¹ The first comprehensive account was that of the radical Lutheran pastor, Zimmermann, Wilhelm, Allgemeine Geschichte des grossen Bauernkrieges (3 vols., Stuttgart, 1841–1843)Google Scholar, upon which Engels, Friedrich drew for his historical-materialist analysis, Der deulsche Bauernkrieg, which first appeared in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung: Politisch-Ökonomische Revue, ed. Marx, Karl, V, VI (Hamburg, 1850Google Scholar; reprinted East Berlin, 1955). The most useful modern edition is contained in Engels, Friedrich, The German revolutions: ‘The Peasant War in Germany’ and ‘Germany: revolution and counter-revolution’, ed. Krieger, Leonard (Chicago, 1967)Google Scholar. For the historical place and influence of Engels's work cf. the extensive discussion forum, ‘The Peasant War in Germany by Friedrich Engels – 125 years after’, in Bak (8), pp. 89–135. Still the best non-Marxist narrative account, not least because of its copious use of original sources, remains Franz, Günther, Der deutsche Bauernkrieg, 1st edn (Munich/Berlin, 1933)Google Scholar, 11th edn (Darmstadt, 1977).

² Buszello (3); Blickle (1); cf. also idem, Landschaften im Alten Reich: Die staatliche Funktion des gemeinen Mannes in Oberdeutschland (Munich, 1973).

³ Cf. the revealing statement by Steinmetz, Max: ‘Unsere Lehrbücher, unsere Darstellungen sind im Grunde Thesenwerke …’: wir sind ‘nicht dazu gekommen, das umfassend nachzuweisen, was wir behauptet haben’, in ‘Reformation und Bauernkrieg – Höhepunkte der Geschichte des deutschen Volkes’, Sächsische Heimatsblätter, XIX (1973), 100Google Scholar. Quoted by Franklin Kopitzsch, ‘Bemerkungen zur Sozialgeschichte der Reformation und des Bauernkriegs’, in Wohlfeil (7), p. 180, and by Rainer Wohlfeil, ‘Neue Forschungen zur Geschichte des Deutschen Bauernkriegs’, part II, in Wehler (4), p. 339.

⁴ Cf. Rainer Wohlfeil, ‘Einleitung: Der Bauernkrieg als geschichtswissenschaftliches Problem’, in idem (7), pp. 20–24.

⁵ In lieu of extensive references cf. Steinmetz's programmatic formulation that the Reformation and the Peasants' War are ‘kernel and climax’ of the early bourgeois revolution in Germany. Idem (as note 3), p. 100.

⁶ For an introduction to the debate over the early bourgeois revolution and to East German Marxist historiography of the Reformation and Peasants' War cf. Wohlfeil, Rainer (ed.), Reformation oder frühbürgerliche Revolution? (nymphenburger texte zur wissenschaft, modelluniversität 5) (Munich, 1972)Google Scholar and the review thereof by Schulze, Winfried, ‘“Reformation oder frühbürgerliche Revolition?” überlegungen zum Modellfall einer Forschungskontroverse’, Jahrbuch für die Geschichte Mittel- und Ostdeutschlands, XXII (1973), 253–69Google Scholar; Nipperdey, Thomas, Reformation, Revolution, Utopie: Studien zum 16. Jahrhundert (Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe 1408) (Göttingen, 1975)Google Scholar; (cf. also idem and Melcher, Peter, ‘Peasants' War’, in Marxism, Communism and western society: a comparative encyclopedia, ed. Kernig, C. D. (New York, 1973Google Scholar)); Friesen, Abraham, Reformation and Utopia: the Marxist interpretation of the Reformation and its antecedents. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte, Mainz, LXXI (Wiesbaden, 1974)Google Scholar; Foschepoth, Joseph, Reformation und Bauernkrieg im Geschichtsbild der DDR: Zur Methodologie eines gewandelten Geschichtsverständnisses. Forschungen, Historische, X (Berlin, 1976)Google Scholar; Scribner, Bob, ‘Is there a social history of the Reformation?’, Social History, IV (1977), 483–505 (with useful bibliography). The most recent East German textbook is that byCrossRefGoogle ScholarLaube, Adolf, Steinmetz, Max and Vogler, Günter, Illustrierte Geschichte der deutschen frühbürgerlichen Revolution (Berlin, 1974)Google Scholar, which, as its title suggests, is copiously illustrated.

⁷ Blickle (I), pp. 29–143; idem, ‘The economic, social and political background of the Twelve Articles of the Swabian peasants of 1525’, in Bak (8), pp. 63–75; Blickle, ‘Thesen zum Thema – Der “Bauernkrieg” als Revolution des “gemeinen Mannes”’, in idem (2), pp. 127–131.

⁸ Idem, (1); Sabean, (9). Blickle's, treatment of Upper Swabia benefits from the expertise acquired as editor of two volumes of the Historischer Atlas von Bayern, Teil Schwaben: vol. IV, Memmingen (Munich, 1967)Google Scholar; vol. VI, Kempten (Munich, 1968).

⁹ Abel, Wilhelm, Agrarkrisen und Agrarkonjunktur: Eine Geschichte der Land- und Ernāhrungswirtschaft Mitteleuropas seit dem hohen Mittelalter, 2nd edn (Hamburg/Berlin, 1966)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Blickle (I), p. 45; Abel, Agrarkrisen, pp. 48–96.

¹¹ Blickle (I), pp- 45, 47.

¹² Ibid. p. 47; Blickle in Bak (8), pp. 65–6; for Kempten cf. esp. Blickle, , ‘Leibherrschaft als Instrument der Territorialpolitik im Allgäu’, in Wege und Forschungen der Agrargeschichte: Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Günther Franz, ed. Haushofer, H. and Boelcke, W. A. (Frankfurt, 1967), 51–66Google Scholar.

¹³ Blickle (I), p. 49.

¹⁴ Ibid. pp. 41–2; Blickle in Bak (8), pp. 66–8. Confusingly, however, Blickle does equate personal serfdom with the ‘second serfdom’ of eastern Europe (1), p. 109. This overlooks the fact that serfdom in eastern Europe from the sixteenth century onwards involved the exclusive appropriation by the lord of the peasant's labour and the extraction of its surplus value in an early capitalist mode of production, which is quite unlike the essentially territorial-jurisdictional character of serfdom in southern Germany from the 15th century onwards.

¹⁵ Ibid. pp. 73–4.

¹⁶ Ibid. p. 75.

¹⁷ Ibid. pp. 125–7; Blickle in Bak (8), pp. 71–3.

¹⁸ Blickle (I), pp. 52–7. His evidence for Memmingen tallies with Sabean's for Weingarten. Sabean (9), p. 35.

¹⁹ Blickle, (I), pp. 57–62. Encroachment on pasture was commoner than his analysis of the lists of grievances suggests.

²⁰ For the Ottobeuren territories a 50% rise between 1450/80 and 1548. Ibid. pp. 78–9. A rise of up to 100% between 1455 and 1525 around Ravensburg is adduced by Sabean (9), p. 38.

²¹ Blickle (I), pp. 77–9. He even suggests that the stagnation or decline in population of Swabian Imperial Free Cities such as Ravensburg after 1450 is attributable to a drying-up of immigration with the rise of serfdom.

²² Ibid. pp. 80–1, 111–12, 118 f.; cf. Blickle in Bak (8), pp. 68–9; Sabean, (9), p. 47.

²³ Ibid. pp. 20 f., 35; Sabean, ‘German agrarian institutions at the beginning of the sixteenth century: Upper Swabia as an example’, in Bak (8), p. 82. (Translation of Sabean, ‘Probleme der deutschen Agrarverfassung zu Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts: Oberschwaben als Beispiel’, in Blickle (2), pp. 132–50.)

²⁴ Sabean, (9), pp. 36, 44, 100–101, 104; idem in Bak (8), pp. 80, 85–6.

²⁵ Blickle (I), p. 85.

²⁶ Cf. the preliminary remarks by Scott, Tom, ‘Bemerkungen zum Begriff “gemeiner Mann”: Das Stadt-Land-Verhältnis zur Zeit des Bauernkrieges’, in Die Bauernkriege und Michael Gaismair: Protokoll des internationalen Symposions vom 15. bis 19. November 1976 in Innsbruck-Vill, ed. Landesarchiv, Tiroler (Innsbruck, 1979)Google Scholar.

²⁷ Blickle fails to construct a typology of towns which would point the crucial distinction between long-distance trading centres of manufacturing production and the middling artisan towns engaged in craft production. There undoubtedly was emigration to cities such as Ravensburg, Lindau or Uberlingen, but as centres of South German linen and fustian weaving on the trade routes from Italy to the Low Countries they cannot be regarded as typical. In any case, even these Imperial Free Cities witnessed stagnation or decline of population after 1450 – because of the restrictions on movement imposed by serfdom, says Blickle (1), p. 77. But this ignores the question of how far the cities were able to shift their production to the countryside (but cf. ibid. p. 52, n. 14). In general, though, Blickle does concede that the towns did not have their troubles to seek at the start of the sixteenth century. Cf. ibid. p. 81.

²⁸ Ibid. pp. 79, 106.

²⁹ Sabean (9), p. 101 and Blickle, (1), p. 80, both quote the example of Messkirch mentioned in the Chronicle of Zimmern.

³⁰ Sabean, (9), pp. 36 f., 100 f. The grievances of the village of Achstetten, a member of the Baltringen peasant troop of 1525, to which he alludes, in fact make no mention of cottars' settlements on the commons, whilst the house-building complained of in nearby Mittelbiberach, which no doubt reflects population pressure, is not stated to have taken place on the common land. Cf. Quellen zur Geschichte des Bauernkrieges, ed. Franz, Günther (Darmstadt, 1963), pp. 153, 155Google Scholar.

³¹ Sabean, (9), pp. 44–5; idem in Bak (8), p. 80.

⁸⁸ By Cohn, Henry J. in his review of Blickle, (2), English Historical Review, XCII (1977), 856–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ Sabean assumes that the cottars had been settled on it; Cohn states that the land had been taken from the commons to compensate tenants whose arable and meadows the abbot had seized as pasture for his beasts. In fact, the treaty of 1502 contains evidence for neither, though Cohn's argument receives support from the articles of grievance of the individual Ochsenhausen villages (not the provisions of the general treaty) in 1525, where several communities complained that the abbot had driven his cattle and sheep on to the peasants meadows and ploughlands, some of which he had arrogated to himself. It is reasonable to think that this was-not a new development. Cf. Vogt, Wilhelm, ‘Die Correspondenz des schwabischen Bundeshauptmanns Ulrich Artzt von Augsburg a. d. J. 1524, 1525 und 1526’, part iv, Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins für Schwaben und Neuburg, x (1883) 246–7Google Scholar. Nr. 891: articles of Ochsenhausen, n.d. (1525).

³⁴ Cohn (as note 32), p. 857; Vogt (as note 33), pp. 245–6: articles 7 and 15. Neither article supports Sabean's sweeping inferences, (9), pp. 44–45.

³⁵ Vogt (as note 33), p. 246: articles 16 an d 17; Sabean (9), p. 45.

³⁶ Idem in Bak (8), pp. 85–6. His assessment of the impact of rural crafts is couched entirely in terms of manufactures such as weaving. In that context h e may well be right to argue that rural manufactures can lead to earlier marriage, greater population growth rates, increased rural poverty, subdivision of farms an d wider social differentiation.

³⁷ Sabean stresses the importance of market relations and criticizes Blickle for neglecting them. Sabean, , ‘Der Bauernkrieg – ein Literaturbericht für das Jahr 1975’, Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie, xxi v (1976), 223–4Google Scholar.

³⁸ Sabean name s three ke y issues: (1) the impact of population change at village level and its consequences for social differentiation and the balance of population and resources (the ‘man-land relationship’); (2) the impact of increased market penetration with its effect on peasant attitudes, stressing the regional contrast between areas of, e.g. viticulture or dairying, cereals or market gardening, partible or impartible inheritance; (3) the impact of state policies at a local level, e.g. the needs of warfare (recruitment, equipment, taxation). Idem in Bak (8), pp. 76–8, 81. Following Sabean, Stalnaker posits two approaches: (1) to investigate more fully the origins and effects of internal village conflict;(2) to examine the results of greater rationalization and market orientation within the rural economy in order to establish whether a clash of capitalist and pre-capitalist forms of production occurred in the countryside. John C. Stalnaker, ‘Auf dem Weg zu einer sozialgeschichtlichen Interpretation des Deutschen Bauernkrieges 1525–1526’, in Wehler(4), pp. 59–60.

₃₉ Cf. the excellent programmatic survey by Adolf Laube, ‘Die Volksbewegungen in Deutschland von 1470 bis 1517: Ursachen un d Charakter’, in Blickle (2), pp. 84–98, esp. 89–90.

₄₀ Ibid. pp. 91–92.

₄₁ Cf. the major study by Adolf Laube, Studien über den erzgebirgischen Silberbergbau von 1470 bis 1546: Seine Geschichte, seine Produktionsverhältnisse, seine Bedeutung für die gesellschaftlichen Veränderungen und Klassenkämpfe in Sachsen am Beginn der Vbergangsperiode vom Feudalismus zum Kapitalismus. Forschunge n zu r mittelalterlichen Geschichte, xx n (Berlin, 1974).

₄₂ E.g. Rudolf Quietzsch, ‘Der Kampf der Bauern um Triftgerechtigkeit in Thiiringen und Sachsen um 1525’, in Strobach (12), pp. 52–78.

₄₃ Blaschke, Karlheinz, Bevölkerungsgeschichle von Sachsen bis zur Industriellen Revolution (Weimar, 1967), pp. 160–1Google Scholar.

₄₄ Quietzsch in Strobach, (12), pp. 57–60. Complaints about the use of the commons to erect dwellings for cottars are, however, as rare in central as they are in southern Germany; Quietzsch allows himself to be unduly influenced by Sabean 's views. For Franconia cf. Rudolf Endres, ‘Zur sozialökonomischen Lage und sozialpsychischen Einstellung des “Gemeinen Mannes”: Der Kloster- und Burgenstrum in Franken 1525’, in Wehler (4), p. 66.

₄₅ For Hungary cf. Peter Gunst, ‘Der ungarische Bauernaufstand von 1514’, in Blickle (2), pp. 62–83. Gunst stresses the role of local markets in the Hungarian economy, villages which had grown large during the fifteenth century as centres of exchange for the new commodity production of wine and beef, pp. 69–70. Parallels can be found on the Upper Rhine.

₄₆ Cf. Laube in Blickle (2), pp. 91–92.

₄₇ Endres, Rudolf, ‘Probleme des Bauernkriegs im Hochstift Bamberg’, Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung, xxxi (1971), 91–138Google Scholar; idem, ‘Der Bauernkrieg in Franken’, Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte, cix (1973), 31–68Google Scholar (cf. his abbreviated version, ‘Probleme des Bauernkriegs in Franken’, in Wohlfeil (7), pp. 90–115); cf. Endres's, summary, ‘Der Bauernaufstand von 1525: Zwischen Forschung und Ideologic’, Deutsche Studien, XLx (1975), 51–68Google Scholar; idem in Wehler, (4), pp. 61–78 (as note 44); and for the towns Endres, ‘Zünfte und Unterschichten als Elemente der Instabilitäy in den Städten’, in Blickle (2), pp. 132–50.

₄₈ Endres in Wohlfeil (7), p. 91; Endres in Wehler (4), p. 63.

₄₉ Endres, , Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung, xxxi (1971), p. 97Google Scholar; idem in Wohlfeil (7). P. 92–80 Endres in Wehler (4), p. 63.

₅₁ Endres, , Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung, xxxi (1971), 100–1Google Scholar; idem in Wohlfeil (7), p. 92; Endres in Wehler (4), pp. 67–9.

₅₂ Ibid. pp. 64 f.

₅₃ Blickle (1), pp. 125–6.

₅₄ Endres, , Deutsche Studien, XLIX (1975), 53Google Scholar f.

₅₅ This point was made forty years ago in an unjustly neglected work: Huppertz, Barthel, Räume und Schichten bäuerlicher Kulturformen in Deutschland: Ein Beitrag zur Deutschen Bauerngeschichte (Bonn, 1939), p. 239Google Scholar. The date of publication and the author's insistence on the ethnic reasons for the difference between Germanic and Slav settlement patterns (hence the widespread reluctance to cite the work, Endres excepted) should not be allowed to detract from the book's penetrating and cogent analysis of medieval German rural society.

₅₆ Blickle tries to belittle this objection by arguing that in areas of partible inheritance there was a general downwards trend in social status, whilst in areas of impartible inheritance the gap between rich and poor in the countryside widened (1), p. 136. This is so vague as to be almost pointless. Even Sabean, in his plea for regional comparisons, only mentions this fundamental distinction as an afterthought. Idem in Bak, (8), p. 81.

₅₇ Francis Rapp, ‘Die soziale und wirtschaftliche Vorgeschichte des Bauernkrieges im Unterelsass’, in Moeller (5), pp. 37–8.

₅₈ Ibid. pp. 29–32.

₅₉ Cf. above, note 50.

₆₀ Rapp in Moeller (5), pp. 41–2. The richer peasants often lent to the poorer, thereby increasing the potential for inner-village conflict and differentiation.

₆₁ Blickle (1), p. 24, n. 8.

⁶² Laube argues tellingly against Western criticism of Marxists' alleged monocausality and one-dimensionality that it is essential to perceive the underlying pattern beneath the surface symptoms of crisis: why should they coincide at one particular time? For Laube the explanation lies in the growth of commodity production and forms of early capitalism in fifteenth-century Germany. Idem in Blickle (2), p. 89. Marxists, however, are equally slipshod in the characterization of the Peasants' War as an ‘anti-feudal movement’. For some pertinent observations on the difficulties of defining what constitutes an ‘anti-feudal movement’ cf. Ferdinand Seibt, ‘Die hussitische Revolution und der Deutsche Bauernkrieg’, in Blickle, (2), pp. 47–8.

⁶³ Idem, (1), pp. 39–50, 70–5, 122–34. These are the sections which draw directly upon Blickle's earlier researches (cf. notes 2, 8 and 12 above).

⁶⁴ As defined by Moore, Barrington, Social orgins of dictatorship and democracy: lord and peasant in the making of the modern world (Harmondsworth, 1967)Google Scholar. Moore's own interpretation of the Peasants' War, pp. 463–7 should, however, be treated with caution.

⁶⁵ Jürgen Bücking, ‘Der “Bauernkrieg” in den habsburgischen Ländern als sozialer Systemkonflikt, 1524–26’, in Wehler (4), pp. 168–192 (preliminary version in Jürgen Bücking and Hans-Christoph Rublack, ‘Der Bauernkrieg in den vorder- und oberösterreichischen Ländern und in der Stadt Würzburg’, parts I and II, in Moeller, (5), pp. 47–58). Wohlfeil, too, regards the Peasants' War as a comprehensive socio-political system-conflict, though not necessarily in the sense of Barrington Moore. Wohlfeil (as note 4) in idem (7), p. 16; idem, ‘Nachwort’, ibid. p. 280. Cf. also the recent survey by Press, Volker, ‘Der deutsche Bauernkrieg als Systemkrise’, Giessener Universitätsblätter, XI (1978), 114–135Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ The intended contrast is with the Gutsherrschaften of eastern Europe.

⁶⁷ Bücking in Wehler (4), p. 169.

⁶⁸ Ibid. p. 170.

⁶⁹ Ibid. p. 171. The spread of hereditary tenure and the disappearance of serfdom, to which Bücking alludes, apply chiefly to Tirol, not to the entirety of the Austrian lands.

⁷⁰ Ibid. pp. 171–2.

⁷¹ Ibid. pp. 172–5.

⁷² Ibid. pp. 176–7.

⁷³ But see the remarks by Volker Press, ‘Herrschaft, Landschaft und “Gemeiner Mann” in Oberdeutschland vom 15. bis zum frühen 19. Jahrhundert’, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, CXXIII (1975), 208Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ But cf. Scott (as note 26).

⁷⁵ Bücking in Wehler (4), p. 178. It should be pointed out, however, that even the pensions and sinecures of the bureaucracy sometimes proved inadequate to cover the expenditure – or profligacy – of the nobility. In 1517 the head of the Upper Austrian government in Innsbruck, Count Rudolf von Sulz, sought to borrow 3,000 fl. from the treasury to meet his debts. So pressing were his creditors that in order to stave them off he tried to mortgage the two lordships of Altkirch and Vaduz which had been leased to him for the very purpose of supporting him whilst in office. The treasury lent him 2000 fl. Hauptstaatsarchiv, Munich: Allgemeines Staatsarchiv, Rheinpfälzische Urkunden, 6369, 6370 (7 Nov. 1517).

⁷⁶ Bücking in Wehler (4), p. 171. On the crisis of the nobility cf. also the observations by Press, Volker, ‘Der Bauernkrieg als Problem der deutschen Geschichte’, Nassauische Annalen, LXXXVI (1975), 174Google Scholar, and his detailed studies: ‘Die Reichsritterschaft im Reich der frühen Neuzeit’, Nassauische Annalen, LXXXVII (1976), 101–22Google Scholar; ‘Die Ritterschaft im Kraichgau zwischen Reich und Territorium 1500–1623’, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins, CXXI (1974), 35–98Google Scholar. For the situation of the nobility in Franconia cf. Endres, Rudolf, Adelige Lebensformen in Franken zur Zeit des Bauernkrieges. Neujahrsblatt der Gesellschaft für fränkische Geschichte, XXXV (Würzburg, 1974)Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Heide Wunder, ‘Zur Mentalität aufständischer Bauern: Möglichkeiten der Zusammenarbeit von Geschichtswissenschaft und Anthropologie, dargestellt am Beispiel des Samländischen Bauernaufstandes von 1525’, in Wehler, (4), pp. 9–37; Wunder, ‘Der samländische Bauernaufstand von 1525: Entwurf für eine sozialgeschichtliche Forschungsstrategie’, in Wohlfeil (7), pp. 143–76. She rightly opposes the common view of the ‘timeless’ or ‘eternal’ character of the peasant mentality by stressing the distinction between the colloquial usage of ‘mentality’ which regards observable, ‘typical’ behaviour as a fixed and immutable characteristic, and ‘mentality’ as a technical term signifying the acquired and changeable attitudes, behaviour, conceptions and expectations of distinguishable social groups. Wunder in Wehler (4), p. 16. The importance of this approach is also emphasized by Sabean (as note 37), pp. 222–3.

⁷⁸ She draws in particular upon Wolf, Eric R., Peasant wars of the twentieth century (New York, 1969)Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Wunder in Wohlfeil (7), p. 170; Wunder in Wehler (4), p. 34.

⁸⁰ ibid. pp. 25–26.

⁸¹ Endres, , Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte, CIX (1973), 48–9Google Scholar (cp. idem in Wohlfeil (7). pp. 97–8); Endres, , Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung, XXXI (1971), 104f.Google Scholar; idem in Wehler (4), passim. The role of mentalities is evinced by the title of the last article (as note 44). For Nuremberg cf. Buck, Lawrence P., The containment of civil insurrection: Nürnberg and the Peasants' Revolt, 1524–1525 (Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1971)Google Scholar.

⁸² Of recent works cf. esp. Bischoff, Georges, ‘L'insurrection paysanne de 1525 et la principauté de Murbach’, Annuaire de la société d'histoire des régions de Thann-Guebwiller, IX (1970–1972), 31–60Google Scholar; idem, Recherches sur la puissance temporelle de l'abbaye de Murbach (1299–1525). Publications de la société savante d'Alsace et des régions de l'est, série ‘recherches et documents’, XXII (Strasbourg, 1975). A short, non-technical consideration of mentalities amongst the Alsatian rebels is contained in Marcel Thomann,’ Mentalités et revolution dans une petite ville d'Alsace: “pauvres gens” et seigneurs à Marmoutier en 1525', in Wollbrett (11), pp. 67–79.

⁸³ For the Worms revolt of 1431/32 cf. Hartmut Boockmann, ‘Zu den geistigen und religiösen Voraussetzungen des Bauernkrieges’, in Moeller (5), pp. 19–21; Scott, Tom, Relations between Freiburg im Breisgau and the surrounding countryside in the age of South-West German agrarian unrest before the Peasants’ War, circa 1450–1520 (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1973), pp. 417–19Google Scholar, esp. 418, n. 1. The older view is reiterated by Wolf-Heino Struck (10), pp. 5 f., who merely paraphrases Franz, and by Josef Macek, ‘Die böhmische und die deutsche radikale Reformation bis zum Jahre 1525’, in Oberman (6), pp. 5–29, who argues p. 27, that although the Peasants' War and the Reformation had their indigenous roots, there existed in the gestatory period of the War active contacts between German and Bohemiean radicals. Macek offers no evidence for this assertion, apart from the activities of Hans Böheim, the drummer of Niklashausen, in 1476. On this point cf. Boockmann's dismissive comments in Moeller (5), pp. 22–3.

⁸⁴ Moeller, Bernd, ‘Frömmigkeit in Deutschland um 1500’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, LVI (1965), 5–30Google Scholar. (translated in Ozment, Steven E. (ed.), The Reformation in medieval perspective (Chicago, 1971) as ‘ Piety in Germany around 1500’, pp. 50–75Google Scholar, and, with footnote variations, in Strauss, Gerald (ed.), Pre-Reformation Germany (London, 1972)CrossRefGoogle Scholar as ‘Religious life in Germany on the eve of the Reformation’, pp. 13–42). Moeller's forthright view has recently been challenged by Lerner, Robert E., ‘Medieval prophecy and religious dissent’, Past and Present, LXXII (1976), 3–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who argues that late medieval prophecy was both more prevalent and more subversive than is often supposed.

⁸⁵ Peter Baumgart, ‘Formen der Volksfrömmigkeit – Krise der alten Kirche und reformatorische Bewegung: Zur Ursachenproblematik des “Bauernkrieges”’, in Blickle (2), pp. 190 f. Cf. also the studies by Endres (as note 47) and Henry J. Cohn, ‘The peasants of Swabia, 1525’, in Bak (8), p. 12. Dr Cohn is at present working on a study of anti-clericalism in the Peasants' War.

⁸⁶ Baumgart in Blickle, (2), pp. 196 f.

⁸⁷ This is the argument of Rosenkranz, Albert, Der Bundschuh: Die Erhebungen des südwestdeutschen Bauernstandes in den Jahren 1493–1577. Schriften des Wissenschaftlichen Instituts der Elsass-Lothringer im Reich (2 vols., Heidelberg, 1927)Google Scholar and Günther Franz (as note 1), which still prevails in most modern works.

⁸⁸ For a detailed critique of Franz's interpretation of the Bundschuh revolts and the role of divine justice in them cf. Scott (as note 83), pp. 413–30.

⁸⁹ This is not to deny the obvious continuity between the Bundschuh and the Peasants' War in Alsace emphasized by Rapp, Francis, ‘Les paysans de la vallée du Rhin et le probléme de l'autorité civile (1493–1525)’, Recherches germaniques, IV (1974), 169Google Scholar. It is to dispute the relevance of an alleged revolutionary tradition in the Bundschuhe as an explanation of the origins and character of the Peasants' War.

⁹⁰ Boockmann in Moeller (5), pp. 9–27.

⁹¹ The peasants' undoubted sense of betrayal in South-West Germany neatly confirms Bücking's point about the nobility's abandonment of its function in justice and defence. Idem in Wehler (4), p. 172.

⁹² Boockmann in Moeller (5), p. 27. For some instructive remarks about the ways in which news and popular opinions were disseminated and distorted amongst the peasantry by the power of rumour cf.Schubert, Ernst, ‘“bauerngeschrey”: Zum Problem der öffentlichen Meinung im spätmittelalterlichen Franken’, Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung, XXXIV/XXXV (1975), 883–907Google Scholar.

⁹³ As Sabean, who agrees with Boockmann, points out. Sabean (as note 37), p. 227.

⁹⁴ Blickle (1), p. 135. Apart from older works, this line of argument is taken, with variations, by Endres, , Deutsche Studien, XLIX (1975), 52Google Scholar; Bücking in Wehler, (4), pp. 174–5; Wunder in Wehler (4), pp. 34–5; Wunder, ‘“Old law” and “divine law” in the German Peasant War’, in Bak (8), pp. 54–62; Winfried Becker, ‘“Göttliches Wort”, “Göttliches Recht”, “göttliche Gerechtigkeit”: Die Politisierung theologischer Begriffe?’, in Blickle (2), pp. 232–63.

⁹⁵ Idem (1), p. 137.

⁹⁶ Ibid. pp. 137–8, 26.

⁹⁷ Ibid. pp. 139–40.

⁹⁸ Stalnaker in Wehler (4), pp. 42–3; Becker in Blickle (2), p. 244; Press, , Nassauische Annalen, LXXXVI (1975), 166Google Scholar, who points out that revolts under the old law could display revolutionary tendencies.

⁹⁹ Wunder in Wehler (4), pp. 34–5.

¹⁰⁰ Karl-Heinz Burmeister, ‘Genossenschaftliche Rechtsfindung und herrschaftliche Rechtssetzung: Auf dem Weg zum Territorialstaat’, in Blickle (2), pp. 181–4.

¹⁰¹ Ibid. p. 184.

¹⁰² Becker in Blickle (2), passim, pp. 261 ff. Whilst accepting his arguments, Cohn draws attention to Becker's frequent misreading or misrepresentation of the sources. Cohn (as note 32), p. 857. Becker's interpretation of the role of divine law is to be preferred to Burmeister's He argues that the peasants had lost sight of the legal content of divine law and regarded it instead in a strangely voluntaristic fashion, equating their aims with the will of God.

¹⁰³ That is the sense of Blickle's remarks (1), pp. 141–3. But cf. the tenor of his remarks, ibid. p. 22.

¹⁰⁴ Cf. , Endres, Blätter für deutsche Landesgeschichte, CIX (1973), 49Google Scholar (cp. idem in Wohlfeil (7), pp. 97–8); Baumgart in Blickle (2), p. 204; Bücking in Wehler (4), pp. 174–5.

¹⁰⁵ Heiko A. Oberman, ‘Tumultus rusticorum: Vom “Klosterkrieg” zum Fürstensieg: Beobachtungen zum Bauernkrieg unter besonderer Berücksichtigung zeitgenössischer Beurteilungen’, in idem (6), pp. 157–72; restated and re-emphasized in idem, ‘The gospel of social unrest: 450 years after the so-called “German Peasants' War” of 1525’, Harvard Theological Review, LXIX, 1/2 (1976), 103–29Google Scholar, esp. 121: ‘According to its own sources, the Peasants’ War is a religious revolt of people in town and country who, on the basis of divine justice, pressed for improved social conditions. And they did so not only for the benefit of one social group, but for the benefit of “all Christians”.’ Stolze's argument is most directly presented in Bauernkrieg und Reformation. Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte, CXLI (vol. 44/2) (Leipzig, 1926).

¹⁰⁶ Cf. Hubert Kirchner, ‘Der deutsche Bauernkrieg im Urteil der frühen reformatorischen Geschichtsschreibung’, in Oberman (6), pp. 95–125.

¹⁰⁷ Cf. the programmatic title of the work by Smirin, M. M., Die Volksreformation des Thomas Münzer und der grosse Bauernkrieg, 2nd edn (Berlin, 1956)Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁸ Buszello (3), p. 55. He takes issue with Franz's view that for the Kempten and Allgäu peasants divine law was the motor of supraregional rebellion, but he ignores Franz's statement that at their Sonthofen meeting the peasants did pledge themselves to the Holy Gospel and divine law. Franz, Günther, Derdeutsche Bauernkrieg, 8th edn (Darmstadt, 1969), p. 115Google Scholar. This is supported by the report of officials of the lordship of Bregenz to Archduke Ferdinand on 15 Feb. 1525 printed in idem (ed.), Der deutsche Bauernkrieg: Aktenband, 2nd edn (Darmstadt, 1968), p. 145Google Scholar. However, both the Sonthofen and Allgäu leagues were purely defensive alliances. The active alliance, as Franz recognizes, was only formed at Leubas on 27 Feb. in consequence of a false rumour that an army of the Swabian League was bearing down upon the peasants. This deflates somewhat the importance of divine justice.

¹⁰⁹ Buszello (3), p. 55.

¹¹⁰ Ibid. pp. 55–6.

¹¹¹ Ibid. p. 56. It is unfortunate that Blickle ignores Buszello's argument on this point altogether.

¹¹² Scott, Tom, ‘Reformation and Peasants’ War in Waldshut and environs: a structural analysis', Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, LXIX (1978), 82–102Google Scholar; LXX (1979) (forthcoming).

¹¹³ E.g. for Thuringia, where the relations between lord and peasant had not yet reached the limit of their tolerance. There, Blickle argues, a revolutionary figure such as Müntzer could effortlessly bridge the gap between latent discontent and active crisis. Blickle (1), p. 137. The circumstances in which this could happen still need to be explained.

¹¹⁴ Ibid. pp. 21–2.

¹¹⁵ Ibid. pp. 22–4. Most accessible and reliable English translation in Cohn in Bak (8), pp. 14–18.

¹¹⁶ Blickle (1), pp. 25–6.

¹¹⁷ Günter Vogler, ‘Der revolutionäre Gehalt und die räumliche Verbreitung der oberschwäbischen Zwölf Artikel’, in Blickle, (2), p. 221.

¹¹⁸ Martin Brecht, ‘Der theologische Hintergrund der Zwölf Artikel der Bauernschaft in Schwaben von 1525. Christoph Schappelers und Sebastian Lotzers Beitrag zum Bauernkrieg’, in Oberman (6), pp. 30–64.

¹¹⁹ Vogler in Blickle (2), pp. 223 f. This point is elaborated by R. W. Scribner, ‘Images of the peasant, 1514–1525’, in Bak (8), pp. 29–48, who stresses the importance of visual imagery (woodcuts, prints and flags) in raising popular consciousness. This approach deserves to be taken further in the study of peasant mentalities.

¹²⁰ Of recent studies of serfdom cf. Müller, Walter, ‘Wurzeln und Bedeutung des grundsätzlichen Widerstandes gegen die Leibeigenschaft im Bauernkrieg 1525’, Schriften des Vereins für Geschichle des Bodensees und seiner Umgebung, XCIII (1975), 1–41Google Scholar; cp. his summary, ‘Freiheit und Leibeigenschaft – soziale Ziele des deutschen Bauernkriegs?’, in Blickle (2), pp. 264–72. A legal-historical study of the meaning(s) of serfdom and its role in the Peasants' War has recently appeared: Rabe, Hannah, Das Problem Liebeigenschaft: Eine Untersuchung über die Anfänge einer Ideologisierung und des verfassungsrechtlichen Wandels von Freiheit und Eigentum im deutschen Bauernkrieg. Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Beiheft 64 (Wiesbaden, 1977)Google Scholar. Cf. also the important recent study by Ulbrich, Claudia, Leibherrschaft am Oberrhein im Spätmittelalter. Veröffendichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte, LVIII (Göttingen, 1979)Google Scholar.

¹²¹ Cf. Scott (as note 112), p. 85. For illustrations of refusals to pay tithes cf. Endres, , Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung, XXXI (1971), 104–5Google Scholar; Buck, Containment of civil insurrection; Herzog, Paul, Die Bauernunruhen im Schaffhauser Gebiet 1524/25 (Aarau, 1965), pp. 13–30Google Scholar.

¹²² Cf. Stayer, James M., ‘Die Anfänge des schweizerischen Täufertums im reformierten Kongregationalismus’, in Umstrittenes Täufertum 1525—1975: Neue Forschungen, ed. Goertz, Hans Jürgen, 2nd edn (Göttingen, 1977), pp. 28–9Google Scholar, who notes the striking correspondence between the radical Swiss congregationalists' demands for a recasting of church organization and the peasants' demands for village autonomy.

¹²³ Blickle (I), pp. 91–3.

¹²⁴ Ibid. pp 94–8.

¹²⁵ Ibid. pp. 98–103.

¹²⁶ Ibid. pp. 147–52.

¹²⁷ Ibid. pp. 152–3.

¹²⁸ Cf. the remarks by Bücking on Wehler (4), pp. 187–9, and the phase-analysis of the revolt in Wurzburg by Rublack, Hans-Christoph, ‘Die Stadt Würzburg im Bauernkrieg’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, LXVII (1976), 76—100Google Scholar (cp. preliminary version in Jürgen Bücking and Hans-Christoph Rublack, ‘Der Bauernkrieg in den vorder- und oberösterreichischen Ländern und in der Stadt Würzburg’, part III, in Moeller (5), pp. 58–68). Cf. also Scott (as note 112), passim.

¹²⁹ Buszello, (3), pp. 49–52.

¹³⁰ Blickle in idem (2), pp. 130–1; elaborated in idem, (1), pp. 181–206. Cf. Buszello (3), pp. 19–67; idem, ‘Gemeinde, Territorium und Reich in den politischen Programmen des Deutschen Bauernkriegs 1524/25’, in Wehler (4), pp. 111–91; Buszello, ‘Die Staatsvorstellungen des “gemeinen Mannes” im deutschen Bauernkrieg’, in Blickle, (2), pp. 278–85.

¹³¹ Buszello in Wehler (4), p. 120; Buszello (3), pp. 53–67.

¹³² Idem in Wehler (4), pp. 120–1. This lends support to Blickle's reservations about the extent of the political appeal of the example of the Swiss Confederacy. Idem (1), p. 150, n. 22.

¹³³ Ibid. pp. 193–5; Buszello in Wehler (4), p. 115.

¹³⁴ Blickle (I), pp. 196–9; Buszello in Wehler (4), p. 114.

¹³⁵ Blickle, (I), pp. 199–202; Buszello in Wehler (4), p. 112.

¹³⁶ Blickle (I), p. 206.

¹³⁷ Buszello, (3), pp. 67–91; idem in Wehler (4), pp. 122–5; Buszello in Blickle (2), pp. 285–8.

¹³⁸ Buszello in Wehler (4), p. 125 against Franz, Bauernkrieg (as note 108), p. 287, and Max Steinmetz, ‘Die frühbürgerliche Revolution in Deutschland (1476–1535)’, in Wohlfeil (as note 6), 53.

¹³⁹ Cohn (as note 32), p. 856.

¹⁴⁰ Buszello in Wehler (4), pp. 123–4.

¹⁴¹ Blickle, (1), pp. 206–8. Of recent works on Gaismair cf. Macek, Josef, Der Tiroler Baiurnkrieg und Michael Gaismair (Berlin, 1965)Google Scholar; Stella, Aldo, La rivoluzione contadina del 1525 e I'utopia di Michael Gaismayr (Padua, 1975)Google Scholar; Bücking, Jürgen, Michael Gaismair, Reformer – Sozialrebell– Revolutionär: Seine Rolle im Tiroler ‘Bauernkrieg’ (1525/32). Spätmittelalter und Frühe Neuzeit: Tübinger Beiträge zur Geschichtsforschung, v (Stuttgart, 1978)Google Scholar; Klaassen, Walter, Michael Gaismair: revolutionary and reformer. Studies in Medieval and Reformation Thought, XXIII (Leiden, 1978)Google Scholar; Die Bauernkriege und Michael Gaismair: Protokoll des internationalen Symposions vom 15. bis 19. November 1976 in Innsbruck-Vill, ed. Landesarchiv, Tiroler (Innsbruck, 1979)Google Scholar; Zani, K. F., ‘Michael Gaismair: Mit einem Beitrag über Armut und Unterdrückung in Tirol’, Der Schlern, XLIX (1975), 584–597Google Scholar; Seibt, Ferdinand, Utopica: Modelle totaler Sozialplanung (Düsseldorf, 1972), pp. 82–90Google Scholar.

¹⁴² Scott (as note 26).

¹⁴³ Blickle (I), pp. 210–13. The literature on Müntzer is now suffering from acute hypertrophy. Important recent studies include: Bensing, Manfred, Thomas Müntzer und der Thüringer Aufstand 1525. Leipziger Übersetzungen und Abhandlungen zum Mittelalter, Reihe B III (Berlin, 1966)Google Scholar; Ebert, Klaus, Theologie und politisches Handeln: Thomas Müntzer als Modell (Stuttgart/Berlin/Cologne/Mainz, 1973)Google Scholar; Nipperdey, Thomas, ‘Theologie und Revolution bei Thomas Müntzer’, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte, LIV (1963), 145–79Google Scholar (reprinted with additional comments and bibliography in idem, Reformation, Revolution, Utopie (as note 6), pp. 38–84); Elliger, Walter, Thomas Müntzer: Leben und Werk, 2nd edn (Göttingen, 1975)Google Scholar; Rupp, Gordon, Patterns of Reformation (London, 1969), pp. 157–353Google Scholar. Among works under review cf. Leif Grane, ‘Thomas Müntzer und Martin Luther', in Moeller, (5), pp. 69–97; Reinhard Schwarz, ‘Neun Thesen zu Müntzers Chiliasmus’, in Moeller (5), pp. 99–101; Kurt-Viktor Selge, ‘Zu “Müntzer in Allstedt”’, in Moeller (5), pp. 103–6.