Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:22:35.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Imperial Taxes and German Politics in the Fifteenth Century: An Outline

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Steven Rowan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Germany in the fifteenth century was the scene of an extended struggle over the nature and scale of imperial institutions, and much of this conflict boiled down to the question of who was to pay taxes and how much. In the first half of the century, two alternative methods of financing the Reich emerged, and in the years around 1500 only one of these two methods proved to be politically practical. The style of imperial taxation which won out, the Matrikel, has long been studied in detail, and its workings are well known to any student of imperial institutions.1 From the first Matrikel in 1422 until the end of the Old Reich in 1806, negotiated quotas were the basis for payments to the Reich made by each of the three-hundred-odd estates. Paying the listed quota in men or money fell in principle on the government of the individual estate, which had to find its own way of raising the money or of passing the costs on to subjects. This method of raising public revenues was not, however, the only system of taxation which contemporaries thought to be possible or desirable. The Matrikel won out only after princely estates tried and failed to gain the adoption of a monetary tax paid directly by the population in proportion to individual wealth or income. I will first consider the development of imperial direct taxes in the fifteenth century, and then I will show that the defeat of that tax helped to determine the structure and scale of Reich institutions throughout the early modern period.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , September 1980 , pp. 203 - 217
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

This article grew out of two papers, one given at a joint meeting of the American Historical Association and the International Commission for the History of Representative and Parliamentary Institutions in Washington, D.C., in December 1976, and the other at a meeting of the Southeastern Medieval Association in Lexington, Kentucky, in March 1978.

1. Sieber, Johannes, Zur Geschichte des Rcichsmatrikelswesens im ausgehenden Mittelalter (1422–1521), Leipziger historische Abhandlungen, no. 22 (Leipzig, 1910), pp. 7–19, 28–30Google Scholar; Benecke, Gerhard, Society and Politics in Germany 1500–1750 (London, 1974), pp. 288ff.Google Scholar The most comprehensive review of the entire subject of Reich finance is also the most recent, Isenmann, Eberhard, “Reichsfinanzen und Reichsteuern im 15. Jahrhundert,” Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 7 (1980): 1–76, 129–218.Google Scholar

2. See Grossman, Ronald, “Financing the Crusades” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1965), esp. pp. 78–80, 155–56Google Scholar; Bauer, Clemens, “Die Epochen der Papstfinanz,” Historische Zeitschrift 138 (1928): 457–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. For a brief outline see Heymann, Frederick G., “The Crusades against the Hussites,” in Setton, Kenneth, A History of the Crusades, 3 (Madison, Wisc., 1975): 586–646Google Scholar, with excellent notes; also Seibt, Ferdinand, “Die Zeit der Luxemburger und der hussitischen Revolution,” in Bosl, Karl, ed., Handbuch der Geschichte der böhmischen Länder, 1 (Stuttgart, 1967): 351–568.Google Scholar

4. Palacký, E. G. Frantisek, Urkundliche Beiträge zur Geschichte des Hussitenkrieges, (Prague, 1873), 2: 268–70, 271–73.Google Scholar

5. Historische Kommission der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Deutsche Reichstagsakten, 1st ser., 8: 106–8. (Hereafter cited as RTA.)

6. Ibid., 8: 106–8, 155–56, 166–68.

7. Ibid., 8: 156, 176–77, 182–84.

8. Ibid., 8: 173–76, 177–78. Herre, Hermann, “Das Reichskriegssteuergesetz vom Jahre 1422,” Historische Vierteljahresschrift 19 (1919/1920): 13–52Google Scholar, which radically criticized Werminghoff, Albert, Die deutsche Reichskriegssteuergesetze von 1422 bis 1427 und die deutsche Kirche: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des vorreformatorischen deutschen Staatskirchenrechts (Weimar, 1916)Google Scholar, on his interpretation of the 1422 law, was accepted by Werminghoff, himself in a review in Historische Zeitschrift 121 (1920): 166–67.Google Scholar

9. RTA, 1st ser., 8: 220.

10. Ibid., 8: 173–75.

11. Ibid., 8: 181–82.

12. Ibid., 9: 65–75, esp. pp. 70–71.

13. Ibid., 9: 81.

14. Ibid., 9: 83, §§23–24.

15. Müller, Johann Joachim, Des Heil. Römischen Reichs, Teutscher Nation, Reichs-Tags-Theatrum, wie selbiges, unter Keyser Friedrichs v. allerhöchster Regierung, von Anno MCCCXL-MCCCCXCIII gestanden … (Jena, 1718–1719), 1: 657–58.Google Scholar

16. Rowan, Steven, “The Common Penny (1495–99) as a Source of German Social and Demographic History,” Central European History 10 (1977): 149, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. Moeller, Bernd, Reichsstadt und Reformation (Gütersloh, 1961), pp. 15–16, 61–76.Google Scholar

18. RTA, 1st ser., 9: 85–112, esp. 91–110. Clerics paid a full 5 percent of their income, with a minimum of 2 groats, thus larger in every way than the lay subsidy.

19. Ibid., 9: 113–15.

20. Ibid., 9: 135.

21. Ibid., 9: 126.

22. Ibid., 9: 133, which mentions Cologne, Regensburg, Erfurt, Worms, Speyer, and Nuremberg.

23. Ibid., 9: 255–77.

24. Ibid., 9: 116–19.

25. Ibid., 9: 240–44, 248–52, 253–54; Palacký, , Urkundliche Beiträge, 1: 586–87.Google Scholar Although Strasbourg did not send anything to Nuremberg, it did indeed collect the tax from its residents in the name of the Reich; see RTA, 1st ser., 9: 112, cf. 276–77, §142.

The tally of the Common Penny of 1427 has a special interest because it describes the particular currencies in which the estates paid the treasury: 37,817 Rhenish gold guilders (and 23 fl badly minted), 235 Hungarian gold guilders, 120 Venetian gold ducats, 120 Dutch crowns, 83 French écus d'or, 47 Jülich guilders, and one English Noble; of silver currencies there were 214,363 Bohemian groats (Groschen), 567 Plaphart, 58 Erfurt groats, 30 Meissen groats, 56 Kreutzer, as well as pence of Regensburg, Nuremberg, and Heidelberg, along with unspecified good and bad pence. Suhle, Arthur, Deutsche Münz- und Geldgeschichte von den Anfängen bis zum 15. Jahrhundert (Berlin, GDR, 1955), p. 157Google Scholar, quotes a document of 1426 in which 3 fl are said to equal a Schock (sixty pieces) of Bohemian groats. Hence 1 fl equals 20 groats.

26. Text of the law in Zeumer, Karl, Quellen zur Geschichte der deutschen Reichsverfassung im Mittelalter und Neuzeit, 2d ed. (Tubingen, 1913), 2: 294–96.Google Scholar

27. On Beaufort's career as a papal legate, see Hunt, William, “Henry Beaufort,” in Dictionary of National Biography, 2: 41–48Google Scholar; Radford, Lewis Bostock, Henry Beaufort (London, 1908)Google Scholar; Holmes, G. A., “Cardinal Beaufort and the Crusade against the Hussites,” English Historical Review 80 (1973): 721–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on his character, see McFarlane, K. B., “Henry V. Bishop Beaufort and the Red Hat,” English Historical Review 60 (1945): 316–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and idem, “At the Death-Bed of Cardinal Beaufort,” in Hunt, Richard W., Pantin, William A., and Southern, Richard W., eds., Studies in Medieval History Presented to Frederick M. Powicke (Oxford, 1948), pp. 405–28Google Scholar. A recent review of the material which really adds little new is Schnith, Karl, “Kardinal Heinrich Beaufort und der Hussitenkrieg,” in Bäumer, Remigius, ed., Von Konstanz nach Trient: Beiträge zur Geschichte der Kirche von den Reformkonzilien bis zum Tridentinum: Festgabe für August Franzen (Munich, Paderborn, Vienna, 1972), pp. 119–38.Google Scholar

28. RTA, 1st ser., 11: 184–86, 229–31, 277–81.

29. On the German policies of Pius II, see Voigt, Georg, Enea Silvio de' Piccolomini, als Papst, Pius II, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1856–1863; reprint ed., 1967)Google Scholar; Bachmann, A. in Allgemeine deutsche Biographie, 26: 206–19Google Scholar; Pastor, Ludwig, The History of the Popes, trans. Antrobus, Frederick (St. Louis, 1898), vol. 3Google Scholar; Isenmann, “Reichsfinanzen,” p. 156.

30. See especially Laufs, Adolf, “Reichsstädte und Reichsreform,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, germanistische Abteilung 84 (1967): 172–204Google Scholar; most recently, see Berthold, Brigitte, “Städte und Reichsreform in der ersten Hälfte des 15. Jahrhunderts,” in Töpfer, Bernhard, ed., Städte und Ständestaat, Forschungen zur mittelalterlichen Geschichte, vol. 26 (Berlin, GDR, 1980), pp. 59–111Google Scholar, which is less negative about the role of the towns in the reform of the Reich; on the nationalist content of the Reich in the later fifteenth century, see Schröcker, Alfred, Die Deutsche Nation: Beobachtungen zur politischen Propaganda des ausgehenden 15. Jahrhunderts, Historische Studien, no. 426 (Lübeck, 1974).Google Scholar

31. Molitor, Erich, Die Reichsreformbestrebungen des 15. Jahrhunderts bis zum Tode Friedrichs III., Untersuchungen zur deutschen Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte, no. 132 (Breslau, 1921), pp. 64–65.Google Scholar

32. Ibid., pp. 186–88.

33. Ibid., pp. 69–70.

34. Ibid., pp. 132–40; Watanabe, Morimichi, “Imperial Reform in the Mid-Fifteenth Century: Gregor Heimburg and Martin Mair,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 9 (1979): 209–35Google Scholar, which summarizes the bibliography. Isenmann, “Reichsfinanzen,” pp. 161–82, makes a major contribution to the literature with his analysis of the scheme for a general tax in 1471 and 1474, which also fell through due to political opposition and was never collected.

35. Hartung, Fritz, “Die Reichsreform von 1485 bis 1495: Ihr Verlauf und ihr Wesen,” Historische Vierteljahresschrift 16 (1913): 24–53ff.Google Scholar; Bader, Karl Siegfried, “Kaiserliche und ständische Reformgedanken in der Reichsreform des endenden 15. Jahrhundert,” Historisches Jahrbuch 73 (1954): 74–94Google Scholar; Angermeier, Heinz, “Begriff und Inhalt der Reichsre-form,” Zeitschrift der Savigny–Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, germanistische Abteilung 75 (1958): 181–205Google Scholar; idem, “Die Reichsregimenter und ihre Staatsidee,” Historische Zeitschrift 211 (1970): 265–315Google Scholar; Helbig, Herman, “Königtum und Ständeversammlungen in Deutschland am Ende des Mittelalters,” Anden pays et assemblees d'états 24 (1962): 63–92Google Scholar; Rowan, Steven, “A Reichstag in the Reform Era: Freiburg im Breisgau, 1497–98,” in Vann, James and Rowan, Steven, eds., The Old Reich, Studies Presented to the International Commission for the History of Representative and Parliamentary Institutions, vol. 48 (Brussels, 1974), pp. 33–57Google Scholar; idem, “The Common Penny”; Wiesflecker, Hermann, Kaiser Maximilian I. (Munich, 1971–), 2: 201–56Google Scholar. An accessible version of the law under which the Common Penny was collected is found in Hofmann, Harms Hubert, ed., Quellen zum Verfassungsorganismus des heiligen Römischen Reiches deutscher Nation 1495–1806, Ausgewählte Quellen zur deutschen Geschichte der Neuzeit, Freiherr vom Stein-Gedächtnisausgabe, vol. 13 (Darmstadt, 1976), pp. 15–18.Google Scholar

36. See n. 26 above; also Müller (see n. 15 above), 1: 429–42.

37. Schmauss, Johann Jacob, Neue und vollständigere Sammlung der Reichs-Abschiede (Frankfurt a.M., 1747), 2: 29–35Google Scholar; Blickle, Peter, “Gemeiner Pfenning und Obrigkeit (1495).” Vierteljahresschrift für Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 63 (1976): 180–93.Google Scholar

38. Rowan, “The Common Penny,” pp. 150–52.

39. Gothein, Eberhard, Politische und religiöse Volksbewegungen vor der Reformation (Breslau, 1878), p. 37Google Scholar; Ulmann, Heinrich, Kaiser Maximilian I. auf urkundliche Grundlage dargestellt, 1 (Stuttgart, 1884): 553–55Google Scholar; Wiesflecker, , Maximilian I., 2: 244–56, 291–92.Google Scholar The most recent summaries of the bibliography of the Common Penny of 1495–99 are Schuler, Peter-Johannes, “Reichssteuer und Landstände: Zum Problem des Steuerbewilligungrechts der vorderosterreichische Landstande,” Schau-ins-Land 97 (1978): 39–60Google Scholar, and Isenmann, “Reichsfinanzen,” 190–94.

40. Schmauss, Neue Sammlung, 2: 60–2, 103, §8.

41. Ibid., 2: 138–41.

42. Ibid., 2: 170, §§2–3. In 1504–5 the Imperial Chamber Court alone was estimated to require 12,000 fl per year; see Isenmann, “Reichsfinanzen,” p. 190 n. 515.

43. Heinz Angermeier, “Die Reichsregimenter,” p. 292.

44. Ibid., p. 293 n. 58.

45. Benecke, Gerhard, Society and Politics, pp. 288–89, 263–69.Google Scholar See Werminghoff, Reichskriegssteuergesetze, pp. 268–69, for a summary of later efforts to revive the Common Penny. The traditional view of later Reich taxation is given by Müller, Johannes, “Das Steuer- und Finanzwesen des H.R. Reiches im XVI. Jahrhundert,” Neue Jahrbücher für das klassische Altertum, Geschichte und deutsche Literature 5 (1902): 652–78.Google Scholar For a more recent perception see Schulze, Winfried, “Reichstage und Reichssteuem im späten 16. Jahrhundert,” and Volker Press, “Steuern, Kredit und Repräsentation,” Zeitschrift für historische Forschung 2 (1975): 43–58, 59–93.Google Scholar Schulze argues that the princes in the 1540s saw the Common Penny as an ideologically dangerous, egalitarian form of taxation. I believe this reflects the altered conditions of the sixteenth century, which saw a secular rise in prices, with a consequent increase in the power of Hochfinanz, anda clear threat of revolution against the nobility.