12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 October 2010
In the last two decades, scholars have significandy expanded, through die use of probate inventories, our purview of early-modern European households. Their work has tended to focus on the social and cultural implications of the material culture found in these inventories.1 Seldom, however, have they used these sources to study the family economy found in many early-modern European households, and since artisanal small-scale production remained the predominant mode of urban economic activity, this has produced a conspicuous gap in our knowledge.1 This essay, which contains a comprehensive investigation of probate inventories from artisanal households during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, is a modest attempt to fill some of that gap by providing a more nuanced understanding of the social, cultural, and economic survival strategies employed by the poorer households as they struggled to avoid the abject indigence of the truly destitute.
1. Among many diverse studies, see the following: Benscheidt, Anja R., Kleinbürgerlicher Besitz: Nurtinger Handwerker-inventare von 1660 bis 1840 (Münster, 1985)Google Scholar ; Fairchilds, Cissie, “The Production and Marketing of Populuxe Goods in Eighteenth-Century Paris”, in Brewer, John and Porter, Roy (eds), Consumption and the World of Goods (London, 1993), pp. 228–248Google Scholar ; Hauser, Andrea, Dingt des Alltags: Studien zur historischen Sachkultur eines schwäbischen Dorfes (Tübingen, 1994)Google Scholar ; Höher, Peter, “Konstanz und Wandel in Wohnausstattung und Hauswirt-schaft (1630-1899): Das Beispiel Nürtingen am Neckar”, in Wiegelmann, Günter (ed.), Beiträge zur Volkskultur in Nordwestdeutschland 55 (Münster, 1987), pp. 309–331Google Scholar ; Knüttel, Barbara, Manns-und Weibskleider in Unterfranken (Würzburg, 1983)Google Scholar ; Meiners, Uwe, “Zur Wohnkultur der münsterschen Bevölkerung in der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts: Eine Fallstudie anhand von Nachlaβverzeichnis-sen”, in Rheinisch-westfälische Zeitschrift für Volkskunde, 25 (1979/1980), pp. 80–103Google Scholar ; Mohrmann, Ruth-E., Alltapwelt im Land Braunschweig: Städtische und ländliche Wohnkultur vom 16. bis zum frühen 20. Jahrhundert (Münister, 1990)Google Scholar ; Roche, Daniel, The People of Paris: An Essay in Popular Culture in the 18th Century trans, by Evans, Marie (Berkeley, CA, 1987)Google Scholar ; Sandgruber, Roman, Die Anfänge der Konsumgeselkchaft: Konsumverbrauch, Lebensstandard und Alltagskultur in Österreich im 18. undip. Jahrhundert (Vienna, 1982)Google Scholar ; Schraut, Sylvia, Sozialer Wandel im Industrialisierungsprozess: Esslingen 1800-1870 (Esslingen, 1989)Google Scholar ; Shammas, Carole, The Pre-industrial Consumer in England and America (Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar ; and Weatherill, Lorna, Consumer Behaviour and Material Culture in Britain, 1660-1760 (New York, 1988)Google Scholar.
2. Medick's, Hans work, i.e. Weben und Überleben in Laichingen 1650-1900: Lokalgeschichte als Allgemeine Geschichte (Göttingen, 1997), is a dear exception, and serves, in fact, as one of the models for my own work.Google Scholar
3. Bourdieu, Pierre, Distinction, transl. by Nice, Richard (Cambridge, MA, 1984), p. 110.Google Scholar
4. For further details on die problems inherent to studying inventories, see, among others: King, Peter, “Pauper Inventories and the Material Lives of the Poor in die Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries”, in Hitchcock, T., King, P., and Sharpe, P. (eds), Chronicling Poverty: The Voices and Strategies of the English Poor, 1640-1840 (New York, 1997), pp. 161–166Google Scholar ; Mannheims, Hildegard, Wie wird ein Inventar erstellt? Rechtskommentare ah Quelle der volkskundlichen Forschung (Münster, 1991), pp. 121–134Google Scholar ; , Medick, Weben und Überleben, pp. 398ff.Google Scholar ; Mohrmann, Rudi-E., “Archivalische Quellen zur Sachkultur”, in Wiegelmann, Günter (ed.), Geschichte der Alltagskultur, Heft 21 (Münster, 1980), pp. 69–86Google Scholar ; and Vogler, Bernard (ed.), Les actes notaries: Source de I'histoire sociale XVIe-XRXe siècles (Strasbourg, 1979)Google Scholar.
5. Among many studies, see Benscheidt, Kleinbürgerlicher Besitz ; Borscheid, Peter, Textilarbeiter-schaft in der Industrialisierung (Stuttgart, 1978); Hauser, Dinge des Altags,Google ScholarSchomerus, Heilwig, Die Arbeiter der Maschinenfabrik Esslingen (Stuttgart, 1977)Google Scholar ; and Schraut, Sozialer Wandel im Industrialisierungsprozeβ.
6. Pistorius, Karl Chr. Fr., Taschenbuch auf Reisen durch Würtemberg; mit einem Anhang über die besuchteren Bäder Würtembergs, einem Ortsregister und zwei lithographirten Abbildungen, auch auf Verlangen mit einer Charte (Stuttgart [etc.], 1827), p. IIIGoogle Scholar . Unless otherwise noted, all translations are mine.
7. For more details, see Kirschmer, Karl, Die Geschichte der Stadt Göppingen, 2 vols (Göppingen, 1953)Google Scholar ; Hofmann, Emil, Die Industrialisierung des Oberamtsbezirkes Göppingens (Göppingen, 1910)Google Scholar ; Troeltsch, Walter, “Die Göppinger Zeugmacherei im 18. Jahrhundert und das sog. Vayhinger-buch”, in Schmoller, G. (ed.), Jahrbuch für Gesetzgebung, Venualtung und Volkswirtschaft im Deutschen Reich (Leipzig, 1896), pp. 165–187Google Scholar ; and Dreher, Alexander, Göppingens Gewerbe im 19. Jahrhundert (Göppingen, 1971)Google Scholar.
8. Cf. Stadtarchiv Göppingen (hereafter StAG), B.II.6.a, Seelentabellen und Bürgerlisten, 1760; and , Hofmann, Die Industrialisierung, p. 168Google Scholar.
9. See , Dreher, Göppingens Gewerbe, pp. 9–18Google Scholar ; and , Hofmann, Die Industrialisierung, pp. 3–10Google Scholar.
10. The corresponding categories from the probate inventories were as follows: Aggregate property = real estate + cash + precious items + books + male clothing + female clothing + bedding + linens + brass utensils + tin utensils + copper utensils + iron utensils + tinplate utensils + wooden utensils + furniture + barrel and binding materials + common household goods and tools + harness, tack, and building materials + craftsman tools, supplies, and wares + livestock + produce + foodstores + supplies + wine and other drinks.
11. During this entire period, the currency in Württemberg was: 1 Gulden (fl.) = 60 Kreuzer (x.).
12. See Kirchenregisteramt Göppingen (hereafter KrtG), Familienregister, 1558-1800, Sch-Z, 608-636, p. 432; and StAG, B.II.2g, Zubringens Inventuren vom 23. Jan. 1750 biβ 20. Febr. 1756, p. 561b.
13. , Medick, Weben und Überleben, pp. 212–228.Google Scholar
14. StAG, B.I.1.a, Hauschronik des Zeugmachers Ernst Jakob Vayhinger, pp. 8-19. 15. Ibid., p. 9. See also , Troeltsch, “Die Göppinger Zeugmacherei”, p. 185Google Scholar.
16. StAG, B.I.1.a, Hauschronik des Zeugmachers Ernst Jakob Vayhinger, p. 10.
17. StAG, Wirtschaftliche Lage in Stadt u. Amt 1622-1819; Schulden 1824/25, “1774 Tabellen wirtsch. Art”.
18. StAG, B.I.1.a, Hauschronik des Zeugmachers Ernst Jakob Vayhinger, pp. 35 and 50.
19. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 23.2-209.5 (1789).
20. Unfortunately, the Vayhingers' inventories do not make clear how households gained access to these community plots. This was not unusual, for the probate inventories rarely listed die terms of use. Occasionally, the inventories did list the value of such community plots under the household's immovable property. This was, however, not the case with the Vayhingers.
21. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 23.2-209.5 (1789). The land measurements during this period were as follow: 1 Viertel = 0.25 Morgen; and 1 Morgen = 0.78 acre = 0.32 hectare. Thus, the Vayhingers owned only 0.04875 acres or 0.02 hectares. Sabean, David, in Property, Production, and Family in Neckarhausen (Cambridge, 1990), argues that anything less than 1.5 hectares was ”dearly less than adequate land to live from agriculture alone” (p. 39). Obviously then, this tiny plot of land did not mean annual self-subsistence for the VayhingersGoogle Scholar.
22. Cf. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 23.2-209.5 (1789), and 24.2-405.5 (1792).
23. See , Medick, Weben und Überleben, pp. 183–228Google Scholar , where he argues that real estate often made up the largest chunk of wealth among his linen weavers. When, for instance, die linen weaver Michael Schwenk died in 1748, landed properties, according to Medick's calculations, constituted seventy per cent of his estate's total worth (p. 198).
24. StAG, B.I.1.a, Hauschronik des Zeugmachers Ernst Jakob Vayhinger, p. 53.
25. Ibid., pp. 16-23.
26. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 23.2-209.5 (1789).
27. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 24.2-405.5 (1792).
28. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 23.2-209.5 (1789).
29. , Medick, Weben und Überleben, p. 239.Google Scholar
30. StAG, B.I.1.a, Hauschronik des Zeugmachers Ernst Jakob Vayhinger, p. 31.
31. Ibid., p. 33.
32. Ibid., p. 14.
33. Cf. StAG, B.II.2.g, Zubringens Inventuren vom 23 Jan. 1750 bifi 20 Febr. 1756, p. 561b; and StAG, B.I.1.a, Hauschronik des Zeugmachers Ernst Jakob Vayhinger, p. 54.
34. StAG, B.I.1.a, Hauschronik des Zeugmachers Ernst Jakob Vayhinger, p. 47.
35. See Hippel, Wolfgang von, Mocker, Ute, and Schraut, Sylvia, “Wohnen im Zeitalter der Industrialisierung. Esslingen am Neckar 1800-1914”, Esslinger Studien, 26 (1987), pp. 137f.Google Scholar ; , Roche, The People of Paris, pp. 103–110Google Scholar ; and , Schraut, Sozialer Wandel, pp. 252–258Google Scholar.
36. StAG, B.I.i.a, Hauschronik des Zeugmachers Ernst Jakob Vayhinger, pp. 42-63.
37. Cf. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 23.2-209.5 (1789), and 24.2-405.5 (1792).
38. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 19.2-49.5 (1779).
39. KrtG, Familienregister, 1558-1800, A-G, 608-634, P- 861, and Göppingen Familien-Register, Bd. 2, 608-2, p. 429. Winterbach is located about 25 km northwest of Göppingen.
40. Cf. StAG, B.II.5.d, Steuervermögensregister, 1764-1773 Hauβigenoβen, Strb. [blank]; and Steuervermögensregister, 1764-1774 Drittes Viertel. Löw, Strb. 129.
41. See StAG, B.II.5.d, Steuervermögensregister, 1779-1782 Low No. 78; Steuervermogensregister, 1783-1787 Hauβigenoβen; Steuervermögensregister, 1783-1791 Ochs No. 89 1/8; Steuervermögensregister, 1779-1782 Löw No. 96; and Steuervermögensregister, 1783-1991 Low No. 12.
42. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 19.2-49.5 (1779).
43. Ibid.,
44. Ibid.,
45. KrtG, Göppingen Familien-Register, Bd. 2, 608-2, p. 429.
46. Ibid., p. 140.
47. StAG, B. II. 5. d., Steuervermögensregister, 1801-1811 Ochs, fo. 395.
48. Cf. StAG, B.II.2.b, Gerichts Protocolle, p. 207 (5 Sept. 1803); and StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 239-123 (1827).
49. StAG, B.II.2.g., Inventuren und Teilungen, 239-123 (1827).
50. Ibid.,
51. StAG, B.II.7.C, Gewerbe Steuer 1823, p. 4b.
52. StAG, B.H.2.g, Zubringens Inventuren vom 13. Jun. 1779. bis 31. Merz. 1784., p. 427. 53. KrtG, Göppingen Familien-Register, Bd. 4, 608-4, P- X47- Adelmannsfelden is located about sixty km northeast of Göppingen.
54. See StAG, B.II.s.d, Steuervermögensregister, 1783-1787 Haufigenofien; Steuervermögensregister, 1787-1790 Haufigenofien; Steuervermögensregister, 1791-1801 Wolf No. 288; Steuer und Guther Buch. Renoviert 1790. IV. Viertel Wolf, p. 288; and Gewerbe Steuer 1823, p. 43b.
55. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 239-na (1827).
56. StAG, B.II.7C, Gewerbe Steuer 1823, p. 43b.
57. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 239-IIa (1827).
58. , Medick, Weben und Überleben, pp. 212–228, and 229-243.Google Scholar
59. Wall, Richard, “Work, Welfare and the Family: An Illustration of th e Adaptive Family Economy”, in Bonfield, L., Smith, R., and Wrightson, K. (eds), The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure (Oxford, 1986), p. 265.Google Scholar
60. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 16.2-250 (1770). The Widmanns were wealthy tanners, and incidentally this probate inventory, unlike the Vayhingers', categorized the their “community plots” as part of their permanent real estate. The Widmanns presumably had a long-term lease on those plots.
61. This category includes the following items from the probate inventories: brass utensils + tin utensils + copper utensils + iron utensils + tinplate utensils + wooden utensils + barrel and binding materials + common household goods and tools + harness, tack, and building materials + food-stores + supplies + wine and other drinks.
62. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 1.38-109.5 (1738).
63. See , Benscheidt, Kleinbtirgerlicher Besitz, p. 116Google Scholar ; and Schubert, Ernst, “Daily Life, Consumption, and Material Culture”, in Ogilvie, Sheilagh (ed.), Germany: A New Social and Economic History, vol. 2: 1630-1800 (London, 1996), p. 362Google Scholar.
64. See , Medick, Weben und Überleben, p. 419.Google Scholar
65. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 19.2-49.5 (1779).
66. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 239-12a (1827).
67. StAG, B.II.2.g, Inventuren und Teilungen, 239-11a (1827).
68. Möller, Helmut, Die Kleinbürgerliche Familie im 18. Jahrhundert: Verhalten und Gruppenkultur (Berlin, 1969), p. 143.Google Scholar
69. Ibid., p. 146.
70. , Bourdieu, Distinction, p. 375.Google Scholar
71. , Möller, Die Kleinbürgerliche Familie, p. 146.Google Scholar
72. See Walker, Mack, German Home Towns (Ithaca, NY, 1971).Google Scholar
You have
Access
