Review Of 'the Social Origins Of The Peasants 'war Of 1525 In Upper Swabia'

Article: G.P. Sreenivasan,'The social origins of the Peasants 'War of 1525 in Upper Swabia', Past & Present, (2001): 30 - 65

This article focusses on a particular element of the Peasants' War. The Gemeinden (German village community) is at the heart of discussion and analysis throughout this article. G.P. Sreenivasan narrates through this article using the Twelve Articles as a theme. He uses each article to bring to light the tensions faced by the peasantry. There is attention paid primarily to the notions of Tax and Inheritance. It is through these notions that he portrays the Peasants' War as only affecting the rural elite.

Sreenivasan is a sympathiser of the struggles of Peasants throughout history. This is seen in his other publications and scholarly articles. He focusses on the revolts which stem from the dilapidation of material life in the Peasantry. There are a lot of references to the formation of a State controlled society in his works. This covers social organisation, economic strategy, and even religion.

In this article Sreenivasan gives the idea that Blickle's (1993) argument has become the accepted idea on the origins of the Peasant's War of 1525 (pp. 30-31). Blickle puts the Gemeinden at the heart of the Peasants' War. The change from feudalism to capitalism, a Marxist notion, is what frames the event. This framing is categorised by two social organisations. The "hierarchical, exclusive and 'vertically' oriented feudalism" (pg. 31) is contrasted with an "egalitarian, inclusive and 'horizontally' oriented communalism" (pg. 31). Blickle explains that the "German Peasantry had suffered a serious deterioration of living standards in the decades before 1525" (pg. 31). He contextualises this in regards to the "desire to form a common front against feudal overlords" (pg. 31).

Sreenivasan's approach to the historiography, although explanatory, has a vague sense of direction. His use of Sabean (1972) and Stalnaker (1975) provides further scepticism to who the participants of the Peasants' War of 1525 were. It only becomes clear after much theoretical descri ption when he references Stalnaker with Franz (1933). He gives a clear indication that the rural elite were the only ones involved in the event (pg. 33). Tom Scott (2002) has responded to this article with his own research, and although advocating Blickle's views he does stress how there were profound changes already underway in society before the Swabian league placing pressure on the Gemeinden .

One problem is that Sreenivasan overlooks key figures in the Lutheran movement. Another stems from the abdication of the response by Catholics, and that of the Princes. Luther himself had strong arguments for the causes of the Peasants' War. C.W.C Oman refers to passages addressed to the nobility by Luther in his publications, where he lays the blame with them on the grounds they were defying the word of God . His Admonition to Peace was a clear message that the 'Twelve Articles', petitioned by the rural elite mobs of Upper Swabia should be adhered too. He demonised those who sort to rob and murder other peasants at this time . It is confusing why Sreenivasan only draws from Blickle (1993). Looking at Blickle (1985) we can see much more of the underlying tensions between the Protestant Revolution and the Catholic Church. This would give the reader more of an understanding of the context to the revolt. It would also lead them to start consulting their own research to determine possible causes.

Sreenivasan appears hypocritical when using the primary sources of the Benedictine monastery as justification for his argument. He supports the view that the rural elite were the main participants of the revolt (as stated in his admiration of Sabean and Stalnaker). However, after clarifying his acceptance of these views, he begins to make concessions towards their being the involvement of the rural poor (pg. 34).

The areas of primary concern for Sreenivasan are those of Grain Tax, Death Tax, and the distribution of wealth. The core of this article by Sreenivasan is based upon evidence "from the lordship of the Upper Swabian Benedictine monastery of Ottobeuren" (pg. 33). The fact that his evidence is from a single source proves there is bias in the article. Sreenivasan is not profound enough in his argument.

The Death Tax is what is paid upon a person's death. This caused great controversy among the rural elite. The reason for this was that it meant in many situations there would be no inheritance. This is seen in the decline of transfers pictured in Table 2 (pg. 50). The Grain Tax is a tax on produce grown on monastery land (figure 2, pg. 43). It is with this analysis that Sreenivasan fails to examine those who lived on lands belonging to the state and how the poverty levels in rural communities differed. These taxations are deemed a root cause of the Peasants' War by Sreenivasan (pg. 43).

The neutrality of the argument ultimately leads to confusion. Straddling both sides of the argument he puts himself in the position where his contributions to the historiography become descri ptive aids. Not having a clear argument makes Sreenivasan move towards a subconscious attempt to counteract the bias. He simply agrees with other historians work without concluding his own confounded view. His choice of language is very informal. His use of "or so" (pg. 33) infers a lack of background reading.

Although using limited primary material Sreenivasan's information given in the tables and figures is very informative. However, this lacks power in providing a clear argument. The reason this fails to engage the causes for the Peasants' War is that confusion occurs within the analysis. Sreenivasan does not state that his analysis portrays just a single area of the Gemeinden.

Sreenivasan could have consolidated his argument further. The effect of religion on the political movements of the rural poor would give a good contrast to the movements of the rural elite. The rural elite could have been motivated by land gains. This would mean they raise taxes on the common land repatriated to them becoming wealthier. When contextualising the issue of the social origins of the Peasants' War he fails to recognise the effects this had on larger towns and cities or vice versa. The elements of successful and profitable trade between the members of the Gemeinden which were found in these larger towns and cities would have been damaged by such rural upheavals.

A main criticism of this article is the failure to contextualise systematically and effectively this event. It is astonishing how by using monastery records that there is no evidence of religious confrontations in this article. Instead it is a matter of how rural communities are policed by the state. Finally, it is important to stress how Sreenivasan is very judgemental of the rural poor. He bases his arguments on material possession which in many cases does not signify poverty, providing the necessities of life (the means of which to live) are met.

Cited Works

Blickle, P., The Revolution of 1525: The German Peasants War from a New Perspective, Translated by Brady, Thomas, and Midelfort, H.C., (New York: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985)

Oman, C.W.C., 'The German Peasant War', English Historical Review, (1890), Vol. 5, No. 17, pg. 88

Scott, T., 'The German Peasants' War and the "Crisis of Feudalism." Reflections on a neglected theme', Journal of Early Modern History, (2002), Vol. 6, No. 3, pg. 265