Naive monarchism and Marian veneration in early modern Germany.
(Emperor Charles VI, 1728)(1)
In the early spring of 1738, four peasants departed on a long journey from their Black Forest home in the small, Outer Austrian county of Hauenstein. Their ultimate destination was the imperial court in Vienna, where they would attempt to meet in person with their sovereign overlord, ageing Habsburg emperor Charles VI, hoping that he would rescind a treaty, recently concluded with the Benedictine abbey of St Blasien, that had manumitted all abbatial serfs domiciled in the county.(2) There were many and complex reasons why these peasant delegates should have wished the repeal of a manumission treaty. Suffice it to say that they regarded their county as inherently and historically free--a status inconsistent with the presence of serfs within its boundaries--and that any manumission amounted to an unacceptable recognition of prior servitude; therefore the manumission fee (58,000 gulden!) was tantamount to theft. To emphasize the importance of their mission to the future well-being of the county as a whole, the four delegates adopted an elaborate symbolic strategy: before setting off for Vienna, they inaugurated their trek with a pilgrimage in the company of 111 `young girls' or `virgins' (Jungfrauwen) to the shrine of the Black Madonna at Einsiedeln in Switzerland. There, the pilgrims prayed for the emperor's military victory over `the Turk', as well as `for the success of their own undertaking', a rhetorical device that managed to equate their seditious mission with loyalty to the imperial dynasty.(3) From Einsiedeln, the `virgins' returned to Hauenstein, while the delegates proceeded by boat across Lake Constance, then overland to the Danube, and finally by river to Vienna. There, they failed at first to obtain an audience with Charles VI.(4) Undeterred, they sought more roundabout means of approaching the emperor. In May, they traced Charles to his country estate at Laxenburg and managed finally to provoke an encounter with him. But they were soon arrested and told to go home, where they arrived, empty-handed, in June.(5)
Though a failure in narrowly diplomatic terms, the context, motivations and ritual structure of this mission are packed with implications for our understanding of peasant politics and culture in the Holy Roman Empire during the final century of its existence. To begin with, the mission was thickly enmeshed in the texture of peasant politics. At the time, many Hauensteiners thought that manumission was a fine idea, whatever it implied about prior states of servitude; yet for over a decade before 1738, deep factional divisions had emerged over the cause and nature of Hauenstein's collective ills. The salpeterisch faction--a designation which alluded to the profession of its founder, `Salpeter-Hans' Albiez from the village of Buch, a peasant who supplemented his income by selling the saltpetre refined from horse manure--was responsible for sending the delegates to Vienna. Their pilgrimage was intended to score a political victory over an opposing, `obedient' faction, whose leaders had helped to arrange the manumission deal.(6) This `obedient', mullerisch faction was so named for the occupation of its most prominent leader, a miller. Thus the significance of this delegation pertained to the twin--and partly contradictory--goals of articulating political differences among peasants and of creating solidarities to overcome them. Going to court, therefore, served the purposes of internal peasant politics as much as it did the pursuit of diplomatic gain.
The factional context of salpeterisch diplomacy and pilgrimages, in turn, raises the question of the extent to which institutions of juridical appeal in the empire actually succeeded in diffusing social conflict. Winfried Schulze and others have argued that soon after the Peasants' War of 1524-5, German princes were shrewd enough to endow their subjects with more and better access to tribunals of imperial justice--the Imperial Chamber Court (Reichskammergericht, or RKG) and the Imperial Aulic Council (Reichshofrat, or RHR)--was they might legally sue their lords and princes. To be sure, eighteenth-century Austrian subjects had no legal access to the RKG or the RHR. Even so, Schulze contends, the dynamic whereby social conflict was channelled into legal dispute (a process he calls `jurifidication') functioned within the appellate structures of the larger territorial states as well. And sure enough, the Habsburg state provided abundant institutions of judicial review--for Hauenstein, the appellate ladder included the county's seat in Waldshut, the provincial capitals of Freiburg and Innsbruck, and finally the imperial chancellery in Vienna. Together, Schulze argues, these appellate institutions had the pacifying effects both of fixing social conflicts within legal discourses on local precedent that prevented them from spreading to nearby jurisdictions, and of diffusing peasant energies through the huge costs in time and money that lawsuits characteristically entailed.(7)
But in Hauenstein, the effect of juridification was to heighten frictions within the peasantry to the point of violence, not to ameliorate or dissipate social conflicts. There, factional divisions dovetailed with quarrels over which method--litigation or revolt--was best suited to meet collective needs. On the one hand, mullerisch Hauensteiners fully exploited the potential of appellate courts to satisfy peasant grievances, and throughout the 1720s and 1730s, they conducted several lawsuits to hem in the powers of seigneurs and serf-lords.(8) In so doing, they revealed their acceptance of an official determination to circumscribe social conflict within localizing legal discourses. But salpeterisch activists were loathe to embark on formal appeals. In their view, the emperor's personal intervention would spare all peasants the costs of litigation--unnecessary burdens that they believed the mullerisch side was complicit in multiplying. In the salpeterisch world-view, therefore, the Austrian appellate bureaucracy was hardly an avenue, but an obstruction to justice, one which their diplomatic efforts were designed to circumvent. Far from creating a safety-valve for social conflict, juridification increased the dissension among peasants. All of this suggests that the process of juridification could succeed only if it also functioned effectively as an instrument of cultural hegemony: if peasants acceded to narrow, legalistic definitions of their grievances, appellate institutions might achieve their `juridifying' ends; otherwise they would not. In Hauenstein, a majority of peasants did not so accede, and chose instead to address the emperor in person.
Surely, one might suppose, the salpeterisch delegates were naive to think that Charles VI had any active desire to help them, or that their diplomatic exertions would bring any tangible result. And indeed, their exertions met with failure time and again. Yet the salpeterisch belief in imperial benevolence was as firm as any in the factionalized political culture of Hauenstein, and arguably in all of the Crown Lands. Why? One answer is that personal contact with imperial majesty enhanced the social standing of peasants lucky enough to gain it. Another is that in the context of factional discourse among peasants, the invocation of imperial benevolence reversed official definitions of obedience and rebellion, while demonizing the behaviours of peasant legitimists as well.
Taken together, these explanations recommend a second look at the old stereotype of `naive monarchism'. Its proponents have argued that the unquestioning trust of peasants in the benevolence of sovereigns combined with an almost idolatrous obsession with `ancient rights' to produce a frame of mind that narrowly constrained the universe of possibilities available to them, and effectively prevented them from embracing truly `revolutionary goals'.(9) Predictably, naive monarchism seemed like nothing more than a hegemonic ideology that had fulfilled its purpose. Given the mental constraints that it was presumed to impose, real revolution was impossible. And to be sure, it is a simple fact that many Hauensteiners were prepared to risk life and limb to gain the emperor's ear, and that for no discernible political gain. Are we therefore to believe that peasants were hopelessly indoctrinated into some hegemonic ideology, as the original proponents of the naive monarchism thesis suggested? Far from it. As a mirror of popular beliefs about the ideal relationship between kings and corporations of subjects, peasant monarchism was founded on the assumption of mutual obligations so lop-sided and strictly construed that no condition of real life could satisfy their requirements. In so far as daily experience refuted this reciprocity at nearly every turn, monarchism justified resistance against virtually all non-peasant authorities, up to and including the emperor himself, should events prove that he had refused to uphold his end of the bargain. Monarchism, in short, amounted to a blanket defence against domination, including the juridified sort. Indeed, it made little sense except as an ideology of defiance.
What is more, the delegates' fusion of pilgrimage with diplomacy points to the seditious potential of Marian veneration, and with it the question of the popular reception of state-sponsored Marian cults in post-Tridentine Catholic Europe. In the present case, pilgrimage to Maria Einsiedeln functioned as a form of collective symbolic action in the service of overtly political objectives. Until recently, however, historians have devoted little attention to the ways in which peasants incorporated the forms and meanings of pilgrimage into the practice of politics in their everyday lives. This lacuna is all the more curious given the thrust of recent research into the interplay between politics and the carnavalesque in an era when political differences were articulated, as often as not, in terms of confessional allegiance.(10) Instead, most students of pilgrimage in early modern Germany have focused on its narrowly pious aspects, to the virtual exclusion of its political dimensions.(11) Oddly enough, the dominant trend among historians has been to treat popular politics and popular piety separately, despite the clear tendency of the Baroque church and of Catholic princes to regard pilgrimage as a barometer of religious orthodoxy and political loyalty. (12)
What follows, therefore, is a small attempt to help fill that gap through the reading of one local practice. I hope to show not only that the Black Forest peasants fused pilgrimage and diplomacy because of their functional and structural homologies with popular conceptions of a benevolent emperor, but also that they chose a specifically Marian symbolic vocabulary because it resonated with an ensemble of popular attitudes towards corporate freedom and servile bondage. In brief, Marian symbolism proved useful because it united the concepts of purity and sexual generation in ways that resonated with widely held ideas about the perpetuation of social status and corporate rights and freedoms. Over time, too, it added a religious charge to the divisive, salpeterisch ideology of monarchism. As a result, the meaning of saint veneration in general lay not simply in its pious or thaumaturgic Uses, but in the realm of peasant politics as well.
It would be presumptuous, of course, to suggest that the whole of Marian veneration in the early modern era can be refracted through the prism of a single pilgrimage. Nevertheless, the pilgrimage of 1738 was not an isolated event. In August of the same year, yet another delegation departed for Vienna, this time accompanied by 500 peasants (according to one, probably exaggerated, account), including another 111 Jungfrauwen. As these numbers indicate, any such pilgrimage was an elaborate undertaking that required plenty of advance organization and fund-raising. Indeed, a handwritten note survives, listing the quota of virgins that each parish was required to supply and admonishing all of the parishes to donate cash. (13) As in the spring, the crowd of pilgrims journeyed to Einsiedeln, where they prayed for the emperor's health and for `peace in their land'. According to interrogation transcripts assembled after the fact, the maidens had been dressed in white and marched holding candles. Folk memory recalled that the virgins had also worn crowns.(14) This combination of symbols was calculated, as I hope to show, both to demonstrate the delegates' penitential purity and humility and to expose the putative treachery of those peasants who disputed the legitimacy of their project. The participants remained to pray in Einsiedeln for two days, and even obtained a certificate documenting their pilgrimage to the shrine.(15) All in all, some twelve diplomatic missions ensued from Hauenstein to Vienna between 1700 and 1750, each with the purpose of achieving a personal encounter with the reigning Habsburg monarch, or some other form of royal intercession.(16) The itineraries of about half of these missions included pilgrimages to Marian shrines, most often to Eisiedeln. In at least two other recorded instances, group pilgrimages were launched in the absence of diplomatic missions to plead that the Virgin Mary take sides, as it were, in a factional dispute.(17) The full set of Marian destinations included shrines at Maria Stein in Lower Austria, Maria Zell in Styria and a Loreto shrine in Hungary (probably Stotzing), as well as less distant sites fin Todtmoos and Triberg.
It is worth stressing again that these delegations (with or without pilgrimages) were diplomatic failures. Although the emissaries sometimes achieved their mediate goal of a personal encounter with the sovereign, such interactions rarely produced the kind of royal intervention that peasants found welcome. Only once did a salpeterisch delegation attain its goals, even partially: a 1727 delegation brought about a slight revision of the homage formula that St Blasien's juridical subjects were obliged to render, a change that made the oath less injurious to imperial dignity. But even this small victory was not to the liking of salpeterisch peasants.(18) In every other instance, salpeterisch delegations were complete failures, in part because the peasants' wishes were quite beyond the ability, much less the desire, of any sovereign or tribunal to fulfil. The most common outcome was the imprisonment of the participants, combined with instructions to litigate the grievances through regular channels.(19) Strictly speaking, direct appeals to the imperial chancellery had been forbidden at least since 1710, when an imperial resolution had banned the delivery of petitions without the signatures of the parties to the conflict or their representatives. In 1717, the chancellery extended the prohibition to include any and all delegations to Vienna that lacked the prior permission of provincial authorities.(20) Together, these provisions amounted to a blanket proscription against direct petitions to the emperor. When, in 1727, the chancellery forbade any future salpeterisch delegations, it was merely reasserting existing law.(21) Salpeterisch diplomacy was not only illegal, therefore, but it also contradicted the very purpose of juridification: to keep both the discursive context and geographical scope of social conflict localized.
Why, then, did the rebels persist in such behaviour? The question looms all the larger when one recalls that such activism utterly ruined the lives and fortunes of dozens of Black Forest delegates, such as the miller Martin Thoma of Haselbach, who died serving a life sentence of forced labour in Hungarian mines, or Blasi Hottinger of Niedergebisbach, who spent many years in Austrian fortress-prisons at Alt-Breisach and Belgrade, and whose personal fortune of about 1,000 gulden was obliterated in the process.(22) The suffering and feelings of abandonment that such treatment induced filled the letters that delegates wrote from prison. Writing home from his cell in Komarom, Hungary, the delegate Martin Eisele of Noggenschwiel added resentment to pain: we `must all ... go under', he harangued his neighbours, `if you dear friends and neighbours give us no succour. Remember what you promised us all when you sent us out of the county . . . realize that we risked our entire wealth, our wives and children, yes even our own lives for you and did what we, as honest delegates, were obligated to do'.(23)
As manifestations of peasant monarchism, delegations were ruinous. Indeed, by almost any standard of political economy, they made no sense. But in the context of factional politics, they were altogether reasonable. Delegations had, for example, the potential to legitimate the prestige of rebel leaders, especially at times when conventional sources of authority, such as election to magisterial office at the village or cantonal level, were unavailable to them.(24) Few peasants could claim a distinction so weighty as direct, personal contact with the emperor, as could `Salpeter-Hans' Albiez, Joseph `Glasmannle' Meyer of Au, or Hans Friedle Gerspach and `Schwarzmichel' Trondle of Bergalingen; certainly no mullerisch leader could match it. The informal title of Deputierter was an honour peasants carried for life: Blasi Hottinger, Johannes `the Prussian' Marder of Eschbach, `Glasmannle' Meyer, Hans Friedle Gerspach, Johannes Thomaab-Egg, and `Gaudihans' Wasmer of Segeten all used the title of Deputierter to distinguish themselves.(25) In 1745, Johannes Thoma-ab-Egg used the honour to win election to magisterial office in his home canton of Rickenbach.(26)
The dignity was not to be trifled with. In 1727, for example, the blacksmith Conrad Binkert of Dogern, who had helped to finance the very first salpeterisch delegation to Vienna the year before, wrote home to report of his own audience with Charles VI and to exploit the news to cajole money from his co-factionalists.(27) Upon his return to Hauenstein, Binkert claimed to have chatted with Charles VI on the throne for a quarter hour, for the reason that the ageing emperor was hard of hearing.(28) Late in 1729, several delegates began to suspect that Binkert had fabricated stories about an audience with Charles VI and demanded indignantly that he `give full account' for his alleged deceptions.(29) To judge by his disappearance from rosters of salpeterisch activists, he was expelled from the inner circle of rebel organizers, and the light penalties he suffered at the hands of Austrian investigators in subsequent years suggests that the row prompted him to turn state's evidence against his former colleagues.
More importantly, the practice of dispatching delegations to petition the emperor reflected the ideology of peasant monarchism so well that it is difficult to imagine an alternative better suited to express it. At its heart lay three assumptions about domination (Herrschaft) that are familiar to any student of early modern popular politics: notions of the reciprocal, exclusive, and contractual nature of rule. The idea that domination was based on reciprocal obligations between ruler and ruled was universal among early modern German peasants.(30) In return for obedience, tribute and military support, the emperor was to provide `protection and guardianship' (Schutz und Schirm) over the peasants and their ancient customs. This notion pervaded the rebels' consciousness from the very outset of their agitations: in the summer of 1726, `Salpeter-Hans' Albiez had already cited an imaginary oath of Emperor Charles VI, who in 1717 had supposedly sworn to `guard and protect' the subjects of Hauenstein `in [their] old privileges and customs'.(31) Domination was also thought to be indivisible. In their view, peasants could not be subject to two sovereigns at once, which necessarily excluded allegiance to the abbot of St Blasien. Hence the salpeterisch aversion to abbatial homage oaths. Because the county could have but one ruler, the homage that they had sworn to Charles VI in 1717 nullified that promised to St Blasien ten years later.(32) Salpeterisch peasants could not have been more explicit on this point. In a conversation with Joseph Luber of Glashutten in May 1727, `Schwarzmichel' Trondle is reported to have exclaimed: `I belong to the emperor, and have sworn loyalty to him. If I were a serf of the abbey, then I could not belong to the emperor, and I would be a knave ... against my wife and children'.(33) Finally, domination was thought to be contractual in the manner of feudal reciprocities, such that the failure of either lord or vassal to fulfil his respective obligations dissolved the relationship entirely, at least in theory. To be sure, salpeterisch peasants travelled a long road to reach this conclusion, but reach it they eventually would.
Popular assumptions about the reciprocal, indivisible and contractual nature of domination was sustained by a powerful myth of origins. Specifically, salpeterisch peasants claimed that Hauenstein had received its `ancient rights' from a benevolent `Good Count Hans' in 1396. The source of this legend is unclear. Though nowhere in evidence before the early 1730s, the myth probably rested on a popular reading of actual documents. In 1396, a real-life Count Johannes IV of Habsburg-Laufenburg had, in fact, received Hauenstein in bond for loans he had made to the elder, Albertine line of the dynasty. During his investiture, Count Johannes had sworn to sustain the people `in possession of the rights and customs that they have held since ancient times'.(34) It is possible that salpeterisch peasants were made aware of this legendary donation at an assembly held in Hochsal in December 1726, when a mullerisch leader read aloud the contents of the Hauenstein's county archive.(35) In any case, salpeterisch peasants exploited the vagueness of Good Count Hans's pledge to the fullest. According to Johannes Marder and Blasi Hottinger, Good Count Hans had endowed his `forever free county of Hauenstein', eternally and inalienably, with `all its ancient freedoms', in recognition of the peasants, `loyalty' and of three `voluntary' loans.(36) In these assertions, the myth of origins fused with the idea that Hauenstein had always been free. Lest there be any doubt about the validity of this donation, `Gaudihans' Wasmer even claimed to possess a copy of the original oath, which privileged all Hauensteiners, `greater and lesser' alike, in recognition of `services faithfully rendered'.(37) Finally, Good Count Hans was presumed to have established a dynastic tradition of benevolence, which lived on in the paternal love attributed to his successors.(38)
The seditious potential of these beliefs resided in salpeterisch views about what their part of the reciprocal bargain with the Habsburg family actually entailed. By all accounts, their list of peasant obligations was brief indeed. Peasants were obliged to remain loyal, whatever that meant in practice. Their end of the bargain also entailed a timely response to musters of the county militia. As for tribute, the militant `Gaudihans' Wasmer was alleged to have suggested that a mere 1,500 gulden per annum would suffice.(39) Hauenstein's annual tax levy far exceeded this amount, so Wasmer's figure could -- and did -- translate into a justification for tax strikes. In sum, the salpeterisch notion of reciprocity gives the overwhelming impression that the peasants considered themselves loyal by definition and that their part of the bargain was negligible. Proof of the bargain, then, was whether or not the emperor in fact protected custom and privilege. If he did not -- and the very existence of salpeterisch rhetoric presupposed that Hauenstein's `ancient rights' had been lost or stolen -- then the very foundations of rule were cracked.
This state of affairs demanded some explanation, and delegations provided it. If the ideological structure of monarchism was such that it enabled peasants to question the legitimacy of their condition, unmediated evidence of imperial benevolence could prevent them from drawing the inevitable conclusion that the sovereign was in default of his obligations to the whole peasantry. If such benevolence could be proven, then naive monarchism might continue to function normally as a rationale for resistance. Invariably, delegates found what they were looking for. Perhaps as many as eight delegates achieved some form of personal contact with Emperor Charles, and after each encounter they returned to Hauenstein with the good news that the emperor had personally sworn his fidelity to their cause. Most peasants were only too glad to believe it, again despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
The sources abound with personal `assurances' of imperial benevolence. One delegate allegedly claimed that Charles VI had personally donated fifty gulden in support of the rebels' cause, which he `had received ... from the emperor himself, from his own hand' (in fact, the delegate had received some money to cover travel expenses for the trip home).(40) In 1732, another delegate claimed that Charles VI had `swor[n] with raised fingers that you ought to be helped',(41) in 1738, the emperor reportedly promised yet another delegate that `you shall be helped',(42) and again in 1745, still other delegates reported that Queen Maria Theresa had demanded to know why Hauensteiners did not still enjoy `their ancient privileges, which they received from the first emperors'.(43) Unfortunately, I have been able to discover solid proof of Emperor Charles's reactions to only one of these encounters. After an audience with four delegates from Hauenstein in March 1728, Charles is reported to have uttered the remark quoted at the start of this essay.(44) To be sure, his quip that these `garrulous peasants' had `their mouths in the right place' suggested a grudging respect that might have been taken as genuine favour.(45) But the truth of the delegates' claims about imperial benevolence is less important than the fact that they were made at ale Without fail, each encounter confirmed delegates in their `naive' belief that the emperor wished only to help them. Such `quotations' and other signs of imperial benefaction can only be regarded as tropes: verisimilitude mattered more than veracity if it confirmed peasants in the justice of their struggles. It is only a small exaggeration to suggest that the whole point of sending delegations to Vienna was not litigation, but supplication through personal access to the emperor.(46) From this perspective, delegations were peasant monarchism in practice.
They were also the very antithesis of litigating through official channels. Even if benevolent quotations did demonstrate imperial good will, those cracks in the foundation of rule still had to be explained. Here, the seditious potential of monarchism revealed itself most clearly. An inevitable corollary of the emperor's imagined benevolence was the belief that wicked ministers thwarted its exercise: `all [officials] are rogues except the emperor', as one delegate put it.(47) If wicked ministers had kept the `well-intentioned' Charles ignorant of Hauenstein's plight, the obvious solution was to remove them.(48) `Schwarzmichel' Trondle declared frankly that `the emperor should have his scoundrels in Vienna strung up, [and] then things will go better.'(49) Delegates laid special blame on Court Counsellor (Hofrat) Johann Christoph von Bartenstein and First Chancellor Philipp Ludwig von Sinzendorff, whose name, claimed Blasi Hottinger, was inscribed in `the emperor's black book' of advisers to be dismissed for insubordination.(50) The abbot of St Blasien too, it was assumed, could expect harsh treatment from the emperor: at the annual parish festival in nearby St Peter, a salpeterisch exile named Johannes Obrist rumoured that Emperor Charles, annoyed with the arrogance of his prelates, intended to tax the abbey of St Blasien one hundred thousand gulden, or even declare war against it.(51)
Here, again, verisimilitude mattered more than fact. Hottinger was quite correct to identify an enemy in Chancellor von Sinzendorff, who in March 1728 grumbled: `I need butter and cheese from my lordships, and [instead] I get these lawsuits; somebody should once and for all tell these Hauenstein peasants to be gone!(52) On the other hand, Hauenstein's delegates seemed oblivious to the existence of potential allies among the emperor's advisers. In 1728, Abbot Franz II's personal emissary in Vienna, the historiographer Marquard Herrgott, encountered a strong anti-abbot faction among members of the imperial chancellery, including Court Counsellor von Bartenstein. The peasants' strongest champion was the young State Secretary (Staatssekretar), Anton von Buol.(53) But `peasant-friendly' ministers were never permitted to diminish the seditious utility of monarchism, and in time, the delegates' tendency to project their own political aspirations on to the sovereign justified the rejection of all intervening authorities. Indeed, according to one delegate, Queen Maria Theresa declared that the provincial Austrian government in Freiburg had no `right to command' in Hauenstein.(54) I have found no evidence that any delegate actually met with Maria Theresa, but here again the truth of the claim is less important than the fact that it was made at all. The upshot is that opposition to intermediate authorities -- to wit, the very personnel of Austria's entire system of judicial appeal -- was as informed by tropes as their belief in a benevolent emperor.
To the extent that direct appeals were intended to circumvent `wicked ministers', the practical expressions of peasant monarchism were the very antithesis of social conflict in a `juridified' mode. Not only that, for in the end, contractual assumptions underlying the ideology of naive monarchism would justify a rejection of monarchy itself. Eventually, not even the emperor would be spared the thrust of its logic. As unrest continued into the 1740s, evidence mounted that the house of Habsburg had forsaken Hauenstein. Peasants, who in 1738 came to regard manumission as the purchase of servitude to St Blasien, saw it as a fundamental challenge to the principle of exclusivity and a test of the emperor's loyalty to Hauenstein. Some were said to recommend that `should the emperor not wish to help [us], we will appeal to a different lord', such as Switzerland, as Johannes Zimmermann of Niederwihl proposed.(55) When that day came, said `Gaudihans' Wasmer, the peasants would be as free as their Swiss neighbours across the Rhine.(56) The death of Charles VI on 20 October 1740 gave added impetus to thoughts about a `reunion' with Switzerland, for the Hauensteiners had long been aware that, because Charles had no male heirs, a succession crisis was in the offing. Indeed, thirteen years earlier, the shrewd miller Martin Thoma of Haselbach had suggested that if Emperor Charles VI died with no sons, then Hauenstein would be at liberty to find a new sovereign of its own choosing.(57)
In fact, by 1738 the idea of `turning Swiss' -- either as a practical proposal for removing Hauenstein from the Habsburg Crown Lands, or as a metaphor of communally based social organization free from aristocratic domination--was no longer new.(58) Already in 1728, Martin Thoma of Haselbach had insisted that before the Reformation, Hauenstein had been subject to the Swiss canton of Berne, perhaps to imply the possibility of someday restoring the tie.(59) But it was the controversy surrounding the manumission of abbatial serfs in 1738-9 that prompted many to contemplate restoring a golden age of `Swiss' liberties hidden deep in the mists of Hauenstein's past. In January 1739, for example, Claus Geng of Kuchelbach is reported to have reminded his neighbours that `in the Swiss War, the peasants attacked, imprisoned, and thoroughly devoured their lords ... for the peasants said that their lords were the cause of this war.'(60) Exactly which `Swiss War' was meant is unclear, but in any case Geng's historical analogy recommended the possibility of autonomy acquired through force of arms. Others used it to justify secession from the province of Outer Austria, if not total withdrawal from Habsburg obedience. In reaction to war taxes decreed by the Outer Austrian Estates in 1744, Blasi Hottinger and Johannes Marder claimed that `all the [provincial] Estates are scoundrels, and we don't belong to them. Our county is a free one, just like Switzerland'.(61) Militant salpeterisch peasants carried this line of reasoning further still. When Austrian troops invaded Hauenstein in June 1745, `Gaudihans' Wasmer concluded that Maria Theresa had voluntarily forfeited her right to rule Hauenstein.(62) This left the peasants free to choose a new overlord. To be sure, no one suggested that the county could make do without a protector, and those who looked across the Rhine for potential Swiss overlords justified their recommendations with historical arguments as venerable as Hauenstein's subjection to the house of Habsburg. Still, popular notions about the contractual character of domination ultimately justified the rejection of all existing authority. To some, the republican option of `turning Swiss' was doubtless preferable to remaining under the rule of any monarch.
Given the seditious, supplicatory purposes of delegations to Vienna, the Black Forest peasants' tendency to inaugurate their treks with pilgrimages comes as no surprise. In this connection, too, delegations exhibited a symbolic rationality that obviated the need for tangible, diplomatic achievements. And once again, the utility of these inaugural pilgrimages lay within the realm of Hauenstein's factionalized politics: delegates manipulated a well-established set of rites and symbols to illustrate the significance of their venture to the whole peasantry. In this respect, their journeys to Maria Einsiedeln reflected several long-term transformations in the structure of pilgrimage. In the first place, salpeterisch pilgrimages were consistent with the increasingly regional and collective nature of pilgrimage in Europe. Beginning in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, long-distance, individual peregrinations gradually gave way to shorter-distance, communal processions as the dominant form of Christian pilgrimage. The latter were usually undertaken with the explicit intention of maintaining communal well-being by binding it to a reciprocal pact with some saint or the Virgin.(63) Specific cultural practices emerged in conjunction with this transformation: communal pilgrimages in the company of white-clad, crowned and candle-bearing virgins, for example, have been dated to fifteenth-century Bavaria, where such women were known as We[Beta]prangerinnen.(64) Secondly, salpeterisch pilgrimages reproduced the tendency of the post-Tridentine church to politicize Marian veneration as demonstratio catholica, a change that coincided with dramatic increases in the numbers of pilgrims flocking to Marian shrines.(65) Finally, most Baroque pilgrimages were rites of communal solidarity--whether the ritual was designed to create solidarities or merely to confirm them. The seditious pilgrimages under discussion in this essay were of the former variety: by fusing diplomacy with Marian pilgrimage, Hauenstein's salpeterisch delegates identified their sectarian agenda symbolically with the transcendent good of the whole. The rebels could hardly have been more explicit about this. In early May 1747, for example, a pilgrimage of some two hundred youths (male and female) marched to the Marian shrine at Todtmoos, located in the far north-western corner of Hauenstein, without `a single peaceable [peasant]' among them. The mullerisch leader Joseph Trondle of Rotzel reported that at Todtmoos `they pray for justice', which, according to the pilgrims, `peaceable' peasants did not want.(66)
The thrust of these reflections is to suggest that in this Black Forest setting, pilgrimage operated in what cultural anthropologists describe as a realm of competing symbolic discourses.(67) Traditionally, anthropologists have been divided between Durkheimians who view pilgrimage as a vehicle for reinforcing existing social structures, and others, such as Victor and Edith Turner, who see it as a `liminal' experience of `unmediated egalitarian association' (communitas), `which betokens the partial, if not complete abrogation' of those structures.(68) Broadly speaking, the interpretation presented here is that these views are contradictory only in isolation: taken together, they aptly describe the competition between elite and popular discourses over the meaning of sacred space.(69) On the one hand, royal manipulation of Marian veneration and pilgrimage served the dual purposes of self-aggrandizement and of undergirding hegemonic claims of rule; on the other hand, a series of popular appropriations were designed both to exculpate rebellious behaviours and to help forge solidarities among peasants.
In addition to functional similarities, moreover, the peasants' diplomatic missions also exhibited certain structural resemblances to a particular form of early modern pilgrimage. This was pilgrimage by proxy, in which one person was elected (or paid) to undertake a pilgrimage on behalf of another individual, or a wider community. Though frowned upon, the practice was widespread: no less a celebrity than Abraham a Sancta Clara, for example, performed a proxy pilgrimage on behalf of the city of Vienna in 1672.(70) It also remained common practice in the Black Forest into the late nineteenth century, when the Badenese folklorist, Hugo E. Meyer, reported that `certain people make a living (Gewerbe) out of pilgrimage'. From the person on whose behalf they make the trip, `they receive travel money, provisions, and wages . . . depending on its length'.(71) Professional pilgrims were often indigent, like Maria Barbara Heinrich, who practiced her craft in Hauenstein and made ends meet by begging and by curing `decayed stomachs' and gout.(72)
Structural parallels to the peasants' diplomatic missions abound here. Almost all of the peasants' missions to Vienna were overtly representative, equipped with lists of signatures which granted plenipotentiary powers (Vollmachten) to the emissaries. This formal similarity was not accidental: delegates clearly understood the common good in more than narrowly political terms, and came increasingly to identify their struggle with the eternal salvation of all Hauensteiners. Several delegates explicitly likened their travails to that ultimate act of proxy sacrifice--the crucifixion--and did not hesitate to stress that damnation awaited those who failed to acknowledge their sufferings.(73) This hypothesis is necessarily conjectural, but it helps to explain a subtle shift in the way that delegates addressed each other. Before 1730, Hauensteiners of both factions employed routine forms of greeting in the letters and notes they exchanged, usually `Best Beloved' (Insonders vielgeliebter).(74) Perhaps because of the experience of prison and other sufferings, in 1730 salpeterisch leaders adopted a religiously charged salutation--`Praised be Jesus Christ' (Gelobt sei Jesus Christ)--that implicitly likened their tribulations to those of the saviour.(75) Not only did the new salutation serve to mark its user as a member in the community of the just, but it also symbolically inflated the salpeterisch cause to cosmic proportions.
How are we to explain the peasants' fusion of pilgrimage and diplomacy? One possibility is that Hauensteiners seized on the overtly political significations that elites ascribed to the Virgin and Marian veneration, and moulded them to their own purposes. Superficially, at least, their pilgrimages appeared to be a popular appropriation of imperial sponsorship of the cult of Mary the Immaculate. Anna Coreth, Ludwig Huttl and others have shown that, after 1600, a long succession of Habsburg rulers increasingly associated the fortunes of the Crown Lands with the protection and sponsorship of the Virgin. Symptomatic of elite attitudes was Emperor Ferdinand III's designation of the Virgin as patron saint of Austria and the Habsburg dynasty in 1647.(76) From then on, Marian veneration was not only a yardstick of Catholic orthodoxy, but one of loyalty to the house of Habsburg as well.(77) Under Leopold I, Marian pilgrimage assumed enormous political importance. His nine pilgrimages to Maria Zell were stage-managed as acts of public supplication on behalf of all Austrian subjects.(78) Arguably, when the Hauenstein delegates inaugurated their diplomatic treks with prayers to Mary for the emperor's well-being, they merely reciprocated imperial favour.(79) To that extent, Marian pilgrimage was nothing more than a ritual re-enactment of that mythic, contractual exchange between Hauenstein and Good Count Hans. Like naive monarchism, moreover, pilgrimage also justified a defiant stance towards officers of state. On the strength of their manipulations of imperial Marian piety, the delegates could--and did--insist to provincial authorities that their missions were in no sense rebellious, despite the fact that direct appeals to the emperor were forbidden.(80) Perhaps it would be stretching the connection between missions and pilgrimages to suggest that peasants endowed the emperor with the same ontological status in secular affairs that the Virgin possessed in her sphere; nevertheless, the delegates informed their manipulation of rituals and symbols connected with imperial pietas mariana with the assumption of sovereign benevolence, and with it, a sovereign antipathy towards their enemies. Whatever the ontological similarities between Emperor Charles and the Virgin Mary, `expressions' of imperial benevolence bestowed a blessing that approximated the potential benefits of Marian intercession in matters of salvation.
Yet functional and structural explanations such as these often fail to account for the positive content of specific cultural practices. Why, for example, did peasants go to the trouble and expense of organizing processions of 111 virgins? Why would not a simpler, less costly procession have sufficed? Pilgrimages involving whole villages or parishes were common enough in eighteenth-century Hauenstein, yet the salpeterisch processions were unusual for their symbolic density.(81) Why, moreover, did the peasants choose Marian veneration and not, say, that of St Blaise? Why not appeal to St Fridolin, whom certain peasants recognized as Hauenstein's patron saints?(82) The delegates might also have opted for a Bleeding Host shrine in nearby Tiengen, but they did not. Conscious choices were made which demand some explanation. It is tempting to invoke popular appropriations of royal Marian propaganda and leave it at that. Another possibility is that the church-sponsored proliferation of Marian shrines, at the expense of sites devoted to the veneration of local saints, left few alternatives. After all, by the eighteenth century, Einsiedeln had become perhaps the most popular destination for all pilgrimages emerging from Catholic south-western Germany. Well into the nineteenth century, for example, inhabitants of Birndorf parish in Hauenstein still conducted annual, collective pilgrimages to the Black Madonna in Switzerland.(83) Huge increases in the number of pilgrims to Einsiedeln reflected this enthusiasm. From a low of about 42,000 annually in the mid-seventeenth century, the concourse had expanded to over 150,000 by 1713.(84) Other transregional Marian shrines experienced a similar increase. At Maria Hilf near Passau, for example, the number of pilgrims receiving communion at the shrine grew from a few thousand in 1640 to over 100,000 in 1703; at Maria Zell in Styria they rose from 61,000 in 1689 to 188,000 in 1725.(85)
But I wish to argue that the peasants' choice of Mary was done neither by default nor simply as a matter of mimicry, however instrumental it may have been. Instead, as symbolic acts, the structure of salpeterisch pilgrimages exhibited striking similarities to the rhetoric of peasant debates over the nature and meaning of personal servitude. The problem of serfdom and how to get rid of it had long been the topic of political discourse and had contributed to the emergence of intense factional dissensions among Hauensteiners. Salpeterisch peasants, as a rule, refused to acknowledge the historical legitimacy of serfdom in any form, while mullerisch leaders were prepared to recognize its validity, if only for the purposes of removing it by treaty. The collective manumission treaty of 1738, arranged between the provincial Outer Austrian government and the abbey of St Blasien at the behest of mullerisch leaders, had been intended to resolve the controversy once and for all. In the event, however, the manumission itself proved divisive, in part because the salpeterisch faction had by then come to believe that the servile status of any peasant domiciled within the county was inherently incompatible with Hauenstein's `ancient rights and freedoms', and that as such, serfdom violated the county's reciprocal bonds of obligation to the house of Habsburg. Hauenstein, after all, could have but one lord. In addition, the rebels had become convinced that their opponents were responsible for the introduction of serfdom in order to benefit financially from its removal, so that the whole affair stank of treachery.(86)
The political significance of the Virgin emerged at the intersection of these twin beliefs: that serfdom and ancient rights were incompatible, and that mullerisch leaders were somehow responsible for introducing the former. The salpeterisch belief in a state of bygone purity in the days of Good Count Hans had been sullied by serfdom through the mendacity of `disloyal' peasants, who were identified as Hauenstein's principal polluters. In articulating this notion of pollution, the delegates and others of their faction made abundant use of uterine significations in the legal vocabulary of serfdom (Leibeigenschaft). This lexicon was suffused with imagery of the body, which underscored the legal status of serfs' bodies as the chattels of their lords. In particular, the prefix leib-(body, womb, belly) signified both the hereditary quality of unfreedom and the corporeality of bondage. Not surprisingly, leaders of the `obedient' faction were accused of having sold `the child in its mother's womb' into `eternal servitude'.(87) This connection expressed the assumption--common both to Roman and most customary law--that status, free or unfree, was inherited from mothers at birth, and that the perpetuation of either status was therefore a sexual function.(88) Although the delegates and their supporters rarely used metaphors of rape or emasculation to describe the actions of the opposing faction, the rhetorical structure of their defamations implied that scheming `obedient' peasants had violated the metaphorical purity of Hauenstein's women in the generation of a free community.
It is no wonder then, that in symbolizing their goal of defending Hauenstein against the `purchase' of wrongfully alienated freedoms, the delegates took recourse in a complex of ritual symbols that managed to link sexual purity with a process of sexual generation--as did the figure of the Virgin Mary--and did so in ways that conveyed their belief that this was a violation of the community's biological potential to reproduce its free status in the future. That a procession of 111 virgins symbolized sexual innocence is obvious enough, but parallels in their accoutrements, both to religious iconography and to more routine aspects of local religious ritual, underscored the point. White clothing, crowns and candles supplied the crucial symbolic links. Biblical scripture, of course, associated whiteness with sinlessness and divinity, especially in apocalyptic depictions of the court of heaven: a white-gowned, white-haired apocalyptic deity appears in Daniel; in transfiguration, Jesus's `garments became white as light'; and in the Revelation to John, twenty-four elders `clad in white garments, with golden crowns upon their heads', attend the throne of heaven, as do `a great multitude . . . from every nation ... clothed in white robes.'(89) Here, I want to stress these links to apocalyptic visions of heavenly justice, in part because, as we shall see, salpeterisch peasants did as well. For the moment, though, it is enough to add that the more immediate and mundane sphere of popular religious festivity yields further evidence of links in ritual symbolism between crowns and candles as signifiers of purity, community and procreative potential. Formally, the closest parallel to processions of crowned, candle-bearing Jungfrauwen comes from the ceremonial of first communion, the principal rite de passage of Christian community. In south-western Germany, as elsewhere, Catholic youths aged twelve to fourteen were raised to communicant status on the first Sunday after Easter, `white Sunday' (wi[Beta]er Sunntig). Their initiation began with a procession: `the girls wearing crowns and dressed in white or, according to older custom, in colours, usually blue or red, but with a white waistband . . . in procession, boys and girls alike carried burning wax rods (Wachsstocke) or candles (Wachskerzen), a rosary, and a prayer book'.(90) In this procedure, akin to the representative, proxy nature of salpeterisch pilgrimages to Einsiedeln, a procession of crowned and candle-bearing youths extended and rejuvenated communities of faith; their physical motion towards status transformation through initiation to the Eucharist marked the movement of a religious community through time and generation. The fact that, in many regions, `white Sunday' was also the first occasion when girls could appear in full female costume (Tracht) suggests that the signified community was not merely religious.(91)
Purity and community: to be sure, the ritual symbolism of first communion did not describe sexual generation overtly. But the use of crowns and candles in another context--marriage, the rite of passage into (legitimate) procreative status--exposed a direct symbolic link to sexual generation. Nuptial rituals in Hauenstein typically involved a double procession, with the bride and groom paraded separately by their respective kin groups from their homes to the altar, where the two trains converged. As with first communion, the bridal procession ritualized the movement of a kin group from one generation into the next. Usually the bride's entourage was led by young girls (in Todtmoos, boys) wearing crowns: according to Hugo Meyer, `the virginity of the bride is marked ... by children leading the sacramental procession (Opfergang) and [by] young maidens wearing crowns'.(92) Candles also played an important role in Hauenstein's nuptial custom: throughout the church ceremony, the bride carried two candles signifying herself and her groom.(93) The vestal signification of the crowns was supplemented in the final phase of this rite de passage, which was inaugurated by a ritual `removing the crown' (Kranzabnahme), that took place after the wedding banquet and before the conjugal bed amid the festive outdoor noise of charivari (Scharewares). Thus a symbolic termination of virginity anticipated bodily consummation. To be sure, Kranzabnahmen in Hauenstein did not entail as much festivity as elsewhere; in the villages of Rickenbach and Wilferdingen, for example, the bridegroom simply removed the bride's crown and replaced it with a woman's crush-hat (Frauenklappe).(94) Though understated, however, the symbolic link between crowns, virginity, and passage to legitimate procreative status remained in place. Moreover, the marriage ritual intertwined all of these levels of meaning with the salpeterisch political agenda, as every marriage of an abbatial serf required St Blasien's prior approval. Since 70 per cent of Hauenstein's population was enserfed to the abbey, most weddings necessarily implied an earlier transaction with abbatial agents over the very item of dispute--serfdom--that had propelled salpeterisch delegations to Einsiedeln and Vienna in the first place.(95)
Of course, the fit is not perfect in all particulars. For example, the colour traditionally associated with unmarried status in eighteenth-century Hauenstein was red, not white.(96) Yet it would be absurd to suggest that similarities among the rituals of first communion, marriage and salpeterisch pilgrimage were simply accidental or meaningless. Processions of Jungfrauwen to Einsiedeln evoked the regeneration of religious community, just as the rites of first communion did, while the use of crowns and candles established a direct symbolic bond to nuptial rituals and the possibilities for biological reproduction they opened. Pilgrimage itself added the element of supplication on behalf of the community as a whole. By the same token, it is not enough to argue that salpeterisch activists merely copied an already existing cultural practice. However much their processions resembled the Wei[Beta]prangerinnen of fifteenth-century Bavaria, the factionalized political context in which salpeterisch peasants fused pilgrimage with diplomacy indicates that positive choices underlay the rebels' symbolic strategy. Viewed in the light of nuptial symbolism and of the overtly political aims of salpeterisch diplomacy--to plead for imperial intervention against a heritable form of corporeal bondage and the agents of its `imposition'--the Jungfrauwen symbolized the community's biological potential for reproducing itself as a free polity.
Finally, the act of pilgrimage asserted the piety of salpeterisch objectives. As is typical of rituals of community, this one bore implicit statements about the conditions of membership in it: any demonstration of rebel piety implied a corresponding mullerisch impiety. Indeed, salpeterisch statements about both took on increasingly apocalyptic overtones during the 1730s, just prior to the first Einsiedeln pilgrimage. I have already described how the shift in salpeterisch epistolary salutations to `Praised be Jesus Christ' coincided with a new tendency of the rebels to identify their ordeals with the Passion: `As most-high God suffered for us as a man and our redeemer from the Devil's strikes and fetters and from eternal damnation', Johannes Marder wrote from prison in 1730, `so one [should] give us thanks that we have redeemed the county of Hauenstein from serfdom'.(97) From there, it was a small step to the conclusion that mullerisch peasants were damned at best, and agents of the devil at worst. The salpeterisch habit of using `fighting words', such as `rogue' (Schelm) and `thief' (Dieb), to defame mullerisch peasants was as old as the factional division itself, but such verbal damnations were new to the 1760s.(98) A transitional case is that of Martin Thoma, who reportedly described one mullerisch opponent as `a traitor, rogue, and self-perjuring man; he adheres to the prelate [of St Blasien] and to the prelate adheres the devil'.(99) To be mullerisch was to risk eternal death: `all those who accuse the salpeterisch [people] of injustice [are] ... forever lost and belong to the devil.'(100) `You . . . will be damned', said Friedle Hausler to Conrad Trondle, `if you do not stick with us salpeterisch [people]'.(101) If Hausler had only implied that mullerisch peasants would not pass the Last Judgement, others made this explicit. As early as 1737, three salpeterisch delegates had warned their enemies that `the affair shall be cited before the court of God, and all who are responsible and the cause shall appear on the third day'.(102)
Was Hauenstein merely a freakish exception that proves a hegemonic interpretation of naive monarchism? Evidence of analogous behaviours outside the Black Forest suggests otherwise. The habit of attributing imperial benevolence, for example, was widespread throughout the Habsburg Crown Lands, and could result in almost verbatim repetitions of the messages the Hauensteiners `heard'. In 1712, for example, the empress dowager reportedly comforted delegates from Gro[Beta]-Raming with the words: `My dear children, you will be helped quite soon.'(103) Moreover, attempts to bypass systems of judicial review were hardly limited to Black Forest peasants.(104) One local historian documented patterns of belief and action almost identical to those of the Black Forest emissaries in the Upper Austrian lordships of Wildeneck, Gro[Beta]-Raming, the Lower Muhlviertel, the Hausruckviertel, Molln, Hollstein and Gostling, as well as Reit in Lower Austria, between 1649 and 1712.(105) Delegations ensued from other lordships in Outer Austria as well, such as Schwarzenberg-Kastelberg (1598) and Triberg (1706).(106) In seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Vienna, the steady flow of delegations from across the Habsburg Crown Lands generated lively business for `peasant attorneys' (Bauernadvokaten) and freelance petition-writers (Winkelschreiber).(107) Such enactments of monarchism, if such they were, did not limit themselves to peasant delegations. On a royal visit to Transylvania, Emperor Joseph II was bombarded with almost 19,000 supplications for royal intervention into local legal squabbles.(108) These appeals and delegations remain inexplicable unless peasants considered them at least minimally efficacious, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Finally, there is solid reason to suspect that peasants elsewhere fused saint veneration and the articulation of grievances in much the same manner as the Hauensteiners did. The nearest parallel comes from eighteenth-century Switzerland, where in 1781 the rural subjects of the Catholic city-state of Fribourg rebelled against official infringements on local autonomies. On 3-4 May, some three thousand armed peasants laid siege to Fribourg, but were defeated in the attempt. During the confrontation, their commander, one Pierre Nicolas Chenaux, a well-to-do peasant from La Tour-de-Treme, was captured and beheaded. In the aftermath of the so-called `Chenaux Affair', peasants adapted the rituals of saint veneration to the political ends of articulating grievances through a popular canonization of their deceased leader: for many years after 1781, Chenaux's skull, impaled on the city ramparts, became the object of popular, chiliastic pilgrimage. Peasants often gathered before this relic, prayed for his saintly intercession in the political resolution of their social conflicts. and recited a special litany:
Martyr of liberty Pray for us You who have sacrificed your life for us Pray for us From the enemies of Saint Nicolas Chenaux, who are also our enemies Deliver us, Lord From their plots against us Deliver us, Lord From their tyranny Deliver us, Lord From their arrogance Deliver us, Lord From their blindness Deliver us, Lord From their hypocrisy Deliver us, Lord From their deceits Deliver us, Lord From their treason Deliver us, Lord(109)
Here, peasants used the symbolism and practices of hagiolatry to articulate not only their grievances, but distinctions between themselves and their enemies as well. In a similar case from Bavaria, an established Marian pilgrimage at Prei[Beta]enberg provided the symbolic material for conflict between the Augustinian abbey of Rottenbuch and its Ammergau subjects.(110) Starting in the 1610s, Rottenbuch began sponsoring the Prei[Beta]enberg Wallfahrt, in order to enhance both its income and social standing. The peasants, however, displayed greater interest in a Marian shrine of their own making, in the village of Peiting. Throughout the mid-seventeenth century, Prei[Beta]enberg flagged while Peiting flourished, despite official discouragement and the absence of liturgical supports. In 1650, the abbatial provost of Rottenbuch left no doubt that the Peiting pilgrimage represented a direct challenge to the abbey's authority and prestige. It is probably no coincidence that the Peiting pilgrimage emerged towards the close of a long and violent rebellion against a 50 per cent increase in manorial dues.(111) Nor is it impossible that in their sponsorship of Peiting, Ammergau peasants sought to avail themselves of a new ideology of Marian veneration then being forged in Munich and reflected principally in Wittelsbach sponsorship of the Marian shrine at Altotting.(112) If that is the case, then Ammergau peasants manipulated Marian veneration in much the same way as their Black Forest cousins. Further research will likely reveal similar behaviours elsewhere.
What can be learned from all this? One conclusion is that the cultural hegemony of elites was `paper-thin'.(113) The Hauensteiners' behaviour suggests that the state cult of Maria Immaculata, for example, was exposed to forms of popular cultural appropriation that ran at political cross-purposes to its original intent. Official sponsorship determined little more than a menu of symbols and icons available for popular manipulation. On the other hand, it is unclear whether the seditious uses of Marian pilgrimage found in Hauenstein existed anywhere else. But perhaps that is just the point. If, in the study of early modern popular culture, one is to take polysemy seriously, then it is essential to understand the local context of specific practices. Taken in isolation, none of the specific elements of this pilgrimage-diplomacy was unique: a thousand identical examples could be found for each. Of course, peasants could hardly exploit Marian veneration for political gain unless it also remained popular for pious reasons, and indeed, the steady rise in communions at the few remaining sites of transregional Marian pilgrimage indicates just this.(114)
Removed from the context of popular politics, the meanings of these pilgrimages remain opaque, and one can only wonder how many of them were also seditious. This suggests a second, methodological conclusion. Equipped solely with the evidence that historians typically use to assess the motivations for popular pilgrimage--miracle books, ex voto gifts, sales of pilgrimage tokens, and the like--one could never discover that political motives informed the Hauensteiners' elaborate processions. They left evidence of their presence at Einsiedeln, but this, in isolation, offers no hint of any political significance. To discover political content, therefore, it is necessary to go to the source: to the records of peasant politics, not the self-serving, church-administered catalogues of piety.
A third conclusion is that the ritual construction of salpeterisch delegations recommend an anthropological variation on the theme of early modern social conflict in the `juridified' mode. If, as the evidence presented here suggests, Hauenstein's delegates to Vienna acted out an essentially familial conception of their subordination to the emperor that was incompatible with litigation through regular appellate channels, then it is difficult to see how social conflict in Hauenstein was in any sense `juridified'. From the rebels' point of view, obtaining a face-to-face encounter with Charles VI was to place domination and subordination in its proper context.(115) This, of course, meant side-stepping the officially sanctioned route of judicial appeal that mullerisch leaders preferred to exploit. Rebels complained bitterly against the excessive costs of litigation, and to that extent, the option of lawsuits only exacerbated factional tensions. To them, the Austrian judicial juggernaut was part of the problem, and the emperor's personal intervention would spare them the huge expenses of formal lawsuits. Of course, litigation was not everywhere as divisive as it proved to be in Hauenstein. Still, the salpeterisch delegations suggest a fundamental, ideological incompatibility between naive monarchism and the juridification of social conflict. Moreover, the fact that salpeterisch delegations were rational mainly with respect to internal peasant politics suggests, perhaps paradoxically, that litigating grievance by no means exhausts the possible reasons for going to court. In this connection, it is well worth noting the anthropologist Simon Roberts's reminder: `People go to court-like agencies for a wide variety of purposes: for reasons of honour, to publicize some established position which requires no court ruling, or just to make things difficult for an enemy. The very notion of "dispute" may not be apposite if the court is just being used as a platform from which to tell people something. In cases of this sort, the objective may not lie in terms of judgement at all.'(116) Finally, the incompatibility of naive monarchism with litigation through formal channels suggests the degree to which the juridification of social conflict veiled a strategy of cultural hegemony. In Hauenstein, mullerisch leaders preferred to avoid hostile confrontation in favour of lawsuits, and in this sense, their behaviour conformed with Winfried Schulze's description of juridified social action. The salpeterisch side, as we have seen, adopted a more belligerent stance. The point is that factional distinctions corresponded with tactical ones. Was the willingness of certain peasants to litigate symptomatic of their acculturation? More importantly, were hierarchies of judicial appeal themselves the tools of hegemony and acculturation? The balance of evidence presented here suggests that the answer to both questions is yes.
(*) Earlier versions of this article were presented to the German Studies Association annual meeting in Washington, D.C., on 10 October 1993, and at the second annual meeting of the Group for Early Modern Cultural Studies, at the University of Rochester, New York, on 5 November 1994. Research for this article was supported by the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst and the Yale University Council on Western European Studies. I am also indebted to the staff of the Badisches Generallandesarchiv in Karlsruhe for their generous help.
(1) dises seyen geschwazige Bauren, u[nd] haben ds Maul am rechten Orth' (phrase given emphasis in original): Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe (hereafter GLA), S IV 737, Stiftsarchiv St Paul im Lavantal, Kloster St Blasien Handschriften 166/2, `Diaria R. P. Marquardi Hergots uber seine Wienner Geschafften de Anno 1728/1729' (hereafter `Diaria R. P. Marquardi Hergots'), fos. [6.sup.v]-[9.sup.r], `Continuatio Diarii vom [14.sup.ten] bis Mertzen 1728', 14 Mar. 1728.
(2) GLA, 113:242, fos. [69.sup.r]-[70.sup.v], [197.sup.r]-[198.sup.v], interrogation of Hans Ebner of Unteralpfen, Unteralpfen, 5 July 1738, GLA, 113:249, B1, interrogation of Hans Friedle Gerspach, Waldvogteiamt Waldshut (hereafter WVA), 14-25 Apr. 1739.
(3) GLA, 65:11419, fos. [48.sup.r]-[49.sup.v], biographical sketch of Leonzi Brutschi, Apr. 1739.
(4) GLA, 113:242, fos. [44.sup.r]-[54.sup.v], [96.sup.r]-[99.sup.], interrogation of Michel Trondle of Bergalingen, Vorderosterreichische Regierung und Kammer Freiburg-im-Breisgau (hereafter YORK), 7-21 June 1738.
(5) GLA, 113:221, fos. [160.sup.r]-[161.sup.v], `Copia ... Decreti ahn die ahnwesender Hauwensteiner', Laxenburg, 23 May 1738. The text of this order chided the Hauensteiners for their `disrespectful approach' to Emperor Charles in Laxenburg.
(6) See David M. Luebke, `Factions and Communities in Early Modern Central Europe', Central European Hist., xxv (1992); David M. Luebke, `Serfdom and Honour in Eighteenth-Century Germany', Social Hist., xviii (1993).
(7) Winfried Schulze, `Die veranderte Bedeutung sozialer Konflikte im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert', in Hans-Ulrich Wehler (ed.), Der Deutsche Bauernkrieg, 1524-1526 (Gottingen, 1976); Winfried Schulze, Bauerlicher Widerstand und feudale Herrschaft in der fruhen Neuzeit (Bad Canstatt, 1980), Helmut Gabel and Winfried Schulze, `Peasant Resistance and Politicization in Germany in the Eighteenth Century', in E. Hellmuth (ed.), The Transformation of Political Culture: England and Germany in the Late Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1990).
(8) See, for example, their long and successful legal campaign to restrict the competence of lower courts belonging to the noble convent of St Fridolin in the river town of Sackingen: GLA, 16:1055, `Vergleich zwischen dem Stift Sackingen und der Grafschaft Hauenstein uber Fall- und Dinghofguter', 28 Nov. 1716; GLA, 97:459, `Prozer[Beta]-Acta etzwischen einem furstl. Stufft Seggingen, und der Graffschafft Hawenstein puncto der Fahlbarkeit sive den Fahlbezug und Nachjagens-Recht', 1714-42.
(9) Jerome Blum, The End of the Old Order in Rural Europe (Princeton, 1978), 333-5. Yves-Marie Berce also holds to this conclusion, even though he concedes that the theme of the `king deceived' was `violently subversive, since it justified in advance any rush to arms aimed at unseating bad ministers and removing all obstacles between the justiciar-king and those subject to his justice': Y.-M. Berce, Revolt and Revolution in Early Modern Europe: An Essay on the History of Political Violence, trans. Joseph Bergin (New York, 1987), 29. See also Celina Bobinska, `Les Mouvements paysans en Pologne aux [XVIII.sup.e] et [XIX.sup.e] siecles: problemes et methodes', Acta Poloniae Historica, xxii (1970).
(10) See Natalie Zemon Davis, `The Reasons of Misrule' and `The Rites of Violence', in her Society and Culture in Early Modern France (Stanford, 1975); Natalie Zemon Davis, `Some Tasks and Themes in the Study of Popular Religion', in Charles Trinkhaus and Heiko A. Oberman (eds.), The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Early Renaissance Religion (Leiden, 1974); Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Le Carnaval de Romans (Paris, 1979). For the most recent overview of confessionalism, see R. Po-Chia Hsia, Social Discipline in the Reformation: Central Europe, 1500-1700 (New York, 1989).
(11) In this connection, see the criticisms levelled by Rebekka Habermas in her Wallfahrt und Aufruhr: Zur Geschichte des Wunderglaubens in der fruhen Neuzeit (Frankfurt, 1991), 11-14, and by Peter Burke in his `Popular Piety', in John W. O'Malley, SJ (ed.), Catholicism in Early Modern History: A Guide to Research (St Louis, 1988), 126-7.
(12) See, most recently, Philip M. Soergel, Wondrous in his Saints: Counter-Reformation Propaganda in Bavaria (Berkeley, 1993). See also Ludwig Huttl, Marianische Wallfahrten im suddeutsch-osterreichischen Raum: Analysen von der Reformations- bis zur Aufklarungsepoche (Cologne, 1985); Helmut Lausser, `Die Wallfahrten des Landkreises Dillingen', Zeitschrift fur bayerische Landesgeschichte, xl (1977), 115-19; Anna Coreth, Pietas Austriaca: Ursprung und Entwicklung Barocker Frommigkeit in Osterreich (Munich, 1959); Charles Zika, `Hosts, Processions and Pilgrimages: Controlling the Sacred in Fifteenth-Century Germany', Past and Present, no. 118 (Feb. 1988). Apart from the work of Wolfgang Bruckner, Lionel Rothkrug and a recent monograph by Rebekka Habermas, few studies have investigated the same dynamic as it operated from the `bottom up': see Wolfgang Bruckner, Die Verehrung des heiligen Blutes in Walldurn: Volkskundlich-soziologische Untersuchungen zum Strukturwandel barocken Wallfahrtens (Aschaffenburg, 1958); Wolfgang Bruckner, `Zum Wandel der religiosen Kultur im 18. Jahrhundert: Einkreisungsversuche des "Barockfrommen" zwischen Mittelalter und Massenmissionierung', in Ernst Hinrichs and Gunther Wiegelmann (eds.), Sozialer und kultureller Wandel in der landlichen Welt des 18. Jahrhunderts (Wolfenbuttel, 1982), 67-70; Lionel Rothkrug, `Popular Religion and Holy Shrines: Their Influence on the Origins of the German Reformation and their Role in German Cultural Development', in James Obelkevich (ed.), Religion and the People, 800-1700 (Chapel Hill, 1979); Lionel Rothkrug, Religious Practices and Collective Perceptions: Hidden Homologies in the Renaissance and Reformation (Waterloo, 1980); Rebekka Habermas, Wallfahrt und Aufruhr; Werner Freitag, Volks- und Elitenfrommigkeit in der fruhen Neuzeit: Marienwallfahrten im Furstbistum Munster (Paderborn, 1991), 13.
(13) GLA, 113:224, fo. [6.sup.r-v], Joseph Sibold of Kuchelbach to?, 30 Aug. 1738. According to Sibold's scheme, Dogern canton was to supply twenty-one virgins: six from the village of Dogern itself; seven from the villages of Schmitzingen, Gais and Waldkirch; and a further eight from the parish of Weilheim, including the village of Noggenschwiel.
(14) See the account reported by Karl Rolfus, Die Salpetrer: Geschicts- und Lebensbilder aus dem Hauensteinischen (Mainz, 1873), 99-101.
(15) `von denen innwohneren der herrschafft hanwenstein im schwarzwald [haben] hundert und eilff jungfrauen . . . ihr bittfahrt . . . damn' sie den lieben frieden in ihrem land erhalten mogen, mit inbrunstiger andacht und beweglichster aufferbaulichkeit bey allhie[Beta]iger gnadenmutter zwey tag fang verrichtet': GLA, 113:246, fo. [32.sup.r-v], `Attestatum', Einsiedeln, 5 Sept. 1738. Einsiedeln offered such certificates to persons on pilgrimage in fulfilment of a court sentence (Bu[Beta]-, Suhne-, or Straffwallfahrten): see Hanna Back, Einsiedeln: Das Kloster und seine Geschichte (Zurich, 1989), 50-1.
(16) David M. Luebke, His Majesty's Rebels: Factions, Communities' and Rural Revolt in the Black Forest, 1725-1745 (forthcoming Ithaca, 1997). Another delegation departed in 1745 to meet with Queen Maria Theresa at the imperial coronation of her husband, Francis Stephen of Lorraine, in Frankfurt: GLA, 113:258, fos. [302.sup.r]-[314.sup.v], interrogation of Blasi Hottinger, 2-7 May 1746. Yet another was sent to Wetzlar, in hopes of provoking the intervention of the RKG seated there, under the mistaken impression that it was competent to judge cases emerging from the Habsburg Crown Lands: GLA, 113:239 (no pagin.), St Blasien to Joseph Trondle of Unteralpfen, 12 Mar. 1731; ibid., fo. [19.sup.r-v], Andreas Thoma to Joseph Trondle of Unteralpfen, 17 Mar. 1731; ibid., fo [21.sup.r-v], Joseph Trondle of Unteralpfen to St Blasien, 18 Mar. 1731; ibid., fos. [26.sup.r]-[40.sup.v], interrogation of Michel Trondle of Bergalingen, WVA, 20 Mar.-13 Apr. 1731; GLA, 113:240, fos. [230.sup.r]-[238.sup.v], interrogation of Joseph Meyer von Au, Vienna, 11 Aug. 1733. On the competence of the RKG, see Jurgen Weitzel, Der Kampf urn die Appellation ans Reichskammergericht: Zur Geschichte der politischen Rechtsmittel in Deutschland (Cologne, 1976), 59-86.
(17) See GLA, 113:237, fos. [253.sup.r]-[257.sup.v],' interrogation of Georg Schlachter of Herrischried, Waldshut, 13 May 1730 (this appears to have been the first use of `100 Jungfrauwen'); GLA, 113:223, fos. [40.sup.r]-[43.sup.v], `Ungefohrliche Bericht was sich den Fruehling 1747 bis dn 22.tn May ihn underschidlichen Sachen bey den . . . unraohigen Underthanen zugetragen', .
(18) GLA, 113:235, fos. [28.sup.r]-[30.sup.r], imperial resolution of 28 June 1727. On peasant reactions to it, see GLA, 113:229, fos. [19.sup.r]-[195.sup.v], interrogation of Hans Peter Schafer of Birkingen, WVA, 26 July 1728; GLA, 113:232, fos. [138.sup.r]-[181.sup.v], interrogation of Martin Thoma of Haselbach, 16-20 Sept. 1728.
(19) Otto Stolz, `Des Verhaltnis der vorderosterreichischen Lan de zu den landesfurstlichen Regierungen in Innsbruck und Wien', in Friedrich Metz (ed.), Vorderosterreich: Eine geschichtliche Landeskunde, 2nd revised edn (Freiburg, 1967); Hans Kramer, `Die Beziehungen zwischen Vorderosterreich und Osterreich in der Neuzeit', ibid.; Thomas Fellner and Heinrich Kretschmayr, Die osterreichische Zentralverwaltung, pt 1, Von Maximilian 1. bis zur Vereinigung der osterreichischen und bohmischen Hofkanzlei (1749), 3 vols. (Vienna, 1907), i, 165-7.
(20) GLA, 79:3431, imperial resolutions of 12 Mar. 1710, 28 Aug. 1717. In 1726, accordingly, `Salpeter-Hans' Albiez was told to appeal the Freiburg government: GLA, 113:221, fos. [50.sup.r]-[51.sup.v], 20 Aug. 1726.
(21) GLA, 113:221, fos. [32.sup.r]-[33.sup.v], imperial patent of 6 Oct. 1727.
(22) The personal worth of Blasi Hottinger of Niedergebisbach, for example, was estimated in 1727 at roughly 1000 gulden. By 1739, after several delegations to Vienna and eleven years in prison, forced labour and exile, his worth had dropped about 60 per cent to 395 gulden. In 1739 he was exiled to mines in Hungary, to return a pauper in 1745: see Luebke, His Majesty's Rebels.
(23) `[wir] mussen . . . also samtlich zu grund gehn, wan ihr liebe freund und nachbarn un[Beta] keinen succors schicken werdeten. Gedenckt doch wa[Beta] ihr un[Beta]! alien versprochen al[Beta] ihr un[Beta] au[Beta] dem lent geschickht ... gedenckt und erkennet doch wie wir vor euch und da[Beta] ganze lands unser hate und gush, weib und kinds, ja unser eigen leben gewaget, und gethan, wa[Beta wir al[Beta] ehrlich depudirte zu thun schuldig gewesen': GLA, 99:1043, Martin Eisele of Noggenschwiel to Joseph Eisele of Noggenschwiel, 7 June 1740 (written from prison in Komarom, Hungary). See also GLA, 113:236, fos. [86.sup.r]-[87.sup.v], Freiburg arrestees to `guete Freindt', 2 Feb. 1730; GLA, 113:238, fos. [351.sup.r]-[352.sup.v], Johannes Marder and Blasi Hottinger to Maria Zimmermann of Eschbach, IS Apr. 1732 (written from prison in Belgrade).
(24) Werner Trof[Beta]bach made a similar finding in the case of Hessian peasant delegations to the see his Soziale Bewegung und politische Erfahrung: Bauerlicher Protest in hessischen Territorien, 1648-1806 (Weingarten, 1987).
(25) Writing home from Vienna, Binkert reportedly claimed that as a result of his audience, the Upper Austrian government in Innsbruck had already washed its hands of the entire affair. Binkert then asked for the considerable sum of 700 gulden: GLA, 99:985, fo. [171.sup.r-v], interrogation of Joseph Wagner of Unteralpfen, Unteralpfen, 7 Dec. 1727.
(26) Ibid.; GLA, 113:227, fos. [17.sup.r]-[19.sup.v], interrogation of Martin Iselin, Obervogteiamt Gurtweil (hereafter OVA), 16 Jan. 1728; ibid., interrogation of Clemens Dietschi, OVA, 16 Jan. 1728.
(27) GLA, 113:231, fo. [5.sup.r], Johannes Marder to `Ihro Durchleucht', (1729?); GLA, 113, 236, fos. [54.sup.r]-[55.sup.v], Johannes Marder and Blasi Hottinger to Hans Georg Marder, 12 Feb. 1730 (written from prison in Belgrade); GLA, 99:1034, fo. [137.sup.r-v], Johannes Marder and Blasi Hottinger to `guette Freund', 5 Apr. 1732 (also written from a Belgrade prison); GLA, 99:1035, fos. [104.sup.r]-[105.sup.v], Johannes Thoma-ab-Egg to `Schwager', 16 Nov. 1733 (written from prison in Vienna); GLA, 99:1037, fos. [18.sup.r]-[21.sup.v], Johannes Marder and Blasi Hottinger to Hans Friedle Gerspach, 2 July 1735 (also written from prison in Vienna). (28) GLA, 113:263, `Ohngefehrliche Beschreibung, we[Beta] sich bey der Einungsmeisterwahl am Tag des hl. Ritters Georgii zugetragen . . . und zwar in der Einung Riggenbach', 28 Apr. 1745. The return home of delegates typically sent shock-waves through the body politic. In the spring of 1732, the return of `Glasmannle' Meyer was the occasion of secret rallies in the Etzwihl forest: GLA, 99:1034, fos. [144.sup.r]-[145.sup.v], Joseph Trondle of Unteralpfen to WVA, 15 Apr. 1732. Similarly, the summer rallies of 1738 were inspired by the return of Hans Friedle Gerspach: see GLA, 113:249, B I, interrogation of Conrad Fricker, 11 Apr. 1739; ibid., interrogation of Hans Friedle Gerspach, 14-25 Apr. 1739. Not all returning delegates caused such a stir, of course; Johannes Marder behaved `quite peacefully' after his return in 1749: GLA, 113:268, fos. [202.sup.r]-[3.sup.v], WVA to YORK, 18 Sept. 1749.
(29) GLA,113:230, fos. [297.sup.r]-[298.sup.v], Hans Friedle Gerspach and Michel Trondle to Conrad Binkert. Vienna, 6 Dec. 1729.
(30) See Schulze, Bauerlicher Widerstand, 123-4.
(31) `da[Beta] er un[Beta] bey un[Beta]er alten priuylegien undt gerechtigkaitt wolle beschutzen und beschirmen': GLA, 113:225, fo. [98.sup.r], anonymous testimonial, 1726.
(32) See Gunther Haselier, Die Streitigkeiten der Hauensteiner mit ihren Obrigkeiten (Karlsruhe, 1940), 65. For the protocol of Hauenstein's homage to Charles VI at Luttingen and Dogern on 12 June 1717, see GLA, 113:80, A; for the protocol of homage to Maria Theresa, see Stadtarchiv Waldshut-Tiengen (hereafter StAWT), Ratsprotokolle, 3 Oct. 1741. The idea that homages to both abbot and emperor were mutually incompatible goes back at least to 1704: see GLA, 67:1809, pp. 147-55, testimony of Hans Baumgartner of Ellmenegg (aged 103), 28 Apr. 1704.
(33) `er seye des kaysers, und hate dem kayser treu geschworen, wan er des gotteshaus eigen ware, konte er nit des kaysers sein, sondern ware ein schelm u. dieb an seinem weib und kinder': GLA, 113:225, fos. [309.sup.r]-[311.sup.v], interrogation of Michel Trondle of Bergalingen, YORK, 7 June 1727 (Trondle's remark is translated in the first person).
(34) The oath is reprinted in Joseph Bader, `Urkunden und Regeste aus dem Archive der ehemaligen Grafschaft Hauenstein', Zeitschrift fur die Geschichte des Oberrheins, x (1859), 361; Gunther Haselier, Geschichte des Hotzenwalds (Lahr, 1973), 35.
(35) See GLA, 113:225, fos. [1.sup.r]-[2.sup.v], [32.sup.r]-[35.sup.v]; GLA, 99:980, Blasi Hottinger to Hans Friedle Albiez, 17 Dec. 1726. See also GLA, 65:11223, fos. [58.sup.r]-[69.sup.v], `Species facti succincta in sachen Hauenstein. Konigl. Cammeralunterthanen auf dem Schwarzwalt ad des Gotteshaus St. Blasii und das Stifft Seckhingen nebst ihren anfang', by Johannes Thoma-ab-Egg and Blasii Hottinger (1730?); Haselier, Streitigkeiten, 83-4.
(36), `Es haben ... Herr Graf Hans von Habspurg ... seine eigenthumliche semper freye Grafschafft Hauenstein auf dem Schwartzwalt wegen der ihm geleisteten Treue so wohl, al[Beta] auch dreymahliger willkuhrlich beschechenen Vorschuses .. . vermacht ... das sie mit Ihren samentlichen nachkommen und erb nehmern ged. Grafschafft Hauenstein auf dem Schwarzwalt mit alien ihren uralten Freyheiten Rechten Gerechtigkeiten Privilegien und alten guetten Herkommen gleichwie Er beruhrte Grafschafft als Eigenthumsherr besessen und genutzet': GLA, 65:11223, fos. [58.sup.r]-[69.sup.v], `Species facti succincta' (1730?).
(37) `minderen undt mehren', `geleistete dienste': GLA, 113:231, fos. [17.sup.r]-[18.sup.v], `Copia Gnaden Brieffs ... Hansens von Habspurg neben lineo letzten inhaberen ... der Graffschafft Hauwenstein', n.d.; see also GLA, 113:241, fos. [106.sup.r]-[110.sup.v], `Eine wahr Unterrichtung der Specii Factae, und die Warheit auss der Graffschafft Hauenstein contra Praelaten von Se. Blasii', 1 June 1737.
(38) On this subject, see George Rude, `Popular Protest and Ideology on the Eve of the French Revolution', in Ernst Hinrichs et al. (eds.), Vom Ancien Regime zur Franzosischen Revolution. Forschungen und Perspektiven (Gottingen, 1978), 428.
(39) GLA, 113:255, fos. [265.sup.r]-[268.sup.v], interrogation of Hans Strittmatter of Gorwihl, 7 Jan. 1744; ibid., fos. [270.sup.r]-[273.sup.v], interrogation of Hans Jacob Sibolt, 7 Jan. 1744.
(40) `er habe die 50 fl. von dem kaisser selbsten aus seinen hanten empfangen': GLA, 99:1034 fo. [95.sup.r-v], Adam Trondle of Gorwihl to Joseph Trondle of Unteralpfen, 26 Mar. 1732. See also GLA, 113:242, fos. [286.sup.r]-[287.sup.v], interrogation of abbatial bailiff Michael Ebner of Immeneich, 15-17 Aug. 1738.
(41) `Ihro May. [hat] gesogt, mit dem finger trauwet euch muo[Beta] es geholffen werdten': GLA, 113:239, fos. [270.sup.r]-[271.sup.v], interrogation of Hans Meyer, Unteralpfen, 24 Mar. 1732.
(42) `es solle euch geholffen werthen': GLA, 113:242, fo. [359.sup.r-v], testimony of Hans Jacob Bachle of Birndorf, Unteralpfen, Dec. 1738.
(43) `ob den die leuth ihre alte gerechtigkaiten so sie von denen ersten Kaiseren bekomen . . . noch nit empfangen haben[?]': GLA, 113:260, fos. [177.sup.r]-[178.sup.v], interrogation of Joseph Hierholzer, 16 Nov. 1745. The encounter supposedly took place at the coronation of Emperor Francis Stephen at Frankfurt on 13 September 1745.
(44) `Diaria R. P. Marquardi Hergots', fos. [4.sup.4]-[6.sup.v], `Continuatio Diarii vom [11.sup.ten] bis [13.sup.ten] Merzen 1728', 14 Mar. 1728. Herrgott heard of Charles VI's remark secondhand from chancellery officials, but was assured that its accuracy was `sure and quite certain' (`sicher und gantz gewi[Beta]').
(45) Charles also had `the habit of trying to please everyone; it was said that anyone who spoke to him came away with the impression that Charles VI thought exactly as he did': see Michael Hughes, Law and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Germany: The Imperial Aulic Council in the Reign of Charles VI (Woodbridge, 1988), 8, n. 6.
(46) Cf. Georg Grull, Bauer, Herr und Landesfurst: Sozialrevolutionare Bestrebungen der oberosterreichischen Bauern von 1650 bis 1848 (Graz, 1963), 10-11, 250-2.
(47) `es seyen al[e]s schellmen bis an kai[Beta]er': GLA, 113:246, fo. [27.sup.r-v], interrogation of Hans Jorg Baumgartner of Todtmoos, 9 Mar. 1739; for French parallels, see Yves-Marie Berce, History, of Peasant Revolts: The Social Origins of Rebellion in Early Modern France, trans. Amanda Whitmore (Ithaca, 1990), 248-51.
(48) GLA, 113:221, fos. [35.sup.r]-[sup.36.v], Joseph Metzger of Gorwihl to Joseph Trondle of Unteralpfen, 11 Dec. 1738.
(49) `der kai[Beta]er solle seine schollmen so er zuo wien habe la[Beta]en henkhen, werthe den darnoch balt besser herrgehen': GLA, 113:230, fo. [403.sup.r-v], interrogation of Joseph Trondle of Unteralpfen, VORK, 8 Dec. 1729. By 1739, salpeterisch opinion held that `all are scoundrels except the emperor': GLA, 113:246, fo. [27.sup.r-v], interrogation of Hans Jorg Baumgartner of Todtmoos, 9 Mar. 1739.
(50) GLA, 113:241, fos. [35.sup.r]-[36.sup.v], Blasi Hottinger to Hans Friedle Gerspach, Vienna, 23 Sept. 1735. Philipp Ludwig von Sinzendorff was First Chancellor (Hofkanzler) from 1715 until his death in 1742: see Fellner and Kretschmayr, Die osterreichische Zentralverwaltung, pt 1, i, 282. On Bartenstein, see P. G. M. Dickson, Finance and Government under Maria Theresa, 1740-1780, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1987): i, 343.
(51) GLA, 99 1032, fos. [164.sup.r]-[171.sup.v], `Actuary St. Blasien', 3-5 Oct. 1730.
(52) `Ich hab noch Butter noch Ka[Beta] von Nothen, den dise Sachen bekomme ich von meinen Herrschaften; man solle also dise hauensteiner Bauren einmahl verbescheiden, ds sie wider fortkommen' (phrase given emphasis in original): `Diaria R. P. Marquardi Hergots', 14 Mar. 1728.
(53) Ibid.,22 Mar. 1728. See also Josef Peter Ortner, Marquard Herrgott (1694-1762): Sein Leben und Wirken als Historiker und Diplomat (Vienna, 1972), 357. Indeed, one delegate wrote home suggesting that Bartenstein and Buol were receiving bribes from the abbot's agent, Marquard Herrgott: see GLA, 113:241 fos. [35.sup.r]-[36.sup.v], Blasi Hottinger to Hans Friedle Gerspach, Vienna, 23 Sept. 1735. The same letter identified Prince Eugene of Savoy as the peasants' friend (`unser guter freund')
(54) `da[Beta] die lobl. regierung in dem lands nichts zuo befehlen habe': GLA, 113:260, fos. [4.sup.r] -[9.sup.v], `Berich wa[Beta] wur ... von denen unruohigen Weltern au[Beta] dem Gehrweiller Einung und Rickhenbacher Einung wa[Beta] sie uns in 13 Tagen und 13 Nechten uns ahrmen gefangenen zuogefuogt haben', 13-16 Nov. 1745.
(55) `wane der keiser nit wolti helfen wolten sie ein andteren heren annruofen': GLA, 99:988, interrogation of abbatial bailiff Lorenz Baumgartner of Niederwihl, St Blasien, 1 Apr. 1728.
(56) GLA, 113:258, fo. [184.sup.r-v], interrogation of Jacob Zimmermann of Gorwihl, Oberosterreichische Kammerregierung (hereafter OOKR), 11 May 1746.
(57) GLA, 113:232, fos. [138.sup.r]-[181.sup.v], interrogation of Martin Thoma of Haselbach, YORK, 16-20 Sept. 1728. In the event, Hauenstein's formal homage to Maria Theresa in 1741 was poorly attended, an indication that female succession corroded the persuasive force of imperial paternalism severely: StAWT, Ratsprotokolle, 3 Oct. 1741.
(58) The phrase is borrowed from Thomas A. Brady, Jr, Turning Swiss: Cities and Empire, 1450-1550 (Cambridge, 1985), 34-6.
(59) GLA, 113:232, fos. [138.sup.r]-[181.sup.v], interrogation of Martin Thoma of Haselbach, YORK, 16-20 Sept. 1728; see also GLA, 65:11223, [58.sup.r]-[69.sup.r], `Species facti succincta' (1730?), whose authors contend that, after the death of `Good Count Hans', Hauenstein placed itself under Swiss protection before allowing itself to become subject to Habsburg rule.
(60) `wie ihn schweitzer krieg die bauren ihre h[err]schafften und oberkeiten ahngriffen, gefangen genomen, und sie follig au[Beta]gesfre[Beta]en, den die bauren haben gesagt, do[Beta] ihre heren ursach akin di[Beta]em krieg seyen': GLA, 113:242, fos. [205.sup.r]-[206.sup.v].
(61) `es seyen alle stands schollmisch, undt wir horen nit derzue. es seye unser landt ein freyes und wie ds schweyzer landt': GLA, 113:259, fo. [127.sup.r-v], `Copia Kurzer Bericht', 9 Aug. 1745. A few years later, Martin Mutter and Hans Wasmer spread similar ideas, claiming that `the county of Hauenstein is as free as Switzerland [and] no longer belongs to the Estates': GLA, 113:258, fo. [184.sup.r-v], interrogation of Jacob Zimmermann of Gorwihl, OOKR, 11 May 1746.
(62) `sye konnen jetzt ihre recht im landt machen, wie sye wollen ... die konigin konne ihnen keine obrigkeith setzen': GLA, 113:263, interrogation of Adam Trondle of Gorwihl, WVA, 16 June 1745.
(63) Wolfgang Bruckner, `Zur Phanomenologie und Nomeklatur des Wallfahrtswesens und seiner Erforschung: Worter und Sachen in systematisch-semantischem Zusammenhang', in Dieter Harmening et al. (eds.), Volkskultur und Geschichte: Festgabe fur Josef Dunninger zum 65. Geburtstag (Berlin, 1970), 411. Elsewhere Bruckner suggests that the `will to communal well-being' (Gemeinschaftswille) was characteristic of Baroque pilgrimage, a function carried out principally by pious fraternities (Bruderschaften). See his Verehrung des Heiligen Blutes, 175-9, and also Klaus Guth, `Geschichtlicher Abri[Beta] der marianischen Wallfahrtsbewegungen im deutschsprachigen Raum', in Wolfgang Beinert and Heinrich Petri (eds.), Handbuch der Marienkunde (Regensburg, 1984), 737; Huttl, Marianische Wallfahrten, 17-25, 39, 65-83; Freitag, yolks und Elitenfrommigkeit, 11-14.
(64) See Irmgard Gierl, Bauernleben und Bauernwallfahrt in Altbayern: Eine kulturhistorische Studie aufgrund der Tuntenhausener Mirakelbucher (Munich, 1960), 115-16. To cite hut one example among thousands, Prince Paul Esterhazy in 1692 led a pilgrimage procession to Maria Zell in the company of eight white-clad maidens, wearing golden crowns, four young girls carrying a statue of the Virgin Mother, and 1,235 maidens wearing crowns over unbound hair: see Stephan Beissel, Wallfahrten zu unserer lieben Frau (Freiburg, 1912), 203-4.
(65) See Hubert Jedin, `Entstehung und Tragweite des Trienter Dekrets uber die Bilderverehrung', Theologische Quartalschrift, cvi (1935). Catholic princes followed suit in the early seventeenth century, politicizing certain Marian shrines as sites for the ritualization of their claims to legitimate rule, notably Altotting and Maria Zell: see Soergel, Wondrous in his Saints; Huttl, Marianische Wallfahrten; Coreth, Pietas Austriaca; Guth, `Geschichtlicher Abri[Beta]', 816-18.
(66) `ohne einen einzigen Ruhigen', `sie betten umb die gerechtigkeith', `die Ruhige aber wollen solches nit': GLA, 113:266 (no pagin.), Joseph Trondle of Rotzel to WVA, 6 May 1747.
(67) See John Eade and Michael J. Sallnow (eds.), Contesting the Sacred: The Anthropology of Christian Pilgrimage (London, 1991), editors' introduction, 5.
(68) I borrow the summary descriptions of Eade and Sallnow, ibid., 4; see Victor W. Turner and Edith Turner, Image and Pilgrimage in Christian Culture: Anthropological Perspectives (New York, 1978).
(69) See Habermas, Wallfahrt und Aufruhr, 45-9, 76-8.
(70) See Huttl, Marianische Wallfahrten, 72-3. However, Gierl, Bauernleben, I 10-11, notes that in individual cases, proxy pilgrimage was a small exception to the rule, and could detect only fifteen examples from among seventeenth-century pilgrimages to the Marian shrine at Tuntenhausen.
(71) Hugo Elard Meyer, Badisches Volksleben im 19. Jahrhundert (Strasburg, 1900), 531.
(72) GLA, 61:10712, pp. 195-202, `Actuary St. Blasien', 5 Sept. 1736.
(73) GLA, 113:236, fos. [54.sup.r]-[55.sup.v], open letter of Johannes Marder of Eschbach et al., 12 Feb. 1730.
(74) That this form of salutation was conventional is indicated not only by the near universality of its use prior to 1730, but also by the fact that, in at least one recorded instance, a salpeterisch peasant used it to address an Octovir whose name he could not recall: see GLA, 113:224, fo. [397.sup.r-v], Michel Hottinger of Niedergebisbach to `N: N: Einungsmeister', 16 May 1728. For the broader context of eighteenth-century verbal salutation and address, see George J. Metcalf, Forms of Address in German (1500-1800) (St Louis, 1938).
(75) For an early, transitional example that incorporated both forms of address, see GLA, 113:226, fo. [54.sup.r]-[55.sup.v], Johannes Marder of Eschbach and Blasi Hottinger of Niedergebisbach to Hans Georg Marder of Waldkirch, 12 Feb. 1730. The salutation read `Gelobt sey Je[Beta]us Christ Meinen insunder[Beta] villgeliebten Bruoder'.
(76) Coreth, Pietas Austriaca, 51-2; Huttl, Marianische Wallfahrten, 128. Since 1629, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception had been a regular holiday in Vienna, in recognition of the city's delivery from invasion and rebellion: see John P. Spielman, The City and the Crown: Vienna and the Imperial Court, 1600-1740 (West Lafayette, 1993), 106.
(77) Coreth, Pietas Austriaca, 45.
(78) Ibid., 54-64; Huttl, Marianische Wallfahrten, 141-2, 148-53. The Marian emphasis of pietas austriaca did not end with Leopold I: Charles VI revived it after a brief lapse under Joseph I. Maria Theresa continued the tradition, albeit with less enthusiasm.
(79) Pilgrimage processions as acts of thanks for the Virgin's intercession on behalf of the imperial house had a long history in Hauenstein. A Brotherhood of the Rosary in Gorwihl, for example, conducted an annual procession in November in honour of the Habsburg naval victory at Lepanto in 1571; the brotherhood had hundreds of members in villages throughout western Hauenstein: see Jakob Ebner, Geschichte der Pfarrei Gorwihl im Hotzenwald (n. p., 1953?), 124-5.
(80) Among the complaints raised by militant Hauensteiners in 1743, for example, was the charge that `one continually libels and treats [us] as unruhig [rebellious]': GLA, 65:11419 [Nachla[Beta] J. L. Meyer], fo. [60.sup.r]. Salpeterisch rebels also rejected vigorously the charge of heresy: see GLA, 113:258, fos. [85.sup.r]-[86.sup.v], open letter of Hans Wasmer, 3 Dec. (17457); GLA, 113:258, fos. [194.sup.r]-[216.sup.v], interrogation of Johannes Thoma-ab-Egg, OOKR, 13-14 Oct. 1745.
(81) For example, several villages conducted annual, communal pilgrimages to the Marian shrine at Todtmoos. Every house was required to supply one participant, each village on its prearranged day. See Meyer, Badisches Volksleben, 532-3.
(82) Erzbischofliches Archiv Freiburg, Bistum Konstanz Specialia, Pfarrei Birndorf, Hans Ebner of Birndorf et al. to Johann Erhard Leicker, deacon in Waldshut, 29 Jan. 1735. On the veneration of saints Fridolin and Blasius, respectively, see Meyer Badisches Volksleben, 406-7, 496; Ebner, Pfarrei Gorwihl, 116; Jakob Ebner, Aus der Geschichte der Ortschaften der Pfarrei Birndorf (Karlsruhe, 1938), 114-15. See also the stories collected by Rolfus, Die Salpetrer, 69-70.
(83) Meyer, Badisches Volksleben, 531-3.
(84) Beissel, Wallfahrten zu Unserer Lieben Frau, 206-7. Beissel gives 42,416 pilgrims annually for the years 1655-80, 150,629 annually for 1713-24, and 149,573 for 1734-71. In 1710, the number of pilgrims reached 260,940.
(85) On Maria Hilf, see Walter Hartinger, Mariahilf ob Passau: Volkskundliche Untersuchung der Passauer Wallfahrt und der Mariahilf-Verehrung im deutschsprachigen Raum (Passau, 1985), table 3. Similarly, the number of processions to Maria Hilf increased from around 50 in 1627 to over 130 in 1735. On Maria Zell, see Franz Jantsch, Mariazell: Das Heiligtum der Gnadenmutter Osterreichs (Graz, 1952), 109.
(86) See Luebke, `Serfdom and Honour'.
(87) `[die] alten eynung[Beta] haben ds landt ja ds kundt in dem mutter leib zu ewigen zeithen fur laibeign verkaufft': GLA, 113:99, fos. [1.sup.r]-[2.sup.v], `Was Hans Meyer der Wagener zue Albffen im Wirtzhaus . . . ausgestossen', 29 Mar. 1732. In a letter to Emperor Charles VI, arrested salpeterisch activists charged that `this prelate wants . . . to turn us poor subjects into slaves' (`diser prelath will . . . un[Beta] arme unterthanen zu sclaven machen'): GLA, 113:235, fo. [57.sup.r-v], 22 Nov. 1729.
(88) F.-W. Henning, `Leibeigenschaft', in Adalbert Erler et al. (eds.), Handbuch zur deutschen Rechtsgeschichte, ii (Berlin, 1971-), 1761-72.
(89) RSV Dan. 7:9, `As I looked . . . one that was ancient of days took his seat, his raiment white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool'; Matt. 17:2, Matt. 28:3, `His appearance was like lightning and his raiment white as snow'; Rev. 2: 13-14, `and in the midst of the lampstands one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden girdle round his breast'; Rev. 4:4; Rev. 7:9. See also `Farbensymbolik', in Englelbert Kirschbaum et al. (eds.), Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, 8 vols. (Freiburg, 1968-76), ii, 7-14.
(90) Meyer, Badisches Volksleben, 114-15.
(91) Ibid. Ludwig Huttl and Irmgard Gierl also note the penitential iconography of white clothing in Marian pilgrimage: see Huttl, Marianische Wallfahrten, 13-14; Gierl, Bauernleben und Bauernwallfahrt, 115-16. On the Tracht in Hauenstein, see Jakob Ebner, `Zur Geschichte der Hotzentracht', Mein Heimatland, xviii (1931), 21-7; Wilhelm Flaadt, `Die Volkstracht des Hotzenwaldes', Badische Heimat, xix (1932) 205-13; Charles Lallemand, Les Paysans badois: esquiss de moers et de coutumes (Strasburg, 1860), 29-30.
(92) Meyer, Badisches Volksleben, 295.
(93) Ibid., 289-90. The candle that burned out first was an omen of who, husband or wife, would die first.
(94) Alternatively, wealthier brides wore a so-called Schappele or Tschappele instead of a crown. This was an elaborate head-dress consisting of pearls and gold-leaf adornments. Although `Schappele-weddings' remained common especially in the high Black Forest, their use steadily gave way to simpler crowns. Ibid., 292, 312-14.
(95) On the extent of serfdom in Hauenstein, see Karl F. Wernet, `Die Bevolkerung der Grafschaft Hauenstein', Zeitschrift fur die Geschichte des Oberrheins, civ (1956); Luebke, `Serfdom and Honour'.
(96) Meyer, Badisches Volksleben, 283-4, 523.
(97) `al[Beta] wie der allerhochste goat vor un[Beta] geliten hadt al[Beta] mensch undt un[Beta]er erlo[Beta]er von de[Beta] daifel[Beta] streickh und banden und von dem ewigen verdamnu[Beta] all[Beta]o gibt man un[Beta] der danckh da[Beta] mir der graffschafft hauwenstein widter erlost haben von der leibeigen und eigen[schaft]': GLA, 113:236. fos. [54.sup.r]-[55.sup.v], open letter from Johannes Marder, Freiburg, (12?), Feb. 1730
(98) The incendiary power of Schelm and Dieb must not be underestimated: see Bernhard Muller-Wirthmann, `Raufhandel: Gewalt und Ehre im Dorf', in Richard van Dulmen (ed.), Kultur der einfachen Leute: Bayerisches Volksleben vom 16. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1983).
(99) `der einungsmaister von underalbffen [seye] ein lant lieger, ein scholm und mainaitiger man . . . er hange akin dem prellaten und ahm prellaten hang der deuffell': GLA, 113:253, fo. [3.sup.r] testimony of Hans Strittmatter, Unteralpfen, 8 Feb. 1739.
(100) `alle die jenige, die ihnen die salpeter unrecht gaben [waren] . . . ewig vervohren und de[Beta] teufels': GLA, 113:267 (no pagin.), testimony of Caspar Straubhaar of Weilheim, Caspar Albiez of Dogern, and Baptist Mezger of Gorwihl, 18 Mar. 1746.
(101) `du bist verdambt und wirst verdambt wen du nicht mit uns salpeterischen haltest': GLA, 113:259, fos. [53.sup.r]-[59.sup.v], `Beschreibung nacherstehenden Hergangs . . . zu Waldkirch', 12 July 1745. Probably in the same year, others reportedly said that some mullerisch peasants `were already living in hell and all are damned who do not stick with the salpeterisch [people], God will and cannot be merciful to them' ('es seyen schon einige lebhafft in der troll undt seye alle verdambt die nit mit denen selbetheren halten, gott werdte und kone ihnen nimmer gnedtig sein'): GLA, 113:222, fos. [271.sup.r]-[272.sup.v], [Joseph Trondle of Rotzel], `Notanta', (1745?)
(102) `so soil der handl fur das gericht gottes citiert seye, und sollen alle die jenige so schuld und ursach seye auff den 3. tag erscheinen': GLA, 113:241, fos. [66.sup.r]-[76.sup.v], Hans Friedle Gerspach, Michel Trondle and Verena Zimmerman to Joseph Trondle of Rotzel, 19 Apr. 1737.
(103) See Grull, Bauer, Herr und Landesfurst, 11.
(104) See Gunther Franz, Geschichte des deutschen Bauernstandes vom fruhen Mittelalter bis zum 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1970), 183.
(105) Grull, Bauer, Herr und Landesfurst, 9-11, 129-34, 250-5, 270-5, 361-2.
(106) Claudia Ulbrich, `Der Charakter bauerlichen Widerstands in vorderosterreichischen Herrschaften', in Winfried Schulze (ed.), Aufstande, Revolten, Proze[Beta]e: Beitrage zu bauerlichen Widerstandsbewegungen im fruhneuzeitlichen Europa (Stuttgart, 1983), 215, n. 80; Josef Bader, `Das Thal Simonswald unter dem St. Margarethenstifte zu Waldkirch', Freiburger Diozesanarchiv, vii (1873), Claudia Ulbrich, `Bauerlicher Widerstand in Triberg', in Peter Blickle (ed.), Aufruhr und Emporung? Studien zum bauerlichen Widerstand im Alten Reich (Munich, 1980), 181-2.
(107) Helfried Valentinisch, `Advokaten, Winkelschreiber und Bauernprokuratoren in Innerosterreich in der fruhen Neuzeit', in Schulze (ed.), Aufstande, Revolten, Proze[Beta]e.
(108) Blum, End of the Old Order, 335.
(109) Francois-Ignace de Castella, `La Chronique scandaleuse des miseres qui ont agite la magistrature, la bourgeouisie, les terres anciennes, et la majeure partie des bailliages du canton de Fribourg en 1781 et 1782', Archives de la Societe d'Histoire du Canton de Fribourg, vi (1899); Paul Hugger, `Kommentare zum freiburgischen Chenaux-Handel von 1781: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der chiliastischen und nativistischen Stromungen in der Schweiz', Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Geschichte, xxiii (1973), repr. in his Sozialrebellen und Rechtsbrecher in der Schweiz: Eine historischvolkskundliche Studie (Zurich, 1976).
(110) Habermas, Wallfahrt und Aufruhr, 35-44.
(111) Renate Blickle, `"Spenn und Irrung" im "Eigen" Rottenbuch: Die Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Bauernschaft und Herrschaft des Augustiner-Chorherrenstifts', in Blickle (ed.), Aufruhr und Emporung?; Habermas, Wallfahrt und Aufruhr, 34.
(112) Huttl, Marianische Wallfahrten; Habermas, Wallfahrt und Aufruhr, 33; Robert Bauer, Die Bayerische Wallfahrt Altotting (Munich, 1970); Olivia Wiebel-Fanderl, Die Wallfahrt Altotting: Kultformen und Wallfahrtsleben im 19. Jahrhundert (Passau, 1982), 6-10. On the Bavarian pietas mariana, see Soergel, Wondrous in his Saints.
(113) See James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance (New Haven, 1990), 82-5.
(114) At Maria Hilf ob Passau in Bavaria, for example, the number of communions grew from a few thousand in 1640 to over 100,000 in 1700; at Maria Zell in Austria, communions increased from 61,000 in 1689 to 188,000 in 1725; and Einsiedeln experienced a similar surge in popularity. On Maria Hilf, see Hartinger, Mariahilf; on Maria Zell, see Jantsch, Mariazell, 109. See also Bruckner, `Zum Wandel', 67.
(115) Cf. David Sabean, `A Prophet in the Thirty Years' War: Penance as a Social Metaphor', in his Power in the Blood: Popular Culture and Village Discourse in Earl), Modern Germany (Cambridge, 1984).
(116) Simon Roberts, `The Study of Dispute: Anthropological Perspectives', in John Bossy (ed.), Disputes and Settlements: Law and Human Relations in the West (Cambridge, 1983), 23.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Luebke, David M.|
|Publication:||Past & Present|
|Date:||Feb 1, 1997|
|Previous Article:||Deflationary factors in the Tudor price rise.|
|Next Article:||American independence and Britain's counter-revolution.|