Page 59 - 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. 59
peasant income integration in early modern slovenia: a historiographical review
the selling of one’s own surpluses at fairs in towns and markets. The pro-
vincial estates did not agree with such provisions and eventually achieved
that the provinces adopted certain reliefs to the benefit of rural trade and
thus, at least seemingly, stood up for their subjects. At provincial diets they
stated that the reason why peasants were unable to pay their taxes was that
“poor people” were prohibited from any trading whatsoever; “without it,
they are unable to feed and sustain themselves with their small, low-yield-
ing huba [medieval farm-unit]. If the peasant subjects are not making any
profit, then the landlord cannot receive tributes and taxes” (Žontar 1956–
57, 73). In 1552, they claimed that peasants would not have been able to keep
their farms if they had not been engaged in transport to the County of Go-
rizia, to the Vipava Valley, and to Trieste and Italy, where they conducted
trade; and that, especially in the regions of Lower Carniola and the Karst,
peasants would not have been able to stay on their farms if they had not
traded and been actively engaged in transport (Žontar 1956–57, 114).
More than in the aspiration of towns to abolish rural trade, Žontar
was interested in the economic and social changes by individual Sloveni-
an provinces at the transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern Era.
To him, the most important finding, which he had inferred from the po-
lice regulations, was the differentiation in all classes of the population. In
the case of peasantry, he observed partial economic growth rather than so-
cial growth. Owing to increased tributes, taxes and other charges, the situ-
ation of some of the genuine rural estates worsened somewhat. Neverthe-
less, there were peasants in the countryside who owned as many as three
farms. The class of cottagers (kajžarji) grew significantly; they were peas-
ants with little land, who were mostly engaged in the manufacture of linen
and in the livestock and linen trade. The third stratum of the peasant pop-
ulation was formed by landless peasants (gostači), who had no land of their
own and made a living mainly as day labourers.
By analysing and publishing the police regulations, Žontar significant-
ly broadened the knowledge of the relations among different social class-
es of the population of that time, and our knowledge of the reasons for and
of the scope and diversity of the non-agricultural activities of peasants. By
doing so, he provided starting points to later authors, such as the previous-
ly presented Gestrin, which helped them to develop their interpretations of
the importance of non-agricultural sources of income for the peasant pop-
ulation and of the status of the peasant population in Slovenian lands in
Early Modern times.
57
the selling of one’s own surpluses at fairs in towns and markets. The pro-
vincial estates did not agree with such provisions and eventually achieved
that the provinces adopted certain reliefs to the benefit of rural trade and
thus, at least seemingly, stood up for their subjects. At provincial diets they
stated that the reason why peasants were unable to pay their taxes was that
“poor people” were prohibited from any trading whatsoever; “without it,
they are unable to feed and sustain themselves with their small, low-yield-
ing huba [medieval farm-unit]. If the peasant subjects are not making any
profit, then the landlord cannot receive tributes and taxes” (Žontar 1956–
57, 73). In 1552, they claimed that peasants would not have been able to keep
their farms if they had not been engaged in transport to the County of Go-
rizia, to the Vipava Valley, and to Trieste and Italy, where they conducted
trade; and that, especially in the regions of Lower Carniola and the Karst,
peasants would not have been able to stay on their farms if they had not
traded and been actively engaged in transport (Žontar 1956–57, 114).
More than in the aspiration of towns to abolish rural trade, Žontar
was interested in the economic and social changes by individual Sloveni-
an provinces at the transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern Era.
To him, the most important finding, which he had inferred from the po-
lice regulations, was the differentiation in all classes of the population. In
the case of peasantry, he observed partial economic growth rather than so-
cial growth. Owing to increased tributes, taxes and other charges, the situ-
ation of some of the genuine rural estates worsened somewhat. Neverthe-
less, there were peasants in the countryside who owned as many as three
farms. The class of cottagers (kajžarji) grew significantly; they were peas-
ants with little land, who were mostly engaged in the manufacture of linen
and in the livestock and linen trade. The third stratum of the peasant pop-
ulation was formed by landless peasants (gostači), who had no land of their
own and made a living mainly as day labourers.
By analysing and publishing the police regulations, Žontar significant-
ly broadened the knowledge of the relations among different social class-
es of the population of that time, and our knowledge of the reasons for and
of the scope and diversity of the non-agricultural activities of peasants. By
doing so, he provided starting points to later authors, such as the previous-
ly presented Gestrin, which helped them to develop their interpretations of
the importance of non-agricultural sources of income for the peasant pop-
ulation and of the status of the peasant population in Slovenian lands in
Early Modern times.
57
