Page 236 - 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. 236
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
they had to gain the cash before paying their monetary fees (this is an es-
tablished method in Slovenian historiography). Although the data we get
this way are not completely satisfactory, because part of the manorial in-
come in money was paid at toll stations by ‘foreign’ peasants and trades-
men, it can still serve as evidence. In the first few decades of the 17th century,
the rent in money of the five manors covering most of the Karst ranged be-
tween 22% and 67%. In the Devin manor, whose documentation and peas-
ant economy are the object of our analysis in this paper, the share of mon-
ey rent was as much as 51.3 % (in 1637, Panjek 2011, 298). Even if such a share
represents an overestimation of the local subjects payments in money (also
because the wheat tithe was sometimes leased out), it still constitutes a glar-
ing sign that we are in the presence of peasants who have market relations
to a remarkable extent.
The structure of holdings presents a picture of the same reality but
from a different angle. We have it for the two largest feudal manors on the
Karst, Reifenberg and Devin. The Reifenberg manor in 1624 comprised
249 hube (farms of medieval origin: Hube, mansus) and 524 kajže (cottag-
es, farm units of Early Modern foundation: Keuschler), while the Devin
manor in 1637 counted 273 hube, plus one third and one quarter of huba,
and “around” 100 kajže, to which 35 more hube, owned by other landlords
but subject to the Devin jurisdiction, can be added. A first observation re-
gards the high number of more recent farms (the kajže), which in general
had quite little land. While for Devin their number is only estimated (and
likely underestimated), in the Reifenberg territory they are very numerous
and seem to outnumber the old farms (hube). We can understand this as
an indicator of the level, reached by the first decades of the 17th century, of
the growth in number of peasants with scarce land. But the picture is still
incomplete and even misleading, since all those older and larger farms are
somehow a fiction. The state chamber’s commissaries evaluating the Reif-
enberg manor in 1624, in fact, stated that many of the hube were “occupied
by four, five, and more subjects,” meaning peasant family heads. The same
applied for Devin in 1637, where “an increase of the subjects and residents of
the jurisdiction in these last years” was detected, and the hube were occu-
pied by “four, five, and more” peasants too. Similar comments were to come
about from other manors in the Karst area as well (Panjek 2015b, 64). This
means that we are confronted with a significant fragmentation process that
was creating progressively smaller farmsteads out of the old holdings too;
234
they had to gain the cash before paying their monetary fees (this is an es-
tablished method in Slovenian historiography). Although the data we get
this way are not completely satisfactory, because part of the manorial in-
come in money was paid at toll stations by ‘foreign’ peasants and trades-
men, it can still serve as evidence. In the first few decades of the 17th century,
the rent in money of the five manors covering most of the Karst ranged be-
tween 22% and 67%. In the Devin manor, whose documentation and peas-
ant economy are the object of our analysis in this paper, the share of mon-
ey rent was as much as 51.3 % (in 1637, Panjek 2011, 298). Even if such a share
represents an overestimation of the local subjects payments in money (also
because the wheat tithe was sometimes leased out), it still constitutes a glar-
ing sign that we are in the presence of peasants who have market relations
to a remarkable extent.
The structure of holdings presents a picture of the same reality but
from a different angle. We have it for the two largest feudal manors on the
Karst, Reifenberg and Devin. The Reifenberg manor in 1624 comprised
249 hube (farms of medieval origin: Hube, mansus) and 524 kajže (cottag-
es, farm units of Early Modern foundation: Keuschler), while the Devin
manor in 1637 counted 273 hube, plus one third and one quarter of huba,
and “around” 100 kajže, to which 35 more hube, owned by other landlords
but subject to the Devin jurisdiction, can be added. A first observation re-
gards the high number of more recent farms (the kajže), which in general
had quite little land. While for Devin their number is only estimated (and
likely underestimated), in the Reifenberg territory they are very numerous
and seem to outnumber the old farms (hube). We can understand this as
an indicator of the level, reached by the first decades of the 17th century, of
the growth in number of peasants with scarce land. But the picture is still
incomplete and even misleading, since all those older and larger farms are
somehow a fiction. The state chamber’s commissaries evaluating the Reif-
enberg manor in 1624, in fact, stated that many of the hube were “occupied
by four, five, and more subjects,” meaning peasant family heads. The same
applied for Devin in 1637, where “an increase of the subjects and residents of
the jurisdiction in these last years” was detected, and the hube were occu-
pied by “four, five, and more” peasants too. Similar comments were to come
about from other manors in the Karst area as well (Panjek 2015b, 64). This
means that we are confronted with a significant fragmentation process that
was creating progressively smaller farmsteads out of the old holdings too;
234
