¹ I should like to thank Jeremy Edwards, Emma Rothschild, Paul Seabright, Keith Wrightson and Tony Wrigley, who were so kind as to read and comment upon the manuscript of this paper; and André Carus, who read several drafts and made a large number of very stimulating suggestions.

² Vries, J. de, The economy of Europe in an age of crisis, 1600–1750 (Cambridge, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereafter de Vries, Economy], esp. 32–47. The growth of cottage industries in the early modem period had received special attention from the German Historical School of Political Economy in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, e.g. in Stieda, W., Litteratur, heutige züstände und Entstehung der deutschen Hausindustrie (Leipzig, 1889)Google Scholar.

³ The first published use of the term was in Tilly, C. and Tilly, R., ‘Agenda for European economic history in the 1970s’, Journal of economic history 31 (1971), 184–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar, citing the doctoral thesis of Mendels, F. F., ‘Industrialization and population pressure in eighteenth century Flanders’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1970)Google Scholar, subsequently published as Mendels, F. F., Industrialization and population pressure in eighteenth-century Flanders (New York, 1981)Google Scholar [hereafter Mendels, Industrialization]. The concept was first extensively discussed in a now-classic article, Mendels, F. F., ‘Proto-industrialization: the first phase of the industrialization process’, Journal of economic history 32 (1972), 241–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereafter Mendels, ‘Proto-industrialization’]. Over the ensuing five years the concept was extended in different directions by Mokyr, J., ‘Growing-up and the industrial revolution in Europe’, Explorations in economic history, 31 (1976), 371–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereafter Mokyr, ‘Growing-up’], who was sceptical about capital accumulation, but agreed tht proto-industry led to population growth and labour surplus; Kriedte, P., Medick, H. and Schlumbohm, J., Industrialisierung vor der Industrialisierung. Gewerbliche Warenproduktion auf dem Land in der Formationsperiode des kapitalismus (Göttingen, 1977)Google Scholar, English translation Kriedte, P., Medick, H. and Schlumbohm, J., Industrialization before industrialization: Rural industry in the genesis of capitalism (Cambridge, 1981)Google Scholar [hereafter Kriedte, Medick and Schlumbohm, Industrialization], and Levine, D., Family formation in an age of nascent capitalism (London, 1977)Google Scholar [hereafter Levine, Family formation].

⁴ Thus the tenets of the theory were accepted by the vast majority of the 46 case-studies prepared for the Eighth International Economic History Congress in Budapest in 1982, collected in VIII Congrès Internationale d'Histoire Economique, Budapest 16–22 août 1982, Section A2: La protoindustrialisation: Théorie et réalité, Rapports 2 vols. eds. Deyon, P. and Mendels, F. (ms., Université des Arts, Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Lille, 1982)Google Scholar [hereafter VIII Congrès, eds. Deyon & Mendels]. However, important criticisms were already emerging: in particular, Coleman, D. C., ‘Proto-industrialization: A concept too many?’, Economic history review, (2nd series) 36 (1983) 435–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereafter Coleman, ‘Proto-industrialization’] and Houston, R. A. and Snell, K. D. M., ‘Proto-industrialization? Cottage industry, social change, and industrial revolution’, Historicaljournal 1984, 473–92Google Scholar [hereafter Houston and Snell, ‘Proto-industrialization?’].

⁵ This is pointed out by Houston, and Snell, , ‘Proto-industrialization?’, 480–8Google Scholar. Kriedte, , Medick, H. and Schlumbohm, J., ‘Proto-industrialization revisited: Demography, social structure, and modern domestic industry’, Continuity and change 8 (1993), 182–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar, recently acknowledged that ‘In sum, the empirical studies show that it is impossible to establish a single behaviour pattern for all proto-industrial populations, and that we must take into account a whole array of differentiating factors’ (225).

⁶ Houston, and Snell, , ‘Proto-industrialization?’ 477–8Google Scholar; further shortcomings of theories about proto-industrialization as they relate to agriculture are discussed in Gullickson, G. L., ‘Agriculture and cottage industry: Redefining the causes of proto-industrialization’, Journal of economic history, 43 (1983), 832–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷ As pointed out in Mokyr, , ‘Growing-up’, 377–9Google Scholar; Houston, and Snell, , ‘Proto-industrialization?’, 488–92Google Scholar; and Hudson, P., ‘Proto-industrialisation’, ReFresh 10 (1990), 1–4Google Scholar [hereafter Hudson, ‘Proto-industrialisation’].

⁸ Houston, and Snell, , ‘Proto-industrialization?’ 478–9Google Scholar; Hudson, , ‘Proto-industrialisation’, 3Google Scholar. Recent surveys confirm this for particular countries: Deyon, P., ‘Proto-industrialization in France’, in Proto-industrialization in Europe: An introductory handbook, eds. Ogilvie, S. G. and Cerman, M. (Cambridge, 1995)Google Scholar [hereafter Proto-industrialization in Europe, eds. Ogilvie and M. Cerman], 38–48, concludes that ‘the impoverishment of households has not been proved for all the very diverse models and all the successive phases of proto-industrialization’; the same conclusion emerges from U. Pfister, ‘Proto-industrialization in Switzerland’, in ibid., 137–154 [hereafter Pfister, ‘Proto-industrialization in Switzerland’]; and C. Vandenbroeke, ‘Proto-industry in Flanders: A critical review’, in ibid., 102–117.

⁹ Coleman, , ‘Proto-industrialization’, 442–3Google Scholar; Houston, and Snell, , ‘Proto-industrialization?’, 490–2Google Scholar; Hudson, , ‘Proto-industrialisation’, 3Google Scholar. De-industrialisation was already recognised as a possible outcome of proto-industrialisation in Mendels, ‘Proto-industrialization’; and in Kriedte, , Medick, and Schlumbohm, , Industrialization, 145–54Google Scholar.

¹⁰ The economic divergence among European regions during the early modern period is explored by Topolski, J., Narodziny kapitalzmu w Europeu XIV–XVII wieku (Warsaw, 1965)Google Scholar; the economic and institutional divergence is discussed in Vries, de, Economy, 47–83Google Scholar, and in Ogilvie, S. C., ‘Germany and the seventeenth-century crisis’, Historical journal 35 (1992), 417–441, here esp. 420, 432–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ These views are summarized in Mendels, F., ‘Proto-industrialization: Theory and reality. General report’, in Eighth International Economic History Congress, Budapest 1982, ‘A’ Themes (Budapest, 1982), 69–107Google Scholar [hereafter Mendels, ‘General report’], here esp. 80; Mendels, , Industrialization, here esp. 16, 22–3, 26, 47–8, 210, 239–43, 245–7, 270Google Scholar; Kriedte, , Medick, and Schlumbohm, , Industrialization, here esp. 12–13, 22, 38–9, 40–1, 51–2Google Scholar; Mokyr, , ‘Growing-up’, 374Google Scholar. For Chayanov's original model of peasant society, see Chayanov, A., The theory of peasant economy, ed. Thorner, D., Kerblay, B. and Smith, R. E. F. (Homewood (Illinois), 1966)Google Scholar. The reliance of proto-industrialization theories on the theories of Chayanov is explicit: Mendels, , Industrialization, 239–41Google Scholar; Kriedte, , Medick, , and Schlumbohm, , Industrialization, 43–4Google Scholar.

¹² See Mendels, , ‘General report’, 80Google Scholar (on the breakdown of village and landlord controls); Mendels, , Industrialization, 16, 26Google Scholar (on the breakdown of urban privileges and guild controls); Kriedte, , Medick, and Schlumbohm, , Industrialization, 38–73Google Scholar (on the breakdown of traditional family controls); 8, 16–17, 40 (on the breakdown of village and landlord controls); 13, 22, 51–2, 128 (on the breakdown of urban privileges and guild controls); 128–9 (on the role of the state); 40 (on the market; quoted passage); and Mokyr, , ‘Growing-up’, 374Google Scholar (on the breakdown of urban privileges and guild controls).

¹³ A distinguished early study of this industry, although based wholly on merchant and state documents, is Troeltsch, W., Die Calwer Zeughandlungskompagnie und ihre Arbeiter: Studien zur Gewerbe- und Sozialgeschichte Altwürttembergs (Jena, 1897)Google Scholar [hereafter Troeltsch, Zeughandlungskompagnie]; for a different perspective, based on community and guild documentation as well, see Ogilvie, S. C., State corporation and proto-industry: The Württemberg Black Forest, 1580–1797 (Cambridge, 1995)Google Scholar [hereafter Ogilvie, Württemberg].

¹⁴ Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungskompagnie, 81Google Scholar

¹⁵ Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungskompagnie, esp. 172–3, 177, 81–2, 186, 194–9Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Kriedte, , Medick, and Schlumbohm, , Industrialization, 2, 5, 49, 50, 54Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungskompagnie, esp. 172–3, 177, 181–2, 186, 194–9Google Scholar.

¹⁸ For numbers of practising weavers and their distribution across communities, see Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungkompagnie, 107Google Scholar (table), 10, 17, 22, 40–1, 78, 103–5, 107–8, 176, 183, 209–10, 253–5, 282, 293–4, 298, 306, 310, 314, 334. 336–8, 383, 387, 392; and Ogilvie, Württemberg, chapter 7.

¹⁹ Württembergische Hauptstaatsarchiv Stuttgart [hereafter WHSA] A573 Bü 6967 Seelentabelle 1736 (‘soul-table’ of the ten communities of the district of Wildberg in 1736).

²⁰ Mendels, , ‘General report’, 80Google Scholar; Kriedte, , Medick, and Schlumbohm, , Industrialization, 8, 16–17, 40Google Scholar.

²¹ Hippel, W. von, Die Bauembefreiung im Königreich Württemberg, 2 vols. (Boppard am Rhein, 1977), vol. 1, 76ff, 94–105, 120–4Google Scholar; Boelcke, W. A., Wirtschaftsgeschichte Baden-Württembergs von den Römem bis heute (Stuttgart, 1987), 64–5, 113Google Scholar; Sabean, D. W., Property, production and family in Neckarhausen, 1700–1870 (Cambridge, 1990)Google Scholar, [hereafter Sabean, Property] 43–4; Vann, J. A., The making of a state: Württemberg, 1593–1793 (Ithaca/London, 1984)Google Scholar, [hereafter Vann, Württemberg, 41, 45–51; Grube, W., ‘Württembergische Verfassungskämpfe im Zeitalter Herzog Ulrichs’, in Neue Beiträge zu südwestdeutschen Landesgeschichte Miller, Festschrift M. (Stuttgart, 1962), 144–60Google Scholar.

²² Even the relationship between rural industry and partible inheritance (which in some European regions reflected weak landlord control, but also depended on an array of other factors including physical geography, local fegrariafl practice (e.g. viticulture), community institutions, legislation, and state policy) is still disputed. Hoffmann, Thus H., Landwirtschaft and Industrie in Württemberg, insbesondere im Industriegebiet der Schwäbischen Alb (Berlin, 1935)Google Scholar, for instance, argues that rural industry was more successful in the Duchy of Württemberg than in neighbouring Free Imperial territories because its rulers permitted partible inheritance, see esp. 19–44. On the other hand, Flik, R., Die Textilindustrie in Calw und in Heidenheim 1705–1870. Eine regional vergleichende Untersuchung zur Geschichte der Frühundustrialisierung und Industriepolitik in Württemberg (Stuttgart, 1990), 55–61Google Scholar, contends that within Württemberg the Heidenheim linen proto-industry in eastern Württemberg was more successful than the Calw worsted proto-industry in the Black Forest region partly because of the unusual strength of local tenurial restrictions on land fragmentation in the district of Heidenheim. In turn, the empirical basis for Flik's argument is disputed in Kriedte, P., Medick, H. & Schlumbohm, J., ‘Sozialgeschichte in der Erweiterung—Proto-Industrialisierung in der Verengung? Demographie, Sozialstruktur, moderne Hausindustrie: eine Zwischenbilanz der Proto-Industrialisierungs-Forschung (Teil I u. II)’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 18 (1992), 70–87, 231–255, here footnote 12Google Scholar.

²³ On England, see Wrightson, K., English society 1580–1680 (New York/London, 1982)Google Scholar [hereafter Wrightson, English society], 24–5, 47–9, 130–3; Sharpe, J. A., Early modern England: A social history, 1550–1760 (London, 1987)Google Scholar [hereafter Sharpe, Early modern England], 127–36; Vries, de, Economy, 75–82Google Scholar; Levine, , Family formation, 4–6Google Scholar. On the Netherlands, see Vries, J. de, The Dutch rural economy in the golden age, 1500–1700 (Berkeley, 1974)Google Scholar [hereafter de Vries, Dutch rural economy], 25–8, 35–41; de Vries, , Economy, 69–75Google Scholar. On the Rhineland, see Kisch, H., ‘From monopoly to laissez-faire: The early growth of the Wupper Valley textile trades’, Joanal of European economic history 1:2 (1972) 898–407Google Scholar [hereafter Kisch, ‘Monopoly“], here 301, 303, 304; Kisch, H., ‘Preußischer Merkantilismus und der Aufstieg des Krefelder Seidengewerbes: Variationen über ein Thema des 18. Jahrhunderts’, in Die Hausindustriellen Textilegewerbe am Nuderrhein vor der Industriellen Revolution: Von der ursprünglichen zur kapitalistischen Akkumulation ed. Kisch, H. (Göttingen, 1981)Google Scholar [hereafter Kisch, ‘Merkantilismus’], 94, 96; Kriedte, P., ‘Proto-Industrialisierung und großes Kapital. Das Seidengewerbe in Krefeld und seinem Umland bis zum Ende des Ancien Regime’, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte 23 (1983)Google Scholar [hereafter Kriedte, ‘Großes Kapital’], 219–266, here 225. On Switzerland, see R., Braun, ‘Early industrialization and demographic change in the Canton of Zürich’, in Historical studies of changing fertility ed. Tilly, C. (Princeton, 1978), 289–334Google Scholar [hereafter Braun, ‘Early industrialization’], here 299, 307; Tanner, A., Spulen—Weben—Sticken: Die Industrialisierung in Appenzell Ausserrhoden (Zürich, 1982), esp. 418–19Google Scholar; Tanner, A., ‘Arbeit, Haushalt und Familie in Appenzell-Außerrhoden. Veränderungen in einem ländlichen Industriegebiet im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert’, in Familenstruktur und Arbeitsorganisation in ländlichen Gesetlschaften eds. Ehmer, J. & Mitterauer, M. (Vienna etc., 1986), 449–494Google Scholar [hereafter Tanner, ‘Arbeit’], here 451; Mirabdolbaghi, A., ‘Population and landownership in the Baillage Commun of Grandson in the early eighteenth century’ (Ph.D. dissertation, London School of Economics, 1994)Google Scholar [hereafter Mirabdolbaghi, ‘Population’].

²⁴ Kriedte, , Medick, and Schlumbohm, , Industrialization, 18–19, 77, 98, 111Google Scholar.

²⁵ Rudolph, R. L., ‘Agricultural structure and proto-industrialization in Russia: Economic development with unfree labour’, Journal of economic history 45 (1985), 47–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 48, 54, 57–61, 63; Rudolph, R. L., ‘Family structure and proto-industrialization in Russia’, Journal of economic history 40 (1980), 111–118, here IIICrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁶ Klíma, A., ‘English merchant capital in Bohemia in the eighteenth century’, Economic history review 2nd ser, 12 (1959), 34–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereafter Klíma, ‘English merchant capital’], here 35, 38; Klíma, A., ‘The role of rural domestic industry in Bohemia in the eighteenth century’;, Economic history review 2nd ser., 27 (1974), 48–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 51, 53; Myška, M., ‘Pre-industrial iron-making in the Czech lands: The labour force and production relations circa 1350—circa 1840’, Past and present 82 (1979), 44–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 59–63; Myška, M., ‘Proto-industrialization in Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia’, in Proto-industrializahon in Europe eds. Ogilvie, & German, , 188–207Google Scholar [hereafter Myška, ‘Proto-industrialization’].

²⁷ Klíma, , ‘English merchant capital’, 34–5Google Scholar; Myška, ‘Proto-industrialization’; Klíma, A., ‘The industrial development in Bohemia 1648–1781’, Past and present II (1957)Google Scholar, here 89; Belfanti, C. M., ‘Rural manufactures and rural proto-industries in the “Italy of the Cities” from the sixteenth through the eighteenth century’, Continuity and change 8 (1993), 253–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereafter Belfanti, ‘Rural manufactures’], 259.

²⁸ Palairet, M. R., ‘Woollen textile manufacturing in the Balkans 1850–1911: A study of protoindustrial failure’, in Ville Congrès eds. Deyon, & Mendels, , contribution no. 34Google Scholar [hereafter Palairet, ‘Woollen textile manufacture’], here 1–3, 8–11.

²⁹ Belfanti, C. M., ‘The proto-industrial heritage: Forms of rural proto-industry in northern Italy in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries’, in Proto-industrialization in Europe eds. Ogilvie, & Cerman, , 155–170Google Scholar.

³⁰ Mendels, , ‘General report’, 80Google Scholar; Kriedte, , Medick, and Schlumbohm, , Industrialization, 8, 16–17, 40Google Scholar.

³¹ These conclusions are based on detailed local research on the small town and 10–15 villages of the Amt (administrative district) of Wildberg, one of the ca. 60 Ämter of the duchy of Württemberg, between the late sixteenth and the late eighteenth century, whose results are presented in Ogilvie, Württemberg, here esp. chapter 4; Ogilvie, S. C., ‘Coming of age in a corporate society: Capitalism, Pietism and family authority in rural Württemberg 1590–1740’, Continuity and change 1 (1986), 279–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereafter Ogilvie, ‘Coming of age’], here 282–4, 286–91; Ogilvie, S. C., ‘Women and proto-industrialisation in a corporate society: Württemberg woollen weaving 1590–1760’, in Women's work and the family economy in historical perspective eds. Hudson, P. & Lee, W. R. (Manchester, 1990), 76–103Google Scholar [hereafter Ogilvie, ‘Women and proto-industrialization’]; Ogilvie, S. C., ‘Women's work in a developing economy: A German industrial countryside, 1580–1740 (MA diss., University of Chicago, 1993)Google Scholar.

³² On the powers of Württemberg communities, see also Vann, , Making of a state, 38–43, 46–7, 51–2, 65, 99–109, 180–4, 187–8, 225, 237–44, 247–50, 278–9, 287–8Google Scholar; Sabean, D. W., Power in the blood: Popular culture and village discourse in early modern Germany (Cambridge, 1984), 1–36Google Scholar; Sabean, , Property, 26–27, 38–57Google Scholar; Medick, H., ‘Village spinning bees, sexual culture and free time among rural youth in early modern Germany’, Interest and emotion: Essays on the study of family and kinship eds. Medick, H. and Sabean, D. (Cambridge/Paris, 1984)Google Scholar; Trugenberger, V., Zwischen Schloss und Vorstadt: Sozialgeschichte der Stadt Leonberg im 16. Jahrnundert (Vaihingen/Enz, 1984)Google Scholar; Mantel, J., Wildberg: Eine Studie zur wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Entwicklung der Stadt von der Mitte des sechzeknten bis zur mitle des achtzehnten Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1974)Google Scholar.

³³ On England, see Wrightson, , English society, 40–60, 155–72Google Scholar; Sharpe, , Early modern England, 90–98Google Scholar; Vries, de, Economy, 75–82Google Scholar; Macfarlane, A., The origins of English individualism: The family, property and social transition (Oxford, 1978), 4–5, 68–9, 78–9, 119, 162–3Google Scholar; Levine, , Family formation, 4–6Google Scholar. On the Netherlands, see de Vries, J., The Dutch rural economy in the golden age, 1500–1700 (Berkeley, 1974)Google Scholar [hereafter de Vries, Dutch rural economy], 26–35, 49–67; de Vries, , Economy, 53–67Google Scholar; van Gelder, H. A. Enno, ‘Nederlandse dorpen in de 16e eeuw’ Verhandelingen der Koninklijke nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeling Letterkunde, 59 (1953) 40–41, 110Google Scholar. On the Rhineland, see Kisch, , ‘Monopoly’, 301–4Google Scholar; Kisch, , ‘Merkantilismus’, 94–6Google Scholar; Kriedte, , ‘Großes kapital’, 225Google Scholar. On Switzerland, see Braun, , ‘Early industrialization’, 299, 307Google Scholar; Tanner, , ‘Arbeit’, 451Google Scholar; Mirabdolbaghi, ‘Population’.

³⁴ Whyte, I. D., ‘Proto-industrialization in Scotland,’ Regions and industries: A perspective on the industrial revolution in Britain ed. Hudson, P. (Cambridge, 1989), 228–251, here 231, 237–8, 243–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungskompagnie, esp. 172–3, 177, 181–2, 186, 194–9Google Scholar.

³⁶ Hendrickx, F. M. M., ‘From weavers to workers: Demographic implications of an economic transformation in Twente (the Netherlands) in the nineteenth century’, Continuity and change 8:2 (1993), 321–55, here 330–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁷ Belfanti, , ‘Rural manufactures’, 265–6Google Scholar.

³⁸ The detailed research results behind these conclusions are presented in Ogilvie, ‘Coming of age’; Ogilvie, ‘Women and proto-industrialisation’; Ogilvie, Württemberg, chapters 4, 7, 8 and 9; and Ogilvie, ‘Women's work in a developing economy’.

³⁹ Tipton, F. B., Regional variations in the economic development of Germany during the nineteenth century (Middletown (Connecticut), 1976)Google Scholar [hereafter Tipton, Regional variations], 23, 46, 52–3, 58–9, 68, 71.

⁴⁰ Mendels, , Industrialization, 16, 26Google Scholar; Mokyr, , ‘Growing-up’, 374Google Scholar; Kriedte, , Medick, and Schlumbohm, , Industrialization, 7, 13, 22, 106, 115, 128Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungskompagnie, 10–14Google Scholar; Ogilvie, , ‘Coming of age’, 281–2, 284–5Google Scholar; Ogilvie, Württemberg, chapter 5.

⁴² This is argued specifically for proto-industry by Cerman, M., ‘Proto-industrialization in an urban environment: Vienna, 1750–1857’, Continuity and change 8:2 (1993), 281–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 282. For a more general argument to the effect that guilds were beneficial, see Hickson, C. R. & Thompson, E. A., ‘A new theory of guilds and European economic development’, Explorations in economic history 28 (1991), 127–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ The activities of the worsted weavers' guild of the district of Wildberg between 1598 and 1760 are examined in detail in Ogilvie, Württemberg, chapters 5–12.

⁴⁴ A detailed account of this company is provided in Troeltsch, Zeughandlungshmpagnie; further analysis of its activities and effects on the Württemberg Black Forest worsted industry is provided in Flik, , Textilindustrie, 220–254Google Scholar; see also Ogilvie, Würrtemberg, chapters 5 and 8.

⁴⁵ On England, see Clark, P. & Slack, P., English tozims in transition 1506–1700 (Oxford, 1976), 97–110Google Scholar; Kellett, J. R., ‘The breakdown of gild and corporation control of the handicraft and retail trades in London’, Economic history review (1958) 381–94, here 381–82Google Scholar; Hudson, P., ‘Proto-industrialization in England’, in Proto-industrialization eds. Ogilvie, and Cerman, , 49–66Google Scholar; Coleman, D. C., The economy of England 1450–1750 (Oxford, 1977), 73–5Google Scholar. On the Low Countries, see Vries, de, Dutch rural economy, 48–49Google Scholar; Glamann, K., ‘European trade, 1500–1750’, in The Fontana economic history of Europe vol. II The sixteenth and seventeenth centimes ed. Cipolla, C. M., 427–526Google Scholar, here 519; Kellenbenz, H., 'The organization of industrial production', in The Cambridge economic history of Europe vol. V The economic organization of early modern Europe eds. Rich, E. E. & Wilson, C. H. (Cambridge, 1977), 462–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 566; Schmal, H., ‘Patterns of de-urbanization in the Netherlands between 1650 and 1850’, in The rise and decline of urban industries ed. Wee, H. Van der (Leuven, 1988)Google Scholar; H. Van der Wee, ‘Industrial dynamics and the process of urbanization and de-urbanization in the Low Countries from the Late Middle Ages to the eighteenth century’, in Ibid. On the Rhineland, see Kisch, , ‘Merkantilismus’, 100–3, 116, 130–1, 140Google Scholar; Kriedte, , ‘Großes Kapital’, 221, 225, 241, 246, 249, 258Google Scholar. On Saxony, see Wolff, K. H., ‘Guildmaster into millhand: The industrialization of linen and cotton in Germany to 1850’, textile history 10 (1979), 7–74, here 33–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blaschke, K., ‘Grundzuge der sachsischen Stadtgeschichte im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert’, Die Städte Mitteleuropas im 17, und 18. Jahrhundert (Linz/Donau, 1981), 173–80, here 177Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Hudson, , ‘Proto-industrialization in England’, 52–3Google Scholar; de Vries, , Dutch rural economy, 48–9Google Scholar; Kisch, , ‘Merkantilismus’, 100–3, 116, 130–1, 140Google Scholar; Kriedte, , ‘Großes Kapital’, 221, 225, 241, 246, 249, 258Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ On Eskilstuna, in Sweden, where a small number of putters-out enjoyed privileges over the producers as late as 1822, see Magnusson, L. & Isacson, M., ‘Proto-industrialization in Sweden: Smithcraft in Eskilstuna and southern Dalecarlia’, Scandinavian economic history review 30:1 (1982), 73–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 78, 80–1. On Westphalia, see Schlumbohm, J., ‘Agrarische Besitzklassen und gewerbliche Produktionsverhaltnisse: Großbauem, Kleinbesitzer und Landlose als Leinenproduzenten im Umland von Osnabruck und Bielefeld wahrend des fruhen 19. Jahrhunderts’, Mentalitäten und Lebensverhältnisse. Rudolf Vterhaus zum 60. Geburtstag Vierhaus, Festschrift R. (Göttingen, 1982), 315–34, here 331Google Scholar; Mager, W., ‘Die Rolle des Staates bei der gewerblichen Entwicklung Ravensbergs in vorindustrieller Zeit’, in Rheinland-Westfalen im Industriezeitalter, vol.V Von der Entstehung der Provinzen bis zur Reichsgründung eds. Duwell, K. and Kollmann, W., (Wuppertal, 1983), 61–72Google Scholar, here 67. On Silesia, see Kisch, H., ‘The textile industries of Silesia and the Rhineland: A comparative study of industrialization‘, Journal of economic history 19 (1959), 186CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On Bohemia, see Myška, ‘Proto-industrialization’; Klíma, ‘English merchant capital’, passim. On Barcelona in Catalonia, see Thomson, J. K. J., ‘State intervention in the Catalan calico-printing industry in the eighteenth century’, in Markets and manufacture in early industrial Europe ed. Berg, M. (Cambridge, 1991), 79–82Google Scholar. On Krefeld, see Kisch, , ‘Merkantilismus’, 100–3, 116, 130–1, 140Google Scholar; Kriedte, , ‘Großes Kapital’, 221, 225, 241, 246, 249, 258Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ On the Bologna silk industry, see Poni, C., ‘A proto-industrial city: Bologna: XVI–XVHI century’, in VIIIème Congres eds. Deyon, and Mendels, [hereafter Poni, ‘Proto-industrial city’], 5, 7–9, 17Google Scholar. On the Igualada woollen industry in Catalonia, see Torras, J., ‘From masters to fabrkanis. Guild organization and economic growth in eighteenth-century Catalonia: A case-study’, European University Institute colloquium papers 30 (1986)Google Scholar [ = papers presented to conference on ‘Work and family in pre-industrial Europe’, Badia Fiesolana, 11–13 February 1986] [hereafter Torras, ‘From masters to fabricants’ Torras, J., ‘The old and the new. Marketing networks and textile growth in eighteenth-century Spain’, in Markets and manufacture in early industrial Europe ed. Berg, M. (Cambridge, 1991), 93–113Google Scholar [hereafter Torras, ‘The old and the new’]. On the Lyon silk industry, see Poni, C., ‘Proto-industrialization, rural and urban’, Review 9 (1985)Google Scholar [hereafter Poni, ‘Rural and urban’], here 313. On the Nimes silk industry in the Bas-Languedoc, see Lewis, G., The advent ofmodern capitalism in France, 1770–1840: The contribution of Pierre-Francois Tubeuf (Oxford, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereafter Lewis, Modern capitalism]. On the Clermont-de-Lodeve woollen industry in the Languedoc, see Thomson, J. K. J., Clermont-de-Lodeve 1633–1789: Fluctuations in the prosperity of a Languedocian cloth-making town (Cambridge, 1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereafter Thomson, Clermontde-Lodeve]; C.H. Johnson, ‘De-industrialization: The case of the Languedoc woollens industry’, in VIIIème Congres eds. Deyon & Mendels [hereafter Johnson, ‘De-industrialization’]. On the Rouen linen and cotton industries in Normandy, see Gullickson, G. L., Spinners and weavers of Auffay. Rural industry and the sexual division of labor in a French village, 1750–1850 (Cambridge, 1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bottin, J., ‘Structures and mutations of a proto-industrial space: Rouen and its region at the end of the sixteenth century’, Annales ESC 43:4 (1988), 975–995Google Scholar. On the textile industries of the Cambresis and the Valenciennois, see Guignet, P., 'Adaptations, mutations et survivances proto-industrielles dans le textile du Cambrésis et du Valenciennois du XVIIIe au début du XXe siède’, Revue du Nord 61 (1979) 27–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereafter Guignet, ‘Adaptions’]. On the Saint-Quentin fine linen industry in northern France, see Terrier, D., ‘Mulquiniers et gaziers: les deux phases de la protoindustrie textile dans la region de Saint-Quentin, 1730–1850’, Revue du Nord 65 (1983), see 535–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the linen and cotton proto-industries of Zurich, St. Gallen and other Swiss cantons, see Braun, ‘Early industrialization’; and Pfister, ‘Proto-industrialization’. On the linen, cotton, and stocking-knitting proto-industries of Iinz, Schwechat, Poneggen and other centres in Austria, see Cerman, , ‘Proto-industrialization in Vienna’, 289Google Scholar; Freudenberger, H., ‘Three mercantilist protofactories’, Business history review 40 (1966), 167–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Freudenberger, H., ‘Zur Iinzer Wollzeugfabrik,’ in Knittler, H. (ed.), Wirtschafis- und sozialhistorische Beiträge. Festschrift für Alfred Hoffmann zum 75. Geburtstag (Wien, 1979), 220–235Google Scholar; Hofmann, V., ‘Beiträge zur neueren Wirtschaftsgeschichte. Die Wollenzeugfabrik zu Linz an der Donau’, Archiv für österrekhische Geschichte 108 (1920)Google Scholar; Grull, G., ‘The Poneggen hosiery enterprise, 1763–1818: A study of Austrian mercantilism’, Textile history 5 (1974), 38–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the Vogtland woollen and cotton industries and the Upper Lusatian linen industry in Saxony, see Wolff, , ‘Guildmaster’, 38Google Scholar. On the Wuppertal linen proto-industry in the Rhineland, see Kisch, ‘From monopoly to laissez-faire’. On the linen proto-industries of Urach, Heidenheim and Blaubeuren in eastern Württemberg, see Flik, Textilindustrie; Troeltsch, Zeughandlungskompagnie; Medick, H., ‘“Freihandel für die Zunft”: Ein Kapitel aus der Geschichte der Preiskämpfe im württembergischen Leinengewerbe des 18.Jahrhunderts’, in Mentalitäten und Lebensverhältnisse; Rudolph Vierhaus zum 60. Geburtstag Vierhaus, Festschrift R. (Göttingen, 1983)Google Scholar; Medick, H., ‘Privilegiertes Handelskapital und “kleine Industrie”. Produktion und Produktionsverhältnisse im Leinengewerbe des alt württembergischen Oberamts Urach im 18. Jahrhundert’, Archill für Sozialgeschichte, 23 (1983). 267–310Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ Cerman, , ‘Proto-industrialization in Vienna’, 290–91Google Scholar; Poni, , ‘Proto-industrial city’, 16–17Google Scholar; Poni, , ‘Proto-industrialization, rural and urban’, 312–13Google Scholar; Kriedte, P., ‘Die Stadt im Prozeß der europäischen Proto-industrialisierung’, Die alte Stadt 9 (1982), 19–51Google Scholar, here 48; Lewinau, , Modern capitalism, 63–4Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ On Scotland, see Whyte, , ‘Proto-industrialization in Scotland’, here esp. 233–4Google Scholar. On the ‘considerable control over rural manufacturing’ exercised by the craft guilds of the royal burghs until 1672, and the urban orientation of Scottish proto-industry well into the eighteenth century. On Switzerland, see Pfister, ‘Proto-industrialization in Switzer-land’; Braun, , ‘Early industrialization’, 296Google Scholar. On France, see Guignet, , ‘Adaptions’, 29–30Google Scholar; Lewis, , Modern capitalism, 10, 63–4Google Scholar; Gayot, G., ‘La longue insolence des tondeurs de draps dans la manufacture de Sedan au XVIIIème siècle’, Revue du Nord 63 (1981), 105–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar, here 108,116,122; Poni, ‘Rural and urban’; Kriedte, , ‘Stadt’, 48Google Scholar; Johnson, , ‘De-industrialization’, 5–6Google Scholar. On Saxony, see Wolff, ‘Guildmaster’. On societies in which guilds survived into the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century, see on Austria: Cerman, , ‘Proto-industrialization in Vienna’, 290–1Google Scholar; Cerman, , ‘Proto-industrial development in Austria’ in Proto-industrialization in Europe eds. Ogilvie, & Cerman, , 171–187Google Scholar; Freudenberger, , ‘Proto-factories’, 184Google Scholar; Freudenberger, H., ‘An industrial momentum achieved in the Habsburg monarchy,’ Journal of European economic history 12 (1983), 339–50Google Scholar, here 342–3; on Spain: Thomson, ‘Proto-industrialization in Spain’; on Catalonia in particular: Terras, , ‘From masters to fabricants’, 3, 6–9Google Scholar; Torras, , ‘The old and the new’, 99, 105–6, 108, 113 notes 56–7; on Italy:Google ScholarBelfanti, , ‘Rural manufactures’, 262, 266–7Google Scholar; Poni, , ‘Proto-industrial city’, 16–17Google Scholar; On Scandinavia: Isacson, M. & Magnusson, L., Proto-industrialization in Scandinavia. Craft skills in the industrial revolution (Leamington Spa/Hamburg/New York, 1987), 35, 37, 93Google Scholar; Magnusson, L., ‘Markets in context: Artisans, putting out and social drinking in Eskiltuna, Sweden 1800–50’, in Markets and manufacture in early industrial Europe ed. Berg, M. (London, 1991), 292–320Google Scholar, here 304; on the survival of guild privileges in proto-industries in Bohemia and Moravia, despite countervailing privileges from feudal landlords, see Freudenberger, H., ‘The woollen-goods industry of the Habsburg monarchy in the eighteenth century,’ Journal of economic history 20 (1960), 383–406, here 385–8, 400CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Freudenberger, H., ‘Industrialization in Bohemia and Moravia in the eighteenth century,’ Journal of Central European affairs 19 (1960), 347–56, here 351Google Scholar; Freudenberger, , ‘Proto-factories’, 184Google Scholar; Klíma, , ‘English merchant capital’, 34–5, 40Google Scholar; Klíma, , ‘Industrial development’, 89Google Scholar; A, Klíma, ‘The role of rural domestic industry in Bohemia in the eighteenth century’, Economic history review 2nd sen, 27 (1974), 48–56, here 52Google Scholar.

⁵¹ On Heidenheim, see Flik,Textilindustrie. On Urach, see Medick, ‘Freihandel für die Zunft’. On Mölmpelgard, see Dormois, J.-P., ‘L'expérience protoindustrielle dans la prindpauté de Montbëliard 1740–1820: Aux origines de la révolution industrielle’, (Mémoire de D. E. A., University of Paris-Sorbonne, 1984), here esp. 16–18, 24–5, 39Google Scholar; further detail on these guilds is provided in Faivre, C., ‘Les chonffes de la principauté de Montbéliard’ (Thèse de droit, University of Paris, 1949)Google Scholar; for an exploration of the demographic and social-structural ramifications of proto-industry in Mömpelgard, see Dormois, J. P., ‘Entwicklungsmuster der Protoindustrialisierung im Mömpelgarder Lande wahrend des 18. Jahrhunderts’, Zeitschrift für württembergische Landesgeschichte 53 (1994), 179–204Google Scholar. On the East Swabian micro-states, see Kiessling, R., ‘Entwicklungstendenzen im ostschwäbischen Textilrevier während der Frühen Neuzeit’, in Gewerbe und Handel vor der Industrialisierung, Regionale und überregionale Verftechtungen im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert eds. Jahn, J. & Hartung, W. (Sigmaringendorf, 1991), 27–48, here 44–5Google Scholar. On Berg see Thun, A., Die Industrie am Niederrhein und ihre Arbeiter (2 parts, Leipzig, 1897), here Part 2Google Scholar, Die Industrie des Bergischen Landes; also Mager, , ‘Proto-industrialization and proto-industry’, 188Google Scholar. On the Erzgebirge-Vogtland, see Schöne, B., ‘Kultur und Lebensweise Lausitzer und erzgebirgischer Textilproduzenten sowie von Keramikproduzenten im Manufakturkapitalismus und in der Periode der Industriellen Revolution’, in Die Konstituierung der deutschen Arbeiterklasse von den dreißiger bis zu den siebziger Jahren des 19. Jahrhunderts ed. Zwahr, H. (Berlin, 1981), 446–67Google Scholar; Schöne, B., ‘Posamentierer—Strumpfwirker—Spitzenklöpplerinnen. Zu Kultur und Lebensweise von Textilproduzenten im Erzgebirge und im Vogtland während der Periode des Übergangs vom Feudalismus zum Kapitalismus (1750–1850)’, in Volksleben zwischen Zunft und Fabrik. Studien zu Kultur und Lebensweise werktätiger Klassen und Schichten während des Übergangs vom Feudalismus zum Kapitalismus ed. Weibhold, R. (Berlin/DDR, 1982), 107–164Google Scholar; Mager, , ‘Proto-industrialization and proto-industry’, 188Google Scholar. On Remscheid, see Kriedte, , Medick, and Schlumbohm, , Industrialization, 115Google Scholar. On the Wuppertal, see Kisch, , ‘From monopoly to laissez-faire’, 351–2, 400, 403–4, 406Google Scholar; the guild was granted a state charter in 1738, in an attempt by local bureaucrats to introduce a new player into their corporate rivalry against the merchant company for control of local politics. On Austria, for linen-weaving see Hoffmann, A., Wirtschqftsgeschichte des Landes Oberösterreich, (Salzburg, 1952) vol. I, 103ffGoogle Scholar; Halmdienst, C., Die Entwidclung der Leinenindustrie in Oberösterreich (unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Mühhiertels) (Linz, 1993), 30–40Google Scholar; for cotton-production 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’ (Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1973), 1238Google Scholar; Komlosy, A., An den Rand gedrängt. Wirtschqfts- und Sozialgeschichte des oberen Waldviertels (Vienna, 1988)Google Scholar; Komlosy, A., ‘Stube und Websaal. Waldviertler Textilindustrie im Spannungsfeld zwischen Verlagswesen Heim- und Fabriksarbeit’, in Spinnen—Spulen—Weben ed. Komlosy, A. (Krems/Horn, 1991), 119–138Google Scholar; H. Matis, ‘Protoindustrialisierung und “Industrielle Revolution” am Beispiel der Baumwollindustrie Niederösterreichs’, in ibid., 15–48; for scythe-making, see Fischer, F., Die blauen Sensen: Sozial- und Wirtschqftsgeschichte der Sensenschmiedezunft zu Kirchdorf-Micheldorf bis zur Mitte des 18. Jahrhunderts (Graz, 1966), esp. xv–xvi, 19ff, 86–9, 93, 101–3Google Scholar; on iron-processing, see Hassinger, H., ‘Die althabsburgischen Länder und Salzburg 1350–1650,’ in Handbuch der europäischen Wirtschqfts- und Sozialgeschichte, (Stuttgart, 1986) vol. 3, 927–967, here 950Google Scholar. On northern and northeastern Bohemia, see Klíma, , ‘English merchant capital’, 37, 39–40Google Scholar. On Castile, see Enciso, A.-G., ‘Economic structure of Cameras’, dispersed industry: A case study in eighteenth century Castilian textile industry’, in VIIIème Congres eds. Deyon, & Mendels, , 1–3Google Scholar; Thomson, J. K.J., ‘Proto-industrialization in Spain’, in Proto-industrialization in Europe eds. Ogilvie, and Cerman, , 85–101Google Scholar. On the valleys of Brescia, see Belfanti, , ‘Rural manufactures and rural proto-industries’, 262Google Scholar. On Prato, see ibid., 266.

⁵² See the quantitative results presented in Ogilvie, Württemberg, chapter 7.

⁵³ The setting and enforcement of output quotas, and evidence of compliance with them, is discussed in detail in Ogilvie, Württemberg, chapter 8.

⁵⁴ The position of widows (and other women) in the Black Forest worsted industry is investigated in detail in Ogilvie, ‘Women's work’; for an overview of the issues, see Ogilvie, ‘Women and proto-industrialisation’.

⁵⁵ See the detailed demographic results presented in Ogilvie, Württemberg, chapter 9; for a preliminary overview of some of these, see Ogilvie, ‘Coming of age’; Ogilvie, ‘Women and proto-industrialisation’.

⁵⁶ Piece-rate ceilings for the spinners were set in all the worsted weavers' ordinances and much ancillary legislation from 1589 onward: ‘Engelsatt-Weberordnung, vfgericht in Ao 1589’, reprinted in Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungshompagnie, 431–4, here 433Google Scholar; ‘Engel-sattweberordunung in A. 1608 [actually 1611] vfgerichtet’, reprinted in Troeltsch, Zeughandlungskompagnie, 435–53, here 446; ‘Engelsattweberordunung in A. 1608 [actually 1611] vfgerichtet’, emendations of 1654, reprinted in Troeltsch, Zeughandlwtgskompagnie, 435–53, here 446 footnote 2; ‘Zeugmacher-Ordnung von 24 März 1686’, in Vollständige, historisch und kritisch bearbeitete Sammlung der württembergische Gesetze 19 vols. (Stuttgart, 1828–1851) ed. Reyscher, A. L. [hereafter Sammlung, ed. Reyscher, ], vol. 13, 615–40, here 626Google Scholar; ‘Rescript in Betreff des Zeugmachergewerbs’ (8 Sep 1736), in ibid., vol. 14, 178ff.

⁵⁷ Economists studying modern less developed societies draw a distinction between ‘formal’ (or ‘regulated’) markets, in which transactions are open, legal and enforceable by the state or other social institutions; and ‘informal’ (or ‘black’) markets, in which transactions do take place, but are secret, illegal and unenforceable because they are not endorsed (or are explicitly prohbited) by the legitimate institutions of the society. As many studies of less developed economies show, the development potential of the ‘informal sector’ derives from its ability to evade costly formal-sector regulations. However, the ‘informal sector’ is ultimately constricted by high transactions costs, high information costs, high risks, low worker protection, and high costs of capital (resulting in sub-optimal levels of investment), all of which result from its lack of legitimacy and its inability to enforce contracts. On this, see, for instance, Todaro, M. P., Economic development in the Third World (Harlow, 1989), 270–1Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ The worsted-weavers' guild was joint-owner (with the woollen-weavers' guild) of a fulling-mill in the town of Wildberg in the early seventeenth century; on this, see WHSA A573 Bü 219–948 1612–44 (account-books of the woollen-weavers' guild of the district of Wildberg). That capital-market imperfections governed the fulling sector is questionable, given that both previously and subsequently this mill was owned by professional fullers, and that in 1736 the Wildberg fulling mill was being operated by a woman (on this, see WHSA A573 Bü 6967 Seelentabelle 1736 (‘soul table’ for the town and villages of the district of Wildberg); and the discussion in Ogilvie, , ‘Women's work and economic development’, 37)Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ It was widely recognized, even by contemporaries, that Württemberg worsteds were low in quality and were failing to adapt to international improvements in technology and variety; see Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungskompagnie, 163–5Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungskompagnie, 12–13Google Scholar, 110.

⁶¹ See the discussion in Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungkompagnie, 35–8Google Scholar.

⁶² Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungkompagnie, 101, 125–31Google Scholar; the effects of the rigid negotiations of the ‘Moderation’ (the regime of prices and quotas for raw wool and cloths periodically re-negotiated between company and guilds, under the supervision of the district-level ducal bureaucrats, and subsequently enforced by law) are discussed in detail in Ogilvie, Württemberg, chapter 8.

⁶³ Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungkompagnie, 8, 72, 110Google Scholar; the restriction was introduced in Rezesse of 1665 and 1674, and incorporated into the ordinance for the industry in 1686: ‘Recess zwischen denen Färbern vnd Knappen zu Callw de dato 17. Augusti 1665’, reprinted in Troeltsch, Zeughandlungskompagnie, 465–71; ‘Recess Zwischen der Färbern Compagnie und Knappshaft d. Stuttgart d. 23.ten Apr. A. 1674’, reprinted in Troeltsch, Zeughandlungskompagnie, 471–8; ‘Zeugmacher-Ordnung’ (24 Mar 1686), in Sammlung, ed. Reyscher, , vol. 13, 615ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁴ For a detailed discussion of the spinning regulations, the failure to improve piece-rates, and the effects of this on the quality of spun yarn and of finished worsteds, see Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungkompagnie, 125–30, 171Google Scholar; Ogilvie, , ‘Women's work’, 62–4Google Scholar; Ogilvie, Württemberg, chapter 9.

⁶⁵ For a detailed discussion of this pattern of behaviour on the part of company and guilds, see Troeltsch, , Zeughandhtngskompagnie, 119, 161–9Google Scholar; Ogilvie, Württemberg, chapter 9. For an example of guild opposition to the introduction of new cloth varieties, see WHSA A573 Bü 851, account-book of the worsted weavers' guild of the district of Wildberg, Jan. 1698–Jan. 1699, fol 25V, where the guild undertakes a lobbying campaign against ‘etlicher Compagnie Verwannten zu Callw, alß welche Nette Sortten von Schlickh Cadiß anfangen Zumachen, und zuweben geben, dessen Sie aber nicht befuegt gewesen’ (‘several Company members in Calw, who have begun to make, and put-out for weaving, new sorts of Schlick Cadis, which however they are not entitled to do’); Cadis was a narrow variety of worsted.

⁶⁶ For an example from 1709, see WHSA A573 Bü 862, account-book of the worsted weavers' guild of the district of Wildberg for the year Apr. 1709–Apr. 1710, fol 26r–26v; for an example from the 1770s, see Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungskompagnie, 130–1Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ For examples of such corporate struggles in proto-industries throughout Europe: on Catalonia, see Thomson, ‘Proto-industrialization in Spain’; on Igualada in Catalonia in particular, see Torras, , ‘The old and the new’, 105–6, 108, 113 notes 56–57Google Scholar; Torras, , ‘From masters to faineants’, 9Google Scholar; on Sedan in northern France, see Gayot, , ‘Tondeurs’, 108Google Scholar; on the Nimes region in France, see Lewis, , Modern capitalism, 63–4Google Scholar; on the Lodeve region in Languedoc, see Johnson, , ‘De-industrialization’, 5ffGoogle Scholar; Thomson, , Clemumt-de-Lodeve, 12Google Scholar; on Vienna in Austria, see Cerman, , ‘Proto-industrialization in Vienna’, 290–1Google Scholar; on Kirchdorf-Micheldorf in Austria, see Fischer, , Blauen Sensen, 86–9, 93, 101–3Google Scholar; on the Wupper Valley in the Rhineland, see Kisch, , ‘From Monopoly to laissez-faire’, 309, 351, 400, 403–4, 406Google Scholar; on the Vogtland in Saxony, see Wolff, , ‘Guildmaster’, 39–41Google Scholar.

⁶⁸ On Prato, see Belfanti, , ‘Rural manufactures’, 266Google Scholar; on Schwechat, see Cerman, , ‘Proto-industrialization in Vienna’, 289Google Scholar; on Catalonia, see Thomson, ‘Proto-industrialization in Spain’. Additional examples abound. Thomson, ‘Proto-industrialization in Spain’, ascribes the early decline of many Castilian proto-industries to guilds which ‘created structures opposed to innovation in cloth types and toutting costs’. Belfanti, , ‘Rural manufactures’, 267Google Scholar, argues that the rural privileges the Florence guild retained after 1739 helped to retard the growth of proto-industry in Tuscany. Poni, , ‘Proto-industrial city’, 5, 7–9, 16–8, shows how the inflexible corporate structure in which the Bologna silk industry became fixed prevented its adapting to changing market conditions, and led to a loss of international competitivenessGoogle Scholar. Poni, , ‘Proto-industrialization, rural or urban’, 312–3Google Scholar, and Kriedte, , ‘Stadt’, 48Google Scholar, both emphasize how the Lyon silk-merchants' guild ‘strongly restricted the industry's room for manoeuvre’. Deyon, , ‘Roubaix’, 64Google Scholar, argues that the corporate regulations governing relations between the privile urban merchants and dieir proto-industrial workforce in the Roubaix region near Lille constituted a serious obstacle to nineteenth-century industrialization. Kriedte, , medick, and Schlumbohm, , Industrialization, 15Google Scholar, mention that the scythe-smidis' guild in Remscheid in the Rhineland successfully resisted die introduction of water-driven scythe-hammers. Kisch, , ‘From monopoly to laissez-faire’, 400–1Google Scholar, recounts how the Wupper Valley linen weavers' guild, in unusual alliance with die merchant company, successfully opposed the introduction of English spinning machines in die 1780s; see also 308–9, 325, 352, and 392, where he describes die ‘exclusive rights’, entry restrictions, output and price regulation, and monopsony power exercised by die merchant company. Gutkas, ‘Österreichs Stadte’, recounts how die Iinzer Wollfabrik in Austria enjoyed a monopoly over production and markets, and legislation giving it first claim on raw materials. Wolff, , ‘Guildmaster’, 39Google Scholar, describes how die merchant guilds of the Vogtland in Saxony were able to limit admission, levy license fees, and restrict internal competition. According to die evidence presented in Schlumbohm, , ‘Besitzklassen’, 330–1Google Scholar, and Mager, , ‘Rolle’, 67Google Scholar, it seems unlikely that die merchants would have taken the trouble to enforce die ‘Legge-Zwang’ (compulsory delivery to the urban staple) from die 1770s onnd to resist its abolition in die early nineteendi century, had it not enabled them to secure important economic advantages.

⁶⁹ According to Tipton, , Regional variations, 26–7, 30, 52–3, 59, 71, 72–6Google Scholar, they continued to constrain growth in many parts of nineteenth-century Germany during industrialization.

⁷⁰ Kriedte, , Medick, and Schlumbohm, , Industrialization, 128–9Google Scholar.

⁷¹ The importance of fiscal and regulatory assistance from corporate groups to the Württemberg state is stressed by Flik, , Textilindustrie, 91Google Scholar, and illustrated on the basis of the merchant company with privileges over the linen proto-industry of the district of Heidenheim in the eighteenth century on 94. The intimate relationship between guilds and the state in Württemberg, which continued into die late eighteendi century, emerges from Hoffmann, L., Das Württembergische Zwifiwesm und die Politik der herzoglichen Regierung gegeniiber den Zuninjien im 18. Jahrhundert (Tubingen, 1905)Google Scholar [hereafter Hoffman, unfiwesen], and Raiser, G., Die Zünlnfie in Württemberg: Entstehung und Definition, interne Organisation und derm Entwkkhmg, dargestellt anhand der Wunftartikel und der übrigen Normativbestimmungen seit dem Jahre 1489 (Tübingen, 1978)Google Scholar. An overview over the enormous number of state concessions to ‘manufactories’ and associated merchant companies, which were granted in almost every sector of the Württemberg economy from the mid-eighteenth to the early nineteenth century, is provided in Gysin, J., ‘Fabriken und Manufakturen’ in Württemberg während des ersten Drittels des 19. Jahrhunderts (St. Katharinen, 1989), esp. 30, 4, 76–83, 125–6, 130, 139– 140, 164–5, 170–1, 223, 225, 227Google Scholar. The ubiquity of state privileges in the Württemberg economy was remarked upon in 1793 by the Göttingen professor Christoph Meiners in the following terms: in Württemberg ‘external trade … is constantly made more difficult by the form which it has taken for a long time. Trade and manufactures are for die most part in the hands of closed and for the most part privileged associations‘ ( Meiners, C., ‘Bemerkungen auf einer Herbstreise nach Schwaben. Geschrieben im November 1793’, in Kleinere Länder- und Reisebeschreibungen ed. Meiners, C., (Berlin, 1794) vol. 2, 235–380, here 292Google Scholar; cited in Medick, , ‘Privilegiertes Handelskpaital’, 271)Google Scholar.

⁷² On the Calwer Zeughandlungskompagnie, see Troeltsch, , Zeughandlungskompagnie, 326–30Google Scholar; on the Uracher Leinwandhandlungskompagnie, see Ibid., 326, and Medick, , ‘Privilegiertes Handelskapital’, 271, 275Google Scholar; on the Heidenheimer Leinwandhandlungskompagnie, see Flik, , Die Textilindustrie in Catw und in Heidenheim, 100–7, esp. 106Google Scholar.

⁷³ For a detailed analysis of the lobbying campaigns of the worsted weavers' guild of the district of Wildberg against the Calw merchant company, and their outcomes, see Ogilvie, Württemberg, chapter 12. The same conclusion emerges from detailed study of the other main proto-industry in Württemberg, the linen industry of Urach, which was also monopolized by guilds and a merchant company with very similar privileges to those of the Black Forest worsted industry: according to Medick, , ‘Privilegiertes Handelskapital’, 276Google Scholar, in the ‘monopoly privileges of the Uracher Leinwandhandlungskompagnie, which were repeatedly renewed in the course of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, almost always a middle way was followed’.

⁷⁴ As is argued above in Section IV; see also Vann, , Making of a state, 41, 52, 180–4, 187–8Google Scholar; Grube, W., Vogteien, Amter, Landkreise in der Geschichte Südwestdeutschlands 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1960), 19–20Google Scholar; Wintterlin, F., Geschichte der Behordenorganisation in Württemberg (Stuttgart, 1902), vol. I, 3–10Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ On the Württemberg Ehrbarkeit, see Decker-Hauff, H., ‘Die Entstehung der alt württembergischen Ehrbarkeit, 1250–1534’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Erlangen, 1946)Google Scholar; Vann, , Making of a state, 38–9, 41–6, 53, 56, 98–100, 103–7, 12'–30, 178–82, 187–8, 245, 256, 278, 280, 284–5, 288–91Google Scholar; Marcus, K., ’A question of privilege: Elites and central government in Württemberg, 1495–1593’ (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1991)Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ For examples of state concessions, and the often successful local resistance they evoked, see , W. Söll, ‘Die staatliche Wirtschaftspolitik in Württemberg im 17’ und 18. Jahrhundert’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Tubingen, 1934), 97–100Google Scholar; Liebel-Weckowicz, H., ‘The politics of poverty and reform: Modernization and reform in eighteenth-century Württemberg’, The Consortium on Revolutionary Europe Proceedings (Athens, Ga., 1981)Google Scholar; Stern, S., Jud Süss: ein Beitrag zur deutschen und zur jüdischen Geschkhte (Berlin, 1929)Google Scholar; Linckh, O., ‘Das Tabakmonopolie in Württemberg’, Württembergische Jahrbuch (1893)Google Scholar; Schott, A., ‘Merkantilpolitisches aus Württembergs herzogszeit’, Württembergische Jahrbuch (1900)Google Scholar; Boelcke, W., ‘Ein Herzoglich-Württembergischer Regiebetrieb des ausgehenden 18. Jahrhunderts’;, Jahrbücher für.Nationalökonomie und Statstik 175 (1963)Google Scholar; Krauter, K.-G., ‘Die Manufakturen im Herzogtum Württemberg und ihre Förderung durch die Württembergische Regierung in der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts’ (Ph.D. diss., University of Tübingen, 1951)Google Scholar; Weidner, K., Die Anfänge einer staatlichen Wirtschaftspolitik in Württemberg (Stuttart, 1931), 112–21Google Scholar; Wiedenmann, P., ‘Zur Geschichte der gewerblichen Bierbrauerei in Altwürttemberg’,Württembergische Jahrbuch (1934/1935), 47–58Google Scholar; Vann, , Making of a state, 108–9Google Scholar; Grube, , Stuttgarter Landtag, 323–4Google Scholar. See also the long and ultimately successful resistance of the Württemberg guilds to attempts to increase state control, in Hoffmann, ,Zunftivesen, 38–43Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Vann, , Making of a state, 295Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ Kisch, , ‘The textile industries in Silesia and the Rhineland’, 185Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Palairet, , ‘Woollen textile manufacturing’, 2–3Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Lewis, , Modern capitalism, 1Google Scholar, 21, 54, 79–80, 89–91, 97.

⁸¹ Hendrickx, , ‘From weavers to workers’, 330–1Google Scholar.

⁸² Mager, W., ‘Protoindustrialisierung und agrarisch-heimgewerbliche Verflechtung in Ravensberg während der Frühen Neuzeit. Studien zu einer Gesellschaftsformation im Übergang’, Geschichte und Gesellschaft 8 (1982), 435–74, here 443–4, 466–7Google Scholar; Mager, W., ‘Gesellschaftsformation im Übergang: Agrarisch-heimgewerbliche Verflechtung und ökonomisch-Soziale Dynamik in Ravensberg während der Frühen Neuzeit und im Vormärz (16. Jahrhundert bis Mitte 19. Jahrhundert)’, in VIIIème Congrès eds. Devon, & Mendels, , here 6, 15–16, 20–1, 26Google Scholar; Schlumbohm, J., ‘From peasant society to class society: Some aspects of family and class in a northwest German proto-industrial parish, 17th–19th centuries’, Journal of family history 17:2 (1992), 183–99, here 187, 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schlumbohm, , ‘Besitzklassen’, 334Google Scholar.

⁸³ Kisch, , ‘From monopoly to laissez-faire’, 307–8Google Scholar, 316, 323, 345, 355, 372, 386.

⁸⁴ Johnson, , ‘De-industrialization’, 5ffGoogle Scholar; Thomson, , Clermont-de-Lodève, 3–13Google Scholar, 37, 91, 146–7, 233–5, 247–8, 322–31, 336–50, 353–60, 364–84, 389. 423, 427–30, 448, 459

⁸⁵ State support for corporate groups in proto-industries was ubiquitous; for a selection of particularly explicit examples, see, for instance, in Switzerland: Pfister, , ‘Proto industrialization in Switzerland’, 150–2Google Scholar; Braun, , ‘Early industrialization’, 296Google Scholar; in France: Gayot, , ‘Tondeurs’, 116Google Scholar; Johnson, , ‘De-industrialization’, 7Google Scholar; in Austria: Freudenberger, , ‘Bohemia and Moravia’, 351Google Scholar; Freudenberger, , ‘Industrial momentum’, 32–3Google Scholar; Freudenberger, , ‘Woolen-goods industry’, 384, 386–7Google Scholar; Fischer, , Blauen Sensen xv–xvi, 101–3Google Scholar; Cerman, ‘Proto-industrial development in Austria; in the Wupper Valley, see Kisch, , ‘From monopoly to laissez-faire’, 398, 406Google Scholar; in the Vogtland in Saxony, see Wolff, , ‘Guildmaster’, 38–9Google Scholar; in Ravensberg and Osnabrück in Westphalia, see Schlumbohm, , ‘Besitzklassen’, 330–1Google Scholar; Mager, , ‘Rolle’, 67Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Cerman, ‘Proto-industrial development in Austria’.

⁸⁷ On Spain: Thomson, , ‘Catalan calico- printing’, 74Google Scholar; Torras, , ‘The old and the new’, 99Google Scholar; Torras, , ‘From masters to fabrkants’, 7–9Google Scholar. On France: Johnson, , ‘De-industrialization’, 5ffGoogle Scholar; Gayot, , ‘Tondeurs’, 122Google Scholar. On Sweden: Isacson, & Magnusson, , Proto-industriatizatim in Scandinavia, 93Google Scholar; Magnusson, , ‘Proto-industrialization in Sweden’, 210, 220–3Google Scholar. On Italy: Poni, , ‘Proto-industrial city’, 16–17Google Scholar. On Bohemia and Moravia, where the feudal lords, as local authorities, replaced guild privileges with concessions from themselves: Klíma, , ‘English merchant capital’, 34–5Google Scholar; Klíma, , ‘Industrial development’, 86Google Scholar; Klíma, , ‘Role of rural domestic industry’, 52Google Scholar; Myska, ‘Proto-industrialization in Bohemia’. On the conflict between guild privileges and state attempts at abolishing them in Germany, which continued in most territories into the nineteenth century, see Tipton, , Regional variations, 26–7, 30, 52–3, 59, 71, 72–6Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ As is shown, for example, in Tipton, , Regional variations, 30, 59, 69, 71Google Scholar, which shows how ubiquitous a characteristic a feature of German industrialization in the nineteenth century were state monopolies and privileges issued to favoured interest groups.

⁸⁹ As is remarked by de Vries, , Economy, 25–6Google Scholar.