Page 58 - 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. 58
integr ated peasant economy in a compar ative perspective
market in Slovenian territory, and increased the peasant’s economic pow-
er” (Gestrin 1991, 288).
As has already been mentioned, Gestrin believes that the involvement
of the peasant population in trade and the expansion of market relations
began to undermine the social division of labour at that time, which was
reflected not only in the relations within manors, i.e. between the feudal
landlord and subject, but also between the town and the countryside. This
topic was often discussed in Slovenian historiography, namely as the oppo-
sition of the townsfolk to rural trade or as the battle for rural trade between
the town and the village. The basic sources which authors used when re-
searching this issue were the proposed and adopted police regulations for
the Lower Austrian provinces from the first half of the 16th century, which
were translated and published for the first time by Josip Žontar (1956–57).2
As can be seen from their contents, when drafting the acts the provincial
prince relied on the support of the provincial estates, which mostly com-
prised representatives of the nobility and the landlords, and on the support
of the representatives of the towns of Slovenian provinces.
The townspeople endeavoured to limit or do away with the involvement
of the peasant population in commercial activities, which they claimed was
the domain of towns. However, the subjects received support from the pro-
vincial estates, which defended their engagement in supplementary activ-
ities, claiming that it facilitated their payment of feudal taxes. This reveals
the dual role of the nobility in its attitude towards the subjects. On the one
hand, representatives of landlords supported the involvement of the peas-
ant population in rural trade, as can be seen in Gestrin’s discussion of the
topic (1991, 251), while on the other hand, they strove towards intensify-
ing “feudal exploitation to the utmost” and obtaining a monopoly on the
surplus of peasant production. In this battle, the towns initially succeed-
ed in limiting rural trade. As early as 1525, the towns of Carinthia proposed
that the clergy, nobility and peasantry should not engage in “reselling, for
it does not become them. Priests and noblemen are able to subsist on their
rents and hereditary income, while peasants are supplied with the food
from their annual crops” (Žontar 1956–57, 47). Newer proposals from 1542
likewise contain demands that “no priest, nobleman, townsman or peas-
ant” should trade or resell goods, whereas peasant trade was restricted to
2 Discussions of the battle between the towns and the countryside that were based
on the above-mentioned source can be found in the late 19th and early 20th centu-
ry (Vrhovec 1886; Zwitter 1929). For further analyses and summaries of these docu-
ments see e.g. Grafenauer 1962; Gestrin 1991, 191; 1973a, 72; etc.
56
market in Slovenian territory, and increased the peasant’s economic pow-
er” (Gestrin 1991, 288).
As has already been mentioned, Gestrin believes that the involvement
of the peasant population in trade and the expansion of market relations
began to undermine the social division of labour at that time, which was
reflected not only in the relations within manors, i.e. between the feudal
landlord and subject, but also between the town and the countryside. This
topic was often discussed in Slovenian historiography, namely as the oppo-
sition of the townsfolk to rural trade or as the battle for rural trade between
the town and the village. The basic sources which authors used when re-
searching this issue were the proposed and adopted police regulations for
the Lower Austrian provinces from the first half of the 16th century, which
were translated and published for the first time by Josip Žontar (1956–57).2
As can be seen from their contents, when drafting the acts the provincial
prince relied on the support of the provincial estates, which mostly com-
prised representatives of the nobility and the landlords, and on the support
of the representatives of the towns of Slovenian provinces.
The townspeople endeavoured to limit or do away with the involvement
of the peasant population in commercial activities, which they claimed was
the domain of towns. However, the subjects received support from the pro-
vincial estates, which defended their engagement in supplementary activ-
ities, claiming that it facilitated their payment of feudal taxes. This reveals
the dual role of the nobility in its attitude towards the subjects. On the one
hand, representatives of landlords supported the involvement of the peas-
ant population in rural trade, as can be seen in Gestrin’s discussion of the
topic (1991, 251), while on the other hand, they strove towards intensify-
ing “feudal exploitation to the utmost” and obtaining a monopoly on the
surplus of peasant production. In this battle, the towns initially succeed-
ed in limiting rural trade. As early as 1525, the towns of Carinthia proposed
that the clergy, nobility and peasantry should not engage in “reselling, for
it does not become them. Priests and noblemen are able to subsist on their
rents and hereditary income, while peasants are supplied with the food
from their annual crops” (Žontar 1956–57, 47). Newer proposals from 1542
likewise contain demands that “no priest, nobleman, townsman or peas-
ant” should trade or resell goods, whereas peasant trade was restricted to
2 Discussions of the battle between the towns and the countryside that were based
on the above-mentioned source can be found in the late 19th and early 20th centu-
ry (Vrhovec 1886; Zwitter 1929). For further analyses and summaries of these docu-
ments see e.g. Grafenauer 1962; Gestrin 1991, 191; 1973a, 72; etc.
56
