1 The term was originally used by Freudenberger, H. and Redlich, F., ‘The industrial development of Europe: reality, symbols, images’, Kyklos 17 (1964), 372–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Freudenberger, H., 'Die Struktur der frühindustriellen Fabrik im Umriβ, in Fischer, W. ed., Wirtschafts- und sozialgeschichtliche Probleme der frühen Industrialisierung (Berlin, 1968), 413–33.Google Scholar

2 See Kriedte, P., Medick, H. and Schlumbohm, J., ‘Die Proto-Industrialisierung auf dem Prüfstand der historischen Zunft. Antwort auf einige Kritiker’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 9 (1983), 87Google Scholar (English version published as ‘Proto-industrialization on test with the guild of historians’, Economy and Society 15 (1986), 254–72)Google Scholar; critique also in Berg, M., ‘Markets, trade and European manufacture’, in her book Markets and manufacture in early industrial Europe (Cambridge, 1991), 4–6Google Scholar; Berg, M., Hudson, P. and Sonenscher, M., ‘Manufacture in town and country before the factory’, in their book Manufacture in town and country before the factory (Cambridge, 1986), 25–8, 30Google Scholar; Coleman, D. C., ‘Proto-industrialisation: a concept too many?’, Economic History Review 36 (1983), 437CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pollard, S., ‘Regional markets and national development’, in Berg, M. ed., Markets and manufacture in early industrial Europe (Cambridge, 1991), 31f.Google Scholar; Poni, C., ‘Proto-industrialization, rural and urban’, Review 9 (1985), 312.Google Scholar

3 See Kriedte, P., ‘Die Stadt im Prozeβ der europäischen Proto-Industrialisierung’, Die alte Stadt 9 (1982), 19–51Google Scholar; ‘Lebensverhältnisse, Klassenstrukturen und Proto- Industrialisierung in Krefeld während der französischen Zeit’, in Mentalitäten und Lebensverhältnisse (Göttingen, 1982), 295–314Google Scholar; ‘Proto-Industrialisierung und groβes Kapital. Das Seidengewerbe in Krefeld und seinem Umland bis zum Ende des Ancien Régime’, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte 23 (1983), 219–66Google Scholar; ‘Demographic and economic rhythms: the rise of the silk industry in Krefeld’, Journal of European Economic History 15 (1986), 259–89Google Scholar; and Eine Stadt am seidenen Faden. Haushalt, Hausindustrie und soziale Bewegung in Krefeld in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Göttingen, 1991).Google Scholar The Göttingen team did not refer systematically, however, to the problems of centralized or urban production in their most recent publication. See Kriedte, , Medick, and Schlumbohm, , ‘Sozialgeschichte in der Erweiterung – Proto-Industrialisierung in der Verengung? Demographie, Sozialstruktur, moderne Hausindustrie: eine Zwischen-bilanz der Proto-Industrialisierungs-Forschung (Teil I u. II)’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 18 (1992), 70–87, 231–55Google Scholar: the English version of this paper appears in the present issue of Continuity and Change.

4 See the most recent major works: de Vries, J., European urbanization, 1500–1800 (London, 1984)Google Scholar; Gutmann, M. P., Toward the modern economy: early industry in Europe, 1500–1800 (New York, 1988)Google Scholar; Hohenberg, P. M. and Lees, L. H., The making of urban Europe, 1000–1950 (Cambridge, Mass., 1985)Google Scholar; van der Wee, H. ed., The rise and decline of urban industries in Italy and in the Low Countries (Leuven, 1988).Google Scholar

5 See the original view in Kriedte, P., Medick, H. and Schlumbohm, J., Industrialisierung vor der Industrialisierung (Göttingen, 1977), 57–61Google Scholar; English edn: Industrialization before industrialization (Cambridge, 1981).Google Scholar

6 On the expansion of markets, see de Vries, J., The economy of Europe in an age of crisis (Cambridge, 1976), 94f.Google Scholar; Freudenberger, and Redlich, , ‘The industrial development of Europe’, 376f., 379Google Scholar; Friedrichs, C. R., ‘Capitalism, mobility, and class formation in the early modern German city’, in Abrams, P. and Wrigley, E. A. eds., Towns in societies (Cambridge, 1978), 200Google Scholar; Friedrichs, C. R., Urban society in an age of war (Princeton, 1979), 263Google Scholar; Tanner, A., Spulen-Weben-Sticken: die Industrialisierung in Appenzell Ausserrhoden (Zürich, 1982), 14f, 19Google Scholar; Wehler, H. U., Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte 1700–1815 (Munich, 1987), 93f.Google Scholar Concerning domination by merchants, which could lead to a process of proletarianization, see DuPlessis, R. and Howell, M. C., ‘Re considering the early modern urban economy’, Past and Present 94 (1982), 50CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ebeling, D., Bürgertum und Pöbel. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Kölns im 18. Jahrhundert (Cologne, 1987), 36–41Google Scholar; Friedrichs, , Capitalism, mobility, and class formation, 196, 201, 203f., 207Google Scholar; Friedrichs, , Urban society, 280Google Scholar; Kriedte, , ‘Die Stadt im Prozeβ der europäischen Proto-Industrialisierung’, 48, 50f.Google Scholar; Lis, C. and Soly, H., Poverty and capitalism in pre-industrial Europe (Hassocks, 1979), 106, 168, 217Google Scholar; Soly, H., ‘Social aspects of structural changes in the urban industries of eighteenth-century Brabant and Flanders’, in Wee, van der ed., The rise and decline of urban industries, 244–5Google Scholar; Takahashi, K., ‘Ein Diskussionsbeitrag’, in Sweezy, P. et al. , Der Übergang vom Feudalismus zum Kapitalismus (Frankfurt, 1984), 115f., note 68Google Scholar; Wehler, , Deutsche Gesellschaftsgeschichte, 93–5.Google Scholar See the exceptional cases of Leiden and Lille described in Plessis, Du and Howell, , Reconsidering the early modern urban economy.Google Scholar

7 Kriedte, P., Spätfeudalismus und Handelskapital (Göttingen, 1980), 18f.Google Scholar; Kriedte, , ‘Die Stadt im Prozeβ der europäischen Proto-Industrialisierung’, 29f.Google Scholar

8 De Vries, , The European economy in an age of crisis, 85Google Scholar; Fellari, G., ‘Structural changes in urban industry in Italy from the late Middle Ages to the beginning of the industrial revolution: a synthesis’, in Wee, van der ed., The rise and decline of urban industries, 159Google Scholar; Eversley, D. E. C., ‘The home market and economic growth in England 1750–1780’, in Jones, E. L. and Mingay, G. E. eds., Land, labour, and population in the industrial revolution (London, 1967), 217Google Scholar; Hohenberg, Paul M., ‘Urban manufacturies in the proto-industrial economy’, in Berg, M. ed., Markets and manufacture in early industrial Europe (Cambridge, 1991), 162f.Google Scholar

9 Abrams, P., ‘Towns and economic growth’, in Abrams, P. and Wrigley, E. A. eds., Towns in societies (London, 1978), 21Google Scholar; Daunton, M. J., ‘Towns and economic growth in eighteenth-century England’, in the same volume, 253Google Scholar; Hohenberg, , ‘Urban manufacturies in the proto-industrial economy’, 162.Google Scholar

10 See, generally, Gutmann, M. P., ‘General raport: the dynamics of urban decline in the late Middle Ages and early modern times’, in Ninth International Economic History Congress (Bern, 1986)Google Scholar; De Vries, , The economy of Europe, 21, 109Google Scholar; De Vries, , European urbanization, 40, 71, 136–42, 255–7Google Scholar; Houston, R. and Snell, K., ‘Proto-industrialization? Cottage industry, social change and industrial revolution’, Historical Journal 27 (1984), 492CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lees, L. H. and Hohenberg, P. M., ‘Urban Decline and regional economies: Brabant, Castile and Lombardy, 1550–1750’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 31 (1989), 441f., 458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 van der Wee, H., ‘Industrial dynamics and the process of urbanization and de-urbanization in the Low Countries from the Late Middle Ages to the eighteenth century’, in Wee, H. van der ed., The rise and decline of urban industries, 318, 373.Google Scholar

12 On this role of cities, see Berg, , Hudson, , and Sonenscher, , Manufacture in town and country, 25f.Google Scholar; de Vries, , European urbanization, 8, 220f.Google Scholar; Henning, F. W., ‘Die Wirtschaftsstruktur mitteleuropäischer Gebiete an der Wende zum 19. Jahrhundert unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des gewerblichen Bereichs’, in Fischer, W. ed, Beiträge zu Wirtschaftswachstum und Wirtschaftsstruktur im 16. und 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1971), 149, 160Google Scholar; Hohenberg, P. M., ‘Toward a model of the European economic system in proto-industrial perspective’, unpublished paper, Eighth Economic History Congress (Budapest, 1982), 13Google Scholar; Hohenberg, and Lees, , The making of urban Europe, 125Google Scholar; Kellenbenz, H., ‘Rural industries in the West from the end of the Middle Ages to the eighteenth century’, in Earle, P. ed., Essays in European Economic History 1500–1800 (Oxford, 1974), 46f., 78Google Scholar; Lackner, H. and Stadler, G., Fabriken in der Stadt (Linz, 1990), 76Google Scholar; Mendels, F. F., ‘Proto-industrialization: theory and reality’, in Eighth International Economie History Congress. ‘A’ themes (Budapest, 1982), 78f.Google Scholar; Thomson, J. K. J., ‘Variations in industrial structure in pre-industrial Languedoc’, in Berg, , Hudson, , and Sonenscher, eds., Manufacture in town and country, 69.Google Scholar The decline of certain traditional branches of industry in cities could also be accompanied by the rise of new ones. See Soly, H., ‘Social aspects of structural changes in the urban industries’, 243.Google Scholar

13 Kriedte, , ‘Die Stadt im Prozeβ der europäischen Proto-Industrialisierung’, 25f.Google Scholar On production in the countryside, see Wee, Van der, ‘Industrial dynamics and the process of urbanization’, 317, 363.Google Scholar Rural industries were more likely to exist if the raw material was produced in the region as well, as was the case in many linen regions.

14 On rural-urban co-operation and production shifts, see generally Berg, , Hudson, , and Sonenscher, , ‘Manufacture in town and country’, 25f.Google Scholar; Clarkson, L. A., Proto-industrialization: the first phase of industrialization (London, 1985), 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar; De Vries, , European urbanization, 220f.Google Scholar; Fellari, G., ‘Structural changes in urban industry’, 158Google Scholar; Hohenberg, and Lees, , The making of urban Europe, 130Google Scholar; Hudson, P., ‘Proto-industrialization: the case of the West Riding wool textile industry in the 18th and early 19th centuries’, History Workshop Journal 12 (1981), 39CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kriedte, , Spätfeudalismus und Handelskapital, 168f.Google Scholar; Kriedte, , ‘Die Stadt im Prozeβ der europäischen Proto-industrialisierung’, 26, 34, 38Google Scholar; Kriedte, , Medick, and Schlumbohn, , Industrialisierung vor der Industrialisierung, 228f.Google Scholar; Mendels, , ‘Proto-industrialization: theory and reality’, 78f.Google Scholar; Schmal, H., ‘Patterns of de-urbanization in the Netherlands between 1650 and 1850’, in Wee, van der ed., The rise and decline of urban industries, 297Google Scholar; Soly, , ‘Social aspects of structural changes in the urban industries’, 241.Google Scholar

15 Berg, M., The age of manufactures (London, 1985), 89Google Scholar; de Vries, , European urbanization, 220f.Google Scholar; Freudenberger, , ‘Die Struktur der frühindustriellen Fabrik’, 426Google Scholar; Freudenberger, and Redlich, , ‘The industrialization of Europe’, 375Google Scholar; Hohenberg, , ‘Urban manufactories in the proto-industrial economy’, 161f.Google Scholar; Hohenberg, and Lees, , The making of urban Europe, 129f.Google Scholar; Hudson, P., The genesis of industrial capital (Cambridge, 1986), 35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kriedte, , ‘Die Stadt im Prozeβ der europäischen Proto-Industrialisierung’, 33f.Google Scholar; Kriedte, , ‘Proto-Industrialisierung und groβes Kapital’, 261Google Scholar; Kriedte, , Eine Stadt am seidenen Faden, 19Google Scholar; Lackner, and Stadler, , Fabriken in der Stadt, 76f.Google Scholar; Lis, and Soly, , Poverty and capitalism, 165Google Scholar; Mendels, , ‘Proto-industrialization: theory and reality’, 78f.Google Scholar; Soly, , ‘Social aspects of structural changes in the urban industries’, 242.Google Scholar Luxury industry was one sector in which urban production was competitive, because wages made up a smaller share of production costs. See Thijs, A. K. L., ‘Structural changes in the Antwerp industry, from the fifteenth to the eighteenth century’, in Wee, van der ed., The rise and decline of urban industries, 209.Google Scholar

16 Banik-Schweitzer, R., ‘Zur Bestimmung der Rolle Wiens als Industriestadt für die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung der Habsburgerresidenz’, in Banik-Schweitzer, R. and Meissl, G., Industriestadt Wien (Vienna, 1983), 23Google Scholar; Chaloupek, G., Eigner, P. and Wagner, M., Wirtschaftsgeschichte Wien 1740–1938 (Vienna, 1991), 38–40, 43–5, 223–5Google Scholar; Hohenberg, and Lees, , The making of urban Europe, 130Google Scholar; Kellenbenz, H., ‘Ländliches Gewerbe und bäuerliches Unternehmertum in Westeuropa vom Spätmittelalter bis ins 18. Jahrhundert’, in Deuxième Conférence International d'Histoire Economique (Paris, 1965), 416f.Google Scholar; Kellenbenz, , ‘Rural industries in the West’, 70fGoogle Scholar; Lausecker, S., ‘Vor- und frühindustrielle Produktionsformen: am Beispiel der Seiden- und Baumwollindustrie in Wien und Niederösterreich’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Vienna, 1975), 376, 53Google Scholar; Lis, and Soly, , Poverty and capitalism, 165Google Scholar; Meissl, G., ‘Im Spannungsfeld von Kunsthandwerk, Verlagswesen und Fabrik’Google Scholar, in Banik-Schweitzer, R. and Meissl, G., Industriestadt Wien, 101f.Google Scholar; Thomson, , ‘Variations in industrial structure’, 69Google Scholar; Wrigley, E. A., ‘A simple model of London's importance in changing English society and economy’, in Abrams, P. and Wrigley, E. A. eds., Towns in societies, 233Google Scholar; Baltzarek, F., ‘Zu den regionalen Ansätzen der frühen Industrialisierung in Europa’, in Knittler, H. ed., Wirtschafts- und sozialhistorische Beiträge. Festschrift für Alfred Hoffmann zum 75. Geburtstag (Vienna, 1979), 338, 348f.Google Scholar; Berg, , ‘Markets and manufacture in early industrial Europe’, 10f.Google Scholar; Berg, , Hudson, and Sonenscher, , ‘Manufacture in town and country’, 25f.Google Scholar; Daunton, , ‘Towns and economic growth’, 250, 256f.Google Scholar; De Vries, , European urbanization, 220f.Google Scholar; Hohenberg, , ‘Toward a model of the European economic system’, 16Google Scholar; Hohenberg, and Lees, , The making of urban Europe, 113Google Scholar; Wrigley, , ‘A simple model’, 233.Google Scholar

17 Wee, Van der, ‘Industrial dynamics and the process of urbanization and de-urbanization’, 319f.Google Scholar

18 However, many feudal lords established manufactories on their estates and sim ultaneously operated a putting-out system. Numerous examples of this can be found in Bohemia.

19 On this concept see Freudenberger and Redlich, ‘Industrial development of Europe’, 381–4, 392–7Google Scholar; Freudenberger, , ‘Die Struktur der frühindustriellen Fabrik’Google Scholar; denberger, Freu, ‘Die proto-industrielle Entwicklungsphase in Österreich. Proto- Industrialisierung als sozialer Lernprozeβ’, in Matis, H. ed., Von der Glückseligkeit des Staates (Berlin, 1981), 360–4.Google Scholar

20 Forberger, R., Die Manufaktur in Sachsen vom Ende des 16. bis zum Anfang des 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1958)Google Scholar; Krüger, H., Zur Geschichte der Manufakturen und der Manufakturarbeiter in Preuβen (Berlin, 1958)Google Scholar; Klíma, A., Manufakturni období v Čech´ch (The period of manufactories in Bohemia) (Prague, 1955)Google Scholar; Klíma, A., ‘Die Textilmanufaktur im Böhmen des 18. Jahrhunderts’, Historica 15 (1967), 123–81Google Scholar; Klíma, A., ‘Die Manufaktur in Böhmen’, Scripta Mercaturae 13 (1979), 1–44Google Scholar; Maur, E. and Špiesz, A., ‘Die Manufakturperiode in der tschechoslowakischen Historiographie von 1970 bis 1979’, Jahrbuch für Geschichte des Feudalismus 5 (1981), 343–77.Google Scholar

21 Wehler uses the term Gemengelage (conglomeration). Cf. Wehler, , Deutsche Gesell schaftsgeschichte, 112.Google Scholar On this question, see Bauer, L. and Matis, H., Geburt der Neuzeit (Munich, 1989), 345–67Google Scholar; Berg, , ‘The age of manufactures’, 40–2, 84, 91Google Scholar; Eley, G., ‘The social history of industrialization: “proto-industry” and the origins of capitalism’, Economy and Society 13 (1984), 530CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Matis, H., ‘Betriebsorganisation, Arbeitsmarkt und Arbeitsverfassung’, in Matis, ed., Von der Glückseligkeit des Staates, 414–31, 448f.Google Scholar

22 Berg, , ‘The age of manufactures’, 207–20, 280–6, 288–95Google Scholar; Kaufhold, , ‘Gewerbe landschaften in der frühen Neuzeit’, in Pohl, H. ed., Gewerbe- und Industrielandschaften vom Spätmittelalter bis ins 20. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1986), 179–81Google Scholar; Pollard, , Regional markets and national development, 33f.Google Scholar

23 Poni, C., A proto-industrial city: Bologna XVI-XVIII century’, unpubl. paper, Economic History Congress, Budapest, 1982, 15f.Google Scholar; Poni, , ‘Maβ gegen Maβ: Wie der Seidenfaden lang und dünn wurde’, in Berdahl, et al. eds., Klassen und Kultur (Frankfurt-On-Main, 1982), 22Google Scholar; Turnau, I., ‘The organization of the European textile industry from the thirteenth to the eighteenth century’, Journal of European Economic History (1988), 597–9, 602.Google Scholar

24 On the general tendencies, see: Bauer, and Matis, , Geburt der Neuzeit, 267f.Google Scholar; de Vries, , The economy of Europe in an age of crisis, 89Google Scholar; Krüger, , Zur Geschichte der Manufaktur, 127Google Scholar; Freudenberger, , ‘Die Struktur der frühindustriellen Fabrik’, 422f.Google Scholar For examples from the Austrian part of the Habsburg Empire, see: Berkner, L. K., ‘Family, social structure and rural industry: a comparative study of the Waldviertel and the Pays de Caux in the eighteenth century’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1973), 135–63Google Scholar; Freudenberger, H., ‘Zur Linzer Wollzeugfabrik’, in Knittler, H. ed., Wirt schafts- und sozialhistorische Beiträge (Vienna, 1979), 220–35Google Scholar; Hassinger, H., ‘Der Stand der Manufakturen in den deutschen Erbländern der Habsburgermonarchie am Ende des 18. Jahrhunderts’, in Lütge, F. ed., Die wirtschaftliche Situation in Deutschland und österreich an der Wende vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1964), 110–76Google Scholar; Hofmann, V., ‘Beiträge zur neueren Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Die Wollenzeugfabrik zu Linz an der Donau’, Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 108 (1920)Google Scholar; Hofmann, , ‘Beiträge zur neueren Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Die Anfänge der österreichischen Baumwoll-warenindustrie in den österreichischen Alpenländern’, Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 110 (1926)Google Scholar; Kröpf, R., ‘Die oberösterreichischen Manufakturen und ihre Beziehungen zu Niederösterreich’, in Feigl, H. and Kusternig, A. eds., Die Anfänge der Industrialisierung Niederösterreichs (Vienna, 1982), 288–314Google Scholar; Lackner, and Stadier, , Fabriken in der Stadt, 74, 77–96Google Scholar; Maur, and Špiesz, , ‘Die Manufakturperiode in der tschechoslowakischen Historiographie’, 370Google Scholar; Klíma, , ‘Textilmanufaktur im Böhmen’Google Scholar; Klíma, , ‘Domestic industry, manufacture and early industrialization in Bohemia’, Journal of European Economic History 18 (1989), 509–27Google Scholar; Ogilvie, S. C., ‘Corporatism and regulation in rural industry: woollen weaving in Wurtemberg 1590–1740’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge, 1985), 31.Google Scholar

25 Komlos, J., ‘Thoughts on the transition from proto-industrialization to modern industry in Bohemia, 1795–1830’, East Central Europe 7 (1980), 198–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Komlos, , ‘Poverty and industrialization at the end of the “phase transition” in the Czech crown lands’, Journal of Economic History 43 (1983), 129–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rudolph, R., ‘Social structure and the beginning of Austrian economic growth’, East Central Europe 7 (1980), 207–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

26 Komlos, , ‘Thoughts on the transition’, 198f.Google Scholar; Komlos, , Die Habsburgermonarchie als Zollunion (Vienna, 1986), 64f.Google Scholar See Good, D., Der wirtschaftliche Aufstieg des Habsburgerreiches 1750–1914 (Vienna, 1986), 28f., 42ff.Google Scholar

27 Komlos, J., Nutrition and economic development in the eighteenth-century Habsburg monarchy (Princeton, 1989), 10ff., quotation from p. 19.Google Scholar For a proper critique of Komlos' book, see Rebel, H., ‘Österreich und die Entwicklung der Weltwirtschaft. John Komlos’ neoklassisches Modell. Eine Kritik’, Österreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften 4 (1993), 43–72.Google Scholar

28 Klíma, A., ‘Probleme der Proto-Industrie in Böhmen zur Zeit Maria Theresias’, in Österreich im Europa der Aufklärung, vol. 1 (Vienna, 1985), 173–95Google Scholar; Matis, , ‘Betriebsorganisation, Arbeitsmarkt und Arbeitsverfassung’Google Scholar; Mosser, A., ‘Proto- Industrialisierung: zur Funktionalität eines Forschungsansatzes’, in Matis, ed., Von der Glückseligkeit des Staates, 383–410Google Scholar; Mosser, A., ‘Protoindustrialisierung - Epoche der Modernisierung’, in Feigl, and Kusternig, ed., Die Anfänge der Industrialisierung in Niederösterreich, 35–58.Google Scholar

29 See Baltzarek, , ‘Zu den regionalen Ansätzen der frühen Industrialisierung’, 352–5Google Scholar; Fitz, A., ‘Die Frühindustrialisierung Vorarlbergs und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Familienstruktur’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Vienna, 1981)Google Scholar; Freudenberger, H., ‘Industrialization in Bohemia and Moravia in the eighteenth century’, Journal of Central European Affairs 19 (1960), 347–56Google Scholar; Freudenberger, , The ind ustrialization of a central European city (Edington, Wiltshire (Pasold Research Fund) 1977)Google Scholar; Freudenberger, and Mensch, G., Von der Provinzstadt zur Industrieregion (Göttingen, 1977)Google Scholar; Good, , Der wirtschaftliche Aufstieg des Habsburgerreiches, 19–41Google Scholar; Hofmann, , ‘Beiträge zur neueren Wirtschaftsgeschichte’Google Scholar; Klíma, , ‘Die Textilmanufaktur in Böhmen’Google Scholar; Klíma, , ‘Domestic industry, manufacture and early indutry’Google Scholar; Mitterauer, M., ‘Formen ländlicher Familienwirtschaft’, in Ehmer, J. and Mitterauer, M. eds., Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation in ländlichen Gesellschaften (Vienna, 1986), 185–224Google Scholar; Mitterauer, M., ‘Peasant and non-peasant family forms in relation to the physical environment and the local economy’, Journal of Family History 17 (1992), 139–41, 143–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weitensfelder, H., Interessen und Konflikte in der Frühindustrialisierung (Frankfurt and New York, 1991), esp. pp. 92–115.Google Scholar

30 See Beer, A., ‘Studien zur Geschichte der österreichischen Volkswirtschaft unter Maria Theresia’, Archiv für österreichische Geschichte 81 (1895), 102ff.Google Scholar; Chaloupek, , Eigner, and Wagner, , Wirtschaftsgeschichte Wien, 70–3Google Scholar; Freudenberger, , ‘Industrialization in Bohemia and Moravia’Google Scholar; Freudenberger, , ‘The woollen goods industry of the Habsburg Monarchy in the eighteenth century’, Journal of Economic History 20 (1960), 383–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Freudenberger, , ‘Three mercantilist protofactories’, Business History Review 40 (1966), 167–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hassinger, , ‘Der Stand der Manufakturen in den deutschen Erbländern’Google Scholar; Klíma, , ‘Die Textilmanufaktur im Böhmen’Google Scholar; Klíma, , ‘Domestic industry, manufacture and early industrialization’Google Scholar; Malis, H., ‘Die industriellen Anfänge im Viertel unter dem Wiener Wald’, Unsere Heimat 37 (1966), 248–66Google Scholar; Matis, , ‘Betriebsorganisalion, Arbeilsmarkl und Arbeilsverfassung’Google Scholar; Melville, R., ‘Zu den Anfängen der Induslrialisierung in den böhmischen Ländern’, in Feigl, and Kusternig, eds., Die Anfänge der Industrialisierung in Niederösterreich, 319–40Google Scholar; Otruba, G., ‘Anfänge und Verbreilung der böhmischen Manufakluren bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhunderls’, Bohemia 6 (1965), 230–331.Google Scholar

31 Starting with Berkner, ‘Family, social slruclure and rural induslry’; Komlosy, A., An den Rand gedrängt. Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte des oberen Waldviertels (Vienna, 1988)Google Scholar; Komlosy, , ‘Zur Geschichte der Waldviertler Textilindustrie’, in Feigl, H., Versuche und Ansätze zur Industrialisierung des Waldviertels (Vienna, 1990)Google Scholar; Komlosy, ed., Spinnen-Spulen-Weben (Krems/Horn, 1991).Google Scholar

32 See Bauer, and Matis, , Geburt der Neuzeit, 352f.Google Scholar; Hassinger, , ‘Der Sland der Manufakturen in den deutschen Erbländern’, 112, 174, 176Google Scholar; Matis, , ‘Die induslriellen Anfänge’Google Scholar; Matis, , ‘Belriebsorganisalion, Arbeilsmarkl und Arbeitsverfassung’, 448f.Google Scholar; Matis, H., ‘Die Ansälze der Induslrialisierung im Wiener Becken’, in Feigl, H. and Kuslernig, A. eds., Die Anfänge der Industrialisierung Niederösterreichs (Vienna, 1982), 82–224Google Scholar; Matis, , ‘Proloindustrialisierung und “induslrielle Revolulion” am Beispiel der Baumwollindustrie Niederösterreichs’, in Komlosy, ed., Spinnen-Spulen-Weben, 15–48Google Scholar; Sandgruber, R., ‘Wellspilze oder Nachzügler? Texlilinduslrie und Österreichs Induslrialisierung in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts’, in Komlosy, ed., Spinnen-Spulen-Weben, 49–64Google Scholar; see also Ehmer, J., Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation im frühindustriellen Wien (Vienna, 1980), 13–28, 66–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Good, , Der wirtschaftliche Aufstieg, 38–41Google Scholar; Otruba, G., ‘Verwaltung, Finanzen, Manufakluren, Gewerbe, Handel und Verkehr’, in Zöllner, E. ed., Österreich im Zeitalter des aufgeklärten Absolutismus (Vienna, 1983), 115–21.Google Scholar

33 The regulalions are cited in Karschulin, Georg, Zur Geschichte der österreichischen Seidenindustrie (Vienna, 1891).Google Scholar

34 On mobilily of employmenl, in Ihe sense of being able lo choose belween differenl employers, see Kriedte, , Eine Stadt am seidenen Faden, 108f.Google Scholar The Vienna silk workers were also privileged in another sense: unlike members of all other crafts, Ihey were allowed lo marry withoul having Ihe slalus of master.

35 Bucek-Zelfel, M., Geschichte der Seidenfabrikanten Wiens im 18. Jahrhundert (Vienna, 1974), 114–16, 137, 172, 184Google Scholar; Braun-Ronsdorf, M., ‘Die Seideninduslrie in Österreich’, Ciba-Rundschau 114 (1954), 4186Google Scholar; Deutsch, H., Die Entwicklung der Seidenindustrie in Österreich 1660–1840 (Vienna, 1909), 127–34, 142Google Scholar; Hassinger, , ‘Der Stand der Manufakluren in den deulschen Erbländern’, 138.Google Scholar

36 Ehmer and Meissl use the phrase ‘capitalist conditions’. It should be mentioned that the centralized production sites could range from small family-run workshops to large manufactories. See Chaloupek, , Eigner, and Wagner, , Wirtschaftsgeschichte Wien, 73, 221f., 245–8, 253.Google Scholar On the topic of work organization, see Bruckmüller, E., Sozialgeschichte Österreichs (Vienna, 1985), 309Google Scholar; Bucek-Zelfel, , Geschichte der Seidenfabrikanten, 115, 142, 172Google Scholar; Chaloupek, , Eigner, and Wagner, , Wirtschaftsgeschichte Wien, 73–5Google Scholar; Deulsch, , Die Entwicklung der Seidenindustrie, 12–15Google Scholar; Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation, 22–5Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Produktion und Reproduktion in der Wiener Manufaklurperiode’, in Banik-Schweilzer, R. et al. , Wien im Vormärz (Vienna, 1980), 107–11Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Frauenarbeit und Arbeiterfamilie in Wien’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 7 (1981), 443–5Google Scholar; Hann, M., ‘Die Unterschichten Wiens im Vormärz’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Vienna, 1984), 35–9Google Scholar; Lausecker, , ‘Vor- und frühindustrielle Produktionsformen’, 122–7, 133, 180f.Google Scholar; Meissl, G., ‘Industrie und Gewerbe in Wien 1835 bis 1845’, in Banik-Schweitzer, et al. , Wien im Vormärz, 81–3Google Scholar; Meissl, , ‘Im Spannungsfeld von Kunsthandwerk, Verlagswesen und Fabrik’, 101f.Google Scholar For a comparison, see Kriedte's description of the situation in Krefeld, which was also determined by a simultaneity of different forms of production: Kriedte, , Eine Stadt am seidenen Faden, 86–124.Google Scholar Here, too, the looms were owned by the capitalists; beginning in the 1840s, however, the capitalists, in order to reduce their own capital input, forced the weavers to buy the looms. See Kriedte, , Eine Stadt am seidenen Faden, 100–5.Google Scholar

37 Chaloupek, , Eigner, and Wagner, , Wirtschaftsgeschichte Wien, 84–8.Google Scholar

38 The ‘Vienna Database on European Family History’ was built up at the Institut für Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte of the University of Vienna in a series of projects. For a survey of the data, see Berger, H. and Steidl, A., Volkszählungslisten aus europäischen Orten des 17. bis 20. Jahrhunderts. Bestände der Wiener Datenbank zur europäischen Familiengeschichte (St Katharinen, forthcoming)Google Scholar; Ehmer, J., ‘Ein intellektueller Totpunkt? Zur Aussagekraft von Personenstandslisten und zur “Wiener Datenbank zur europäischen Familiengeschichte”, in Bericht über den 16. österreichischen Historikertag (Krems, 1985), 634–43Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Zur Dokumentation eines maschinenlesbaren Datensatzes: die “Wiener Datenbank zur europäischen Familien geschichte”, in Hausmann, F. et al. eds., Datennetze für die Historischen Wissenschaften? (Graz, 1987), 69–77Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Auswertungsgmöglichkeiten computergestützter historischer Quellen: die “Wiener Datenbank zur europäischen Familiengeschichte”, in Thaller, M. and Müller, A. eds., Computer in den Geisteswissenschaften (Frankfurt-On- Main, 1989), 265–89.Google Scholar There are certain problems involved in relying on the census material as a primary source for the empirical study in this essay. But since the aim of the study is limited to a close investigation of household structures for the purpose of comparing different occupational groups (groups which are defined in analytical terms), census listings seem to be an adequate source. The study thus concentrates on one set of questions, for which the listings contain good information, while not denying that there are limits to the generalizations that can be drawn from such an analysis.

39 The number of children was generally lower in Austrian cities than in contemporary samples for rural areas: see Schmidtbauer, P., ‘The changing household: Austrian household structure from the seventeenth to the early twentieth century’, in Wall, R., Robin, J. and Laslett, P., Family forms in historic Europe (Cambridge, 1983), 370f.Google Scholar; Sharlin, A., ‘Natural decrease in early modern cities: a reconsideration’, Past and Present 79 (1978), 126–38, here 133f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40 In her survey, Katherine Lynch finds a pronounced version of the European Marriage Pattern in an urban environment. The reason she adduces for the extraordinarily high age at marriage is that the population structure was strongly influenced by migrants, (domestic) servants and social elites, all of which tended to marry late. For her, migration was the most important single factor. See Lynch, K. A., ‘The European Marriage Pattern in the cities: variations on a theme by Hajnal’, Journal of Family History 16 (1991), 79f., 82–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar See also De Vries, , European urbanization, 184–92, 195, 214–18.Google Scholar An exception, however, is provided by English industrial towns from the mid- nineteenth century onwards. The proportion married there was higher than in the countryside. This cannot be confirmed for Central European cities. By contrast, Central European cities manifested the opposite pattern, which was strengthened or weakened by the economic structure. See Lynch, , ‘The European Marriage Pattern in the cities’, 89f.Google Scholar; and Ehmer, J., Heiratsverhalten, Sozialstruktur und ökonomischer Wandel. England und Mitteleuropa in der Formationsperiode des Kapitalismus (Göttingen, 1991), 149–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The claim that there was no natural increase in early modern cities is contradicted by Sharlin. He distinguished the migrant from the non-migrant population, and argues that only the former population manifested the negative demographic pattern of no natural increase. In his view, the demographic characteristics of low natural reproduction in cities is essentially due to migrants. See Sharlin, , ‘Natural decrease’.Google Scholar

41 On the issues above and on the topic of urban demographic characteristics in general, see Daunton, , ‘Towns and economic growth in eighteenth-century England’, 245, 255Google Scholar; De Vries, , European urbanization, esp. pp. 175–249Google Scholar; Diederiks, H., ‘Leiden im 18. Jahrhundert’, in Schröder, W. H. ed., Moderne Stadtgeschichte (Stuttgart, 1979), 146, 176Google Scholar; Easterlin, R. A., ‘The economics and sociology of fertility: a synthesis’, in Tilly, C. ed., Historical studies of changing fertility (Princeton, 1978), 113Google Scholar; Ehmer, J., Hei-ratsverhalten, Sozialstruktur und ökonomischer Wandel, 149–58Google Scholar; Gutmann, , ‘General report’, 45f.Google Scholar; Herlihy, D., ‘Urbanization and social change’, in Flinn, M. ed., Seventh International Economic History Congress. Four ‘A’ themes (Edinburgh, 1978), 63Google Scholar; Hohenberg, and Lees, , The making of urban Europe, 132, 236Google Scholar; Schultz, H., ‘Sozialstruktur und Lebensweise der Berliner Lohnarbeiter im 18. Jahrhundert’, Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte Sonderband (1986), 7–15, 25, 28Google Scholar; Tilly, L., Scott, J. W. and Cohen, M., ‘Women's work and European fertility patterns’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 6 (1976), 456CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Wrigley, , ‘A simple model’, 219.Google Scholar

42 On the sex ratio, see also Banik-Schweitzer, R. and Pircher, W., ‘Zur Wohnsituation der Massen im Wien des Vormärz’, in Banik-Schweitzer, and Pircher, et al. , Wien im Vormärz, 156Google Scholar; Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation, 94–7.Google Scholar See Fassmann, H., ‘Zur Altersverteilung und Zuwanderungsstruktur der Wiener Bevölkerung um die Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts’, Wiener Geschichtsblätter 35 (1980), 124–49.Google Scholar

43 Ehmer, , Heiratsverhalten, Sozialstruktur, ökonomischer Wandel, 83–5.Google Scholar

44 Banik-Schweitzer, , ‘Zur Bestimmung der Rolle Wiens als Industriestadt’, 26, 33–6Google Scholar; Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation, 57–78Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Produktion und Reproduktion in der Wiener Manufakturperiode’, 115–20, 124Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Rote Fahnen - Blauer Montag. Soziale Bedingungen von Aktions- und Organisationsformen der frühen Wiener Arbeiterbewegung’, in Puls, D. ed., Wahrnehmungsformen und Pro testverhalten (Frankfurt-On-Main, 1979), 147–50Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘The making of the “modern” family in Vienna, 1780–1930’, History and Society in Central Europe 1 (1992) 7–27Google Scholar; Meissl, , ‘Im Spannungsfeld von Kunsthandwerk, Verlagswesen und Fabrik’, 106, 110, 116, 119.Google Scholar

45 See Ehmer, , Heiratsverhalten, Sozialstruktur, ökonomischer Wandel, 55–61.Google Scholar

46 It should be borne in mind that the statistics only cover the number of males who married. As a consequence, it only reflects tendencies within that group, but does not indicate the share of persons who did not marry in the individual age groups.

47 Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation, 36–47, 122–4Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Frauenarbeit und Arbeiterfamilie’, 443Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Die Entstehung der “modernen Familie”’, 4f.Google Scholar

48 Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation, 37f.Google Scholar

49 On the proto-industrial family and household formation in Vienna in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, see ibid., 36–56.

50 For the other occupational groups, the maximum in-migration was slightly more than 40 per cent. Its influence must therefore also be taken into account in explaining their marriage pattern. On in-migration to Vienna, see Banik-Schweitzer, and Pircher, , ‘Zur Wohnsituation der Massen’, 155f.Google Scholar; Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation, 59–61, 141–3Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Produktion und Reproduktion’, 119f.Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Rote Fahnen- Blauer Montag’, 151f.Google Scholar; Fassmann, , ‘Zur Altersverteilung und Zuwanderungsstruktur’, 137–49Google Scholar; Mitterauer, M., ‘Auswirkungen von Urbanisierung und Frühindustrialisierung auf die Familienverfassung an Beispielen des österreichischen Raums’, in Conze, W. et., Sozialgeschichte der Familie in der Neuzeit Europas (Stuttgart, 1976), 129.Google Scholar The pattern in Vienna is totally different from that in Krefeld, in which the stability of the silk industry limited geographical mobility. In 1838–40 nearly all the silk workers came from Krefeld or its immediate surroundings. This may be due to Krefeld's character as a comparatively small town, which did not attract long-distance migrants. See Kriedte, , Eine Stadt am seidenen Faden, 135–9.Google Scholar The empirical results in the following analysis will sometimes be compared to the study of Krefeld. One has to bear in mind, however, that by 1857 the Viennese silk industry had declined in importance, and that the data also include people working in other proto-industrial textile industries such as cotton and wool.

51 In addition, Josef Ehmer is of the view that persistence of a proto-industrial marriage pattern is not to be expected in times of major crises in proto-industrial branches of industry. See his examples from England and Bohemia in Ehmer, , Heiratsverhalten, , Sozialstruktur, , ökonomischer Wandel, 94–100, 141.Google Scholar

52 Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation, 90–107, 131–3Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Produktion und Reproduktion’, 123ff.Google Scholar; Ehmer, , Heiratsverhalten, Sozialstruktur, ökonomischer Wandel, 155, 197–201Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Rote Fahnen - Blauer Montag’, 151–3Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Making of the “modern” family’, 5f.Google Scholar; Mitterauer, , ‘Auswirkungen von Urbanisierung und Frühindustrialisierung’, 112–14, 131f.Google Scholar

53 As we will see, the dividing lines and differences between these groups were not as clear as one would expect. Especially for 1857, a clear separation of occupational groups is no longer possible because of the underlying economic situation. As a consequence, the borders between groups, and the groups themselves, overlap. The classification according to occupational groups, however, continues to be a theoretical tool for analysis in the following investigation, and should be regarded as such, rather than as an exact picture of the society or the social structure.

54 On this topic also see with reference to the silk industry Kriedte, , Eine Stadt am seidenen Faden, 141–17, 152f. and 177–204.Google Scholar

55 In the centre of the city, the area in which the aristocratic and bourgeois upper classes and traditional craftsman lived, only 2.3 per cent of all journeymen were married. See Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation, 106.Google Scholar Kriedte's studies also confirm that journeymen and apprentices working in the silk industry were not dependents in the households of their employers. See Kriedte, , Eine Stadt am seidenen Faden, 111.Google Scholar

56 On what follows, see Banik-Schweitzer, and Pircher, , ‘Zur Wohnsituation der Massen im Wien des Vormärz’, 148–52, 159, 162–7, 174Google Scholar; Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation, 54–6, 126Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Produktion und Reproduktion’, 124–6Google Scholar; and, for comparisons with the silk branch in Krefeld, , Kriedte, , Eine Stadt am seidenen Faden, 148–75.Google Scholar

57 See Banik-Schweitzer, and Pircher, , ‘Zur Wohnsituation der Massen’, 138, 152, 159, 174Google Scholar; Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation, 54, 56, 99, 130Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Produktion und Reproduktion’, 124, 130f.Google Scholar; concerning the general tendencies among households of artisans see Berger, H. et al. , ‘Das Handwerk’, unpubl. paper, Institut für Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte (Vienna, 1990).Google Scholar The household size of silk workers in Krefeld was similar: see Kriedte, , Eine Stadt am seidenen Faden, 153–6.Google Scholar Kriedte also compares the household size of silk workers with that of other occupational groups and finds similar results to those reported here. Artisan households seem to have been larger (Eine Stadt am seidenen Faden, 163–73).Google Scholar

58 The extraordinary high number for the 1850 sample might be biased, due to the small absolute number of cases in this group. Kriedte, in his Krefeld data, also finds a difference between domestic-industrial workers and manufactory workers in the silk industry; the households of manufactory workers, however, were slightly smaller, those of owners of dyeing and printing shops larger: see Kriedte, , Eine Stadt an seidenen Faden, 152, 154–5.Google Scholar

59 On servants in Viennese households in the middle of the nineteenth century, see Banik-Schweitzer, and Pircher, , ‘Zur Wohnsituation der Massen’, 152, 174Google Scholar; Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation, 128, 134–150Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Produktion und Reproduktion’, 124Google Scholar; Fassmann, , ‘Zur Altersverteilung und Zuwanderunsstruktur der Wiener Bevölkerung’, 133–7.Google Scholar

60 See in general Banik-Schweitzer, and Pircher, , ‘Zur Wohnsituation der Massen’, 152, 174Google Scholar; Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation, 150–61Google Scholar; and Ehmer, , ‘Produktion und Reproduktion’, 124.Google Scholar

61 However, in artisan households they would instead occupy the position of a servant.

62 Concerning numbers of children, the shortcomings of census listings as sources are obvious. They not only exclude consideration of the family life cycle, but also ignore the key factor of infant mortality. The following results must therefore be interpreted with caution.

63 See Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation, 52–5, 99Google Scholar; Ehmer, , ‘Produktion und Reproduktion’, 127Google Scholar; as well as the tables in Tafeln zur Statistik (for the years 1828 and following).

64 See Ehmer, , ‘Produktion und Reproduktion’, 128f.Google Scholar An approximate value for marital fertility can be derived by computing the number of children below the age of five years per 1,000 married females. This, however, does not take any account of infant mortality and the values will therefore not be given here in detail. Nevertheless, the computation showed, in confirmation of the described pattern, that marital fertility reached a peak in 1850 and then dropped dramatically. Also, this estimate of marital fertility was lowest for the domestic workers, which confirms the plausibility of the speculation that infant mortality was higher for this group. To draw a comparison with Krefeld once again: the number of children in artisan households in Krefeld is exactly the same as the average for households engaged in silk production in the city. See Kriedte, , Eine Stadt am seidenen Faden, 154f.Google Scholar; see also 197, 200–3. Infant mortality must have been lower in the small town of Krefeld than it was in Vienna; moreover, the silk industry there was not yet in decline (the Krefeld samples were taken from the 1840 census).

65 Ehmer, , Produktion und Reproduction, 128–31.Google Scholar

66 This term is taken from Ehmer, , Familienstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation, 90Google Scholar; see generally Ehmer, , Heiratsverhalten, Sozialstruktur, ökonomischer Wandel.Google Scholar

67 Bucek-Zelfel, (Geschichte der Seidenfabrikanten Wiens, 126–37)Google Scholar looks at 42 inheritance protocols, showing that 17 of the deceased owned no significant amount of money, and five more were indebted. Mühleder, F. (‘Die Schottenfelder Seidenindustrie 1820–1850’, (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Vienna, 1952), 18–20, 53, 99–113Google Scholar) finds among his post–1820 protocols more than a third dying with no money, and another 10 per cent with debts.