Teuteberg and G. wiegelmann, Der U.andel der hhhrungsgew~ohnheiren.. ) (1972). p. 239.

17. D. Saalfeld. m Essen und Trinken (see note 1). Table 3.b. p. 74. 18 \!‘. Achilles. ‘Die Lape der hannoverschen Landbevolkerung im spaten lb.

Jahrhundert.’ in: Vercff der Hisr. Kommission .fiir Illiedersachsen und Bremen.

XXXIX. 9. 19S2. 128-130: F.-M‘. Henning. Landwirrschqfl undlbndliche Gesellschqf

rin Deutschland. vol. 2: 1750 bis 1976 (UTB 774) (1978). 81-83. 19. F. Lurge. ‘Geschichte der deurschen Agrarverfassunp.’ n-r: DeurscheAgrargeschIch!e.

vol. 3.2. ed. 1968: R. Gross. ‘Die biirgerliche Agrarreform In Sachsen ’ (Schrlftenr.

d Sraarsarchr1.s Dresden. 8) (1968): W. von Hippel. Die Bauernbefreiung im Kdmgrelch

U’tirrremberg. 2 ~01s (Forsch. z. deutschen Sozialgeschichte. 1) (1977). 20. D. Saalfeld. ‘The struggle to survive’. in Our Forgorren Pasr (ed. b\ J. Blum) (19821.

115-124. 21. L. Krug. Berrachrungen iiber den Narronalreichrum des preuj.?lschen Slaares und

U.ohlsrandseinerBebtohner. 2 vols (1805); (Forsch. z. Sozial- u. Wlrtschaftsgeschichre. 6) (1964) 238-253.