Page 18 - Panjek, Aleksander, Jesper Larsson and Luca Mocarelli, eds. 2017. Integrated Peasant Economy in a Comparative Perspective: Alps, Scandinavia and Beyond. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 18
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
cause of other income sources) than the other way around (peasants had to
engage in other activities because their farms were too small).
We may understand the protests of urban merchants and the repeat-
ed prohibition acts as confirmation of the existence and perhaps even of
the liveliness of peasant trade in the long run. While dating back to the late
Middle Ages, such protests brought about a series of legal prohibitions of
peasant trade in Carniola throughout the Early Modern period (1552, 1568,
1602, 1661, 1691, 1725), but all of them were soon followed by relaxations. The
last of the latter in 1737 regulated the merchandise admitted for peasant
trade, limiting it to “anything the peasant produced by himself” and listing
as much as forty possible articles of this kind! Proceeding into the 18th cen-
tury, mercantilist and physiocratic measures of the modernising Habsburg
state helped inaugurate a phase of economic growth that brought new and
wider opportunities for the peasants’ market-related activities (Šorn 1984,
40–3).
In fact, as already mentioned, the market-oriented peasants’ agency
in Slovenian lands was not limited to transport related activities in the ter-
tiary sector, but they were active in the industrial field as well. Although
this was the case in the 16th and 17th centuries, too, a phase of more signif-
icant growth in peasant industrial production was detected in the second
half of the 18th century, just like in peasant trade. For the latter period, Šorn
cautiously estimated that 29% of the traded industrial production in the
duchy of Carniola originated from peasants. This figure does not comprise
the peasant’s self-consumed production, which is positive for our research
on market oriented activities. On the other hand it does not take into ac-
count the large quicksilver mine in Idrija,3 whose production if included
would have resulted in a lower share of “peasant production” (Table 1.3). It
may also be recalled that many of the mine-workers in Idrija derived from
peasant households and combined their work in the mine with the cultiva-
tion of small plots of land (Valentinitsch 1981). Šorn’s stressing the fact that
his figures are an estimate based on his own in-depth research experience,
“because despite the examined archival documentation we have not yet de-
tected material data that would help rounding the picture up to probabil-
ity,” by making such a statement in a work full of figures and specifically
3 The reason is that it represented an administrative island directly ruled by the finan-
cial chamber of the state. In spite of being correct in a strict historical sense, such
choice appears less reasonable when our goal is to understand the regional economy
as a whole, not least because the Idrija mine had an impact on economic opportuni-
ties also outside its administrative territory.
16
cause of other income sources) than the other way around (peasants had to
engage in other activities because their farms were too small).
We may understand the protests of urban merchants and the repeat-
ed prohibition acts as confirmation of the existence and perhaps even of
the liveliness of peasant trade in the long run. While dating back to the late
Middle Ages, such protests brought about a series of legal prohibitions of
peasant trade in Carniola throughout the Early Modern period (1552, 1568,
1602, 1661, 1691, 1725), but all of them were soon followed by relaxations. The
last of the latter in 1737 regulated the merchandise admitted for peasant
trade, limiting it to “anything the peasant produced by himself” and listing
as much as forty possible articles of this kind! Proceeding into the 18th cen-
tury, mercantilist and physiocratic measures of the modernising Habsburg
state helped inaugurate a phase of economic growth that brought new and
wider opportunities for the peasants’ market-related activities (Šorn 1984,
40–3).
In fact, as already mentioned, the market-oriented peasants’ agency
in Slovenian lands was not limited to transport related activities in the ter-
tiary sector, but they were active in the industrial field as well. Although
this was the case in the 16th and 17th centuries, too, a phase of more signif-
icant growth in peasant industrial production was detected in the second
half of the 18th century, just like in peasant trade. For the latter period, Šorn
cautiously estimated that 29% of the traded industrial production in the
duchy of Carniola originated from peasants. This figure does not comprise
the peasant’s self-consumed production, which is positive for our research
on market oriented activities. On the other hand it does not take into ac-
count the large quicksilver mine in Idrija,3 whose production if included
would have resulted in a lower share of “peasant production” (Table 1.3). It
may also be recalled that many of the mine-workers in Idrija derived from
peasant households and combined their work in the mine with the cultiva-
tion of small plots of land (Valentinitsch 1981). Šorn’s stressing the fact that
his figures are an estimate based on his own in-depth research experience,
“because despite the examined archival documentation we have not yet de-
tected material data that would help rounding the picture up to probabil-
ity,” by making such a statement in a work full of figures and specifically
3 The reason is that it represented an administrative island directly ruled by the finan-
cial chamber of the state. In spite of being correct in a strict historical sense, such
choice appears less reasonable when our goal is to understand the regional economy
as a whole, not least because the Idrija mine had an impact on economic opportuni-
ties also outside its administrative territory.
16
