Hurwich, Marriage Strategy Among the German Nobility, 1400-1699

7/28/2019 Hurwich, Marriage Strategy Among the German Nobility, 1400-1699

1/28

Marriage Strategy among the German Nobility, 1400-1699

Judith J. Hurwich

Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 29, No. 2. (Autumn, 1998), pp. 169-195.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-1953%28199823%2929%3A2%3C169%3AMSATGN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U

Journal of Interdisciplinary History is currently published by The MIT Press.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/mitpress.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academicjournals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgWed Feb 6 06:49:14 2008
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-1953%28199823%2929%3A2%3C169%3AMSATGN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Uhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/mitpress.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/mitpress.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-1953%28199823%2929%3A2%3C169%3AMSATGN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U


2/28

Jorrcni~lu j Oztrvd~inpiznnr Hzstovy, X X I X : ~(Autullin, 1998), I 69-1 95.1Judith j. HurwichMarriage Strategy among the German Nobility,140-1699 Studies of family strategy anlong the early modernWestern European elites generally assert that upward social rno-bility took place primarily through the marriage of daughters of"new men" to husbands of higher rank, and that woi~len ttractedmuch stronger social disapproval for ~narrying eneath their rankthan men did. According to Dewald, "A long succession ofalliances joined aristocratic young men with wealthy women fromlower ranks, the daughters of officials, bankers, and merchants;marriage of impoverished but noble women with wealthier menhappened much less often but was certainly not unheard of."Stone, too, states that in the view of the English gentry, "it waspermissible to marly your son to the heiress of a tradesman, butnot to marly your daughter to a tradesman or even to his son."'

In Germany, however, studies analyzing the "connubium,"or lnarriage connections, of individual noble fanlilies or regonalgroups of nobles from the Middle Ages through the early modernperiod have not found this pattern of marlying daughters up andsons down. Rather, they suggest that within the Gerinan nobility,sons tended to many spouses of higher status than their own, anddaughters to marry spouses of lower status. Two historians of themedieval German noble family recently argued that the uniquecharacteristics of the German nobility are responsible for thedevelopment of this marriage strategy. Freed traces its origins tothe legal disabilities attached to "unequal" marriages betweenlnembers of the freeborn high nobility (counts and barons) andthose of the unfree lower nobility. Spiess points out that thestrategy would have been encouraged by the dowiy system of theJudi th J. Hurhvich is a tnenlber of the faculty, 1)epartment of History, Hackley School,Tar ry town, N.Y. She is the autho r of "Lineage and Kin in the Sixte enth -C entt ~ryAristocracy:Som e Conlparative Evidence on England and Gernlany," in A. L. Beier, David Cannadine,and Jatnes M . Rosenh eim (eds.), T h e First !Modern Soriefli: Essays in E iglisll History in Hon ourof Litl8reilce Stone (Ca mb ridg e, 1g8g), 33-64; "Inheritance Practices in Early M od er n Ger-many," Journal of Interdisciyli~invyH i s f o q ~ ,XX III (1gg3), 699-718.O 1998 by the Massachusetts Insti tute of Te c h r ~ o l o ~ y ofnd the editors of T h e Jolortrnal Interdiscil,liila,y Histo ry.

Jonathan L)e~vald,Tire Enropeail ~ Vobil ity, ~OO -18 00 Cambridge, 1996), 169; LawrenceStone and Jeanne C. Fawtier Stone, A n Olpeil Elite? Eiglnrzd 1540-1880 (Oxford, 1g84), 26.I


3/28

medieval Gernlan nobility. Since dowries were fixed by rank, theson's wife would bring in a larger dowry than the falllily wouldhave to pay out to the daughter's h ~ s b a n d . ~This article analyzes the marriage strategy of German noblesduring the late Middle Ages and early modern period to determinewhether sons did in fact marry up and daughters down and, if so,to determine whether such a strategy was unique to Germany. Itcompares evidence from regional studies on two marriage char-acteristics among the German nobility-the proportions of sonsand of daughters marrying, and the extent of intermarriage be-tween different social groups-with findings concerning a groupof southwestern German counts and barons associated with theZitnmerische Chvonik. The study also exanlines whether the Ref-ormation brought about significant changes in the marriage strate-gies of German nobles, and it compares the strateges of Catholicand Protestant nobles in southwestern Germany to those of otherCatholic and Protestant elites in early modern Europe.

The Ziinine~ischeChvonik, or Clz~onicleof the Counts of Zirn-inevn, was written in the 1560s by the Swabian Count FrobenChristoph von Zimmern ( I 5 19-1 566/67). I have compiled adatabase of demographic information about the Zimmern and tenother fanlilies with whom they intermarried during the fifteenthand sixteenth centuries and for whom published genealogies areavailable-384 men and 369 women who were born, married, ordied between 1400 and 1699 and who survived to the age offifteen.'

2 John Freed, ~ V o b l e ottdsrriett: ~ \finist erial ~\/lavriages it1 tire iirrhdiorese uJ S a l z b n g , 1100-1343(Ithaca, 1996); Karl-Heinz Spiess, Fawiilie urzd Venuandtschaji im deritschett Hociradel des Spiitrriit-ielalters: 13. bis Anfaig des 16JaI~rhrttldevts (Stuttgart, 1993).3 References to the Zimmevisrhe Cllmrzik are to the most recent edition: HansnlartinDecker-Hauff (ed.), Di e Cirroitik der Gr&t ~io itZimmerrz (Sigmaringen, 1964-197z), 3 v.(hereafter cited as ZLJ. T h e best guide t o the chronicle is Beat Jenny, G m f Froberz Chri stol ~hvon Zirrirriern-Gesrhirhf.~srI~reiber-E~zi?Itler-Lauiiesirer (Lindan , 1 9 ~ 9 ) , h ich con ta ins anextensive bibliography. The fanlilles Included are the Grafen von Eberstein, Schenken (laterGrafen) von Erbach, Grafen (later Fursten) van Furstenberg, Herren van Geroldseck, Herrenvon Gundelfingen, Grafen von Kirchberg, Grafen van Iconigsegg, Schenken (later Grafen)von Limpurg, Grafen (later Fiirsten) van Oettingen, Herren (later Grafen) von Zitimlern andGrafen (later Fursten) van [Hohenlzollern. Genealogcal data are taken from Wilhelm KarlIsenburg, Envopnische Stam mtf lje ln: Stamrritfljelrz a l r Ce srhirhte iiev Europaisrherz Sfa nte n (Marburg,1975; 2nd rev.ed.) , 5 v. For discussion of the inheritance and career strategies followed bythese fanlilies, see Hur\vich, "Inheritance liractices in Early Modern Gemlany," Joilnzal ~jInterdisczj~liitai1,Histoq? XX III (1993), 699-71 8 .
http:///reader/full/rev.ed.)http:///reader/full/rev.ed.)


4/28

It is impossible to tell to what extent these eleven familiesare representative of the southwestern German nobility as a whole.However, the Zimmern were nearly average in wealth (judgingby the dowries that they gave and received) for counts and baronsin this region, and the families into which they married repre-sented the entire range of the nonprincely high nobility. Althoughmost of their marriages involved other Swabian families, a mar-riage alliance with the Oettingen in 1474 gave the Ziinrnernconnections to Franconian fanlilies as well.

Some of the families with whom the Zimrnern intermarriedare also included in Spiess' study of the counts and barons of theMainz region from 1200 to 1550, Bohme's study of the Franconiancounts from 1475 to 1525, and Schmidt's study of the counts ofWetterau from 1450 to 1645. Since nly sample includes familiesthat became Protestant and fanlilies that remained Catholic, itallows me to compare the marriage strategies of noble familieswho shared similar social characteristics but belonged to differentconfessions. Doing so has not been possible in previous localstudies, which dealt either with the period before the Reformationor with a region in which a single confession dominated."

STRUCTURE OF THE GERMAN NOBILITY In the late Middle Agesand early modern period, the nobles of southwestern Germanywere divided into three constitutional orders ( S t a n d e ) : the princes( R e i c h s f u v s t e n ), consisting of dukes ( H e v z o g e n ), margraves ( i l l a r k -

g v a f e n ) , and landgraves ( L a n d g v a f e n ); the higher nobility ( H o c h a d e l ),consisting of counts ( G v a f e n ) and barons @ e ie H e v v e n ) ; and thelower nobility ( A W ie d e v a d e l ) ,consisting of "mere" noblemen ( E d e l )and knights ( R i t t e v ) . The lower nobility were descended from theunfree minis tev ia le s , or "serf-knights," a class unique to Germany.'

Membership in the H o c h a d e l , the order to which the familiesin this sample belonged, was based on free birth, landed posses-4 For Spiess, see note 2 ; Ernst Bohme, Dn s ,fh?nkisrlze Reid ~s~~raJkolle gii*m 16 . nrzd 17 .wiJahvlzni~iievt (Stuttgart, 1989); Georg Schmidt , Dev I.l/ettevanev Gvafenvevein: Ovgnnisntion nndPolitik elrzev Reicirskovpornt ion riuiscirerz Refvrniatiorz nild I.l/esfnlischem Fviedeil (Marburg, 1989).O f the fanlilies that survived throu gh the m ale line into the late sixteenth century, Eberstein,Erbach, Limpurg, and the mait1 branch of the Oettingen became Protestant; Furstenburg,Konigsegg, Zimm ern, [Hohen]zollel-n, and three collateral branches o f the Oe tting en re-mained C atholic.5 For a brief overview of the developnlent of the nobility in western Gernlany from thethirteenth to the sixteenth century, see Spiess, Fnmilie tcnd Ve'enunniitschnft, 1-4.


5/28

172 I JULIITH J . H U K W I C Hsions, and rights of government over estates (Hevvsclzaftsvechte).Nobles holding titles of office from the emperor (Gvafen, orcounts) outranked nobles without such titles @eie Hevven, or bar-ons). By the end of the fourteenth century, ministerials werelegally free, and kings and emperors began to grant the titles ofbaron and count to members of some ministerial families inexchange for services and payment. A few families of ministerialorigin gained social acceptance as "equal to barons" and member-ship in the Hochadel, even without being granted new titles. Theycontinued to bear titles reflecting their original offices at court,such as Schenk (cupbearer) or Tvuchsess (steward).

In the early s~xteenth entury, Hans Truchsess von Waldburgliked to boast that "he and his ancestors had rnlxed themselves inwith the counts and barons like mouse-droppings in the pepper."In the same period, Wilhelm Schenk von Linlpurg complainedthat the high nobility was being diluted by intermarriage withfamilies whose claims to be "equal to barons" were more recentthan that of the Limpurgs. Wilhelm taunted his mother-in-law-acountess of Leiningen whose husband came from the somewhatdubious von der Laiter family-by talking in her presence aboutlesser nobles marrying into families of counts and barons. "Butwith each odious example he would say, 'But my lady, I don'tmean yo^. "'"

The rise of the territorial princes at the end of the fifteenthcentury established new political and social barriers between thelower and the higher nobility. The former became subject to theauthority of the princes, whereas the latter were subject only tothe authority of the emperor. The higher nobility further dis-tanced themselves from the lower nobility by obtaining new titlesfrom the emperor, either by service or by purchase. By the endof the sixteenth century, the title of count (G~aj")ad been grantedto most of the surviving families of the old freeborn nobility, aswell as to certain families of ministerial origin. In the seventeenthcentury, the elite counts, who had long considered themselves"equal to princes," obtained the title of prince (Fiint) and joined

6 ZC, 111, 30-31.O n the amb iguous status of the von dcr Laitcr Lnii ly of Bavaria,descendants o f an lllegitimate b ranch of the della Scala of Veron a, \ce F riedrich W . Eulcr," W a n d lu n g d e \ K o n n u b i u ~ n \ n A de l d e \ 15 . und 16 . Jahrhundcrt ," in H el ln lu th Ko\s le r(ed.), Deirtschcr Adcl 1430-iggg (Darmstadt, 1965), 60-61.


6/28

M A R R I A G E S T R A T E G Y A M O N G T H E G E R M A N N O B IL I T Y I 173the constitutional order of the princes along with landgraves,margraves, and dukes.

This general inflation of titles during the period from 1400to 1699 must be kept in mind when analyzing the status ofmarriage partners. In the fifteenth century, marriages into princelyfamilies were highly unusual for the eleven families of counts andbarons in this sample. However, by the end of the seventeenthcentury, three of the families had obtained the rank of prince; forthem, marriages into princely families were now marriages tosocial equals rather than to social superior^.^PROPORTION OF SONS AND OF DAUGHTERS MARRYING Sincestudies of family strategy and intermarriage in other Europeanelites have focused primarily on the marriages of men, it is difficultto find out whether the hypothesis that women were less likelythan inen to nlany spouses below their own status is supportedby statistical evidence. In one of the few studies giving a detailedanalysis of women's marriages, Molho finds a pattern among theruling classes of Florence during the fifteenth century similar tothat which has been suggested for G em~an obles: "[W]omen[were] in a somewhat less favored position in comparison to theirbrothers and other male kin in their search for socially acceptablespouses." Molho believed that this pattern of women marryingspouses of lower rank was due to the higher rate of male celibacyin the Florentine ruling class: "[Ilf a larger number of marriageablemen than women ended up not marrying, men would be in abetter position to inarry well." If Molho's theory is correct, sta-tistics about the proportion of sons and of daughters who even-tually married (which are more readily available than statisticsabout the actual rank of spouses) can be used to predict whetherdaughters are more likely or less likely than sons to Inarry spousesbelow their own rank.8

Almost all studies of marriage strategy among medieval andearly modern German nobles show that a higher percentage of7 The firnilles that obtained thc titlc of princc n7ere Fiirstcnberg, Oettingen, and [Ho- 11cn]zollcr11. S Anthony Molho, .14arviqe Alltnizce iil Late Medieiial Floreilce (Canlbridgc, Mass., 1994), 290-291. Two recent major studies oflntermarriage in the English and French landed elites give stati5tic5 only for thc n~arriagcs fnlen: Stone and Stone, Opetl Elife, 224-225; Janler B. Wood, ?'he ~"l'ubility ftlze Plectioiz of Baye~ix, 463-1666: C o t ~ f i t ~ t t i f y l z rou~hClzailjie (Princeton,19X8), 106. Evidence about the percentages of sons and daughter5 n~a r~y ing11several Westcrn


7/28

174 1 JUDITH J . HURWICHmen than of women remained unmarsied. Some of the observedvariation in marriage rates for the two sexes might stem from theunderreporting of unmarried women in genealogies and fromdifferences between men and women in age at first marriage,although these factors cannot account for all the variation. In mysouthwest German sample, the proportion of men and of womenremaining unmasried is more similar in the fifteenth century thanin later ieriods, despite the fact that in the fifteenth centuly, thegenealogies were less complete and the age gap between husbandsand wives was larger.

Spiess calculated mawiage rates for the period from 1200 to15jo both for the entire body of imperial princes (Reichsftirsfen)and for fifteen families of the nonprincely high nobility in theMainz region. In both cases, the proportion of daughters marryingexceeded that of sons marrying: In princely families, 82 percentof the daughters and 77 percent of the sons marsied, whereas inthe families of counts and barons, 65 percent of the daughters and5j percent of the sons married. In the families of counts andbarons, marriage rates for daughters were consistently higher thanthose for sons in all cohorts born between 1200 and 1445; therates for both sexes were approximately equal in the cohorts bornbetween 1445 and 1550."

Studies of marriage in the Gennan nobility between I 500 andI Soo also tend to find a higher proportion of men than of womenremaining unmarried. Mitterauer's study of the Austrian nobilityreports a higher mean number of sisters than of brothers marryingper sibling group from the sixteenth through the eighteenth cen-turies. Pedlow finds that in Hessian knightly families in the sev-enteenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 70 percent of thewomen and about two-thirds of the men eventually married. Theonly German study to report a higher proportion of women thanof men remaining unmarried is Reifs study of the Miinster

European elites is collected in John P. Cooper, "Patterns of Inheritance and Settlement byGreat Lalldowrlcrs from the Fifieerlth to the Eighteenth Centuries," in Jack Goody, JoanThirsk, and Edward P. Thomp5on (eds.),Faniily atrd Ii~licvifaiicc:Ru ra l S ua et y iil I.17estcnr Guvupe1200-1800 (Camblidge, 19 74 , 192-327.9 The statistics for princes are given in Spies, "Social Rank in the Gennan Hlgher Nobilityof the Later Middle Ages," unpub. paper delivered at the nieeting of the American HistoricalA\soclation, New York City, January 5 , 1997. Those for courlts and baron5 are giver1 in idcwr,Fawrilie ~ci ld tfenuandt schllft, 279, 367, tables 19 and 3 3 .


8/28

M A KK I AG E S T R A T E G Y A M O N G T H E G E R M A N N O B I L I T Y I 175St$tsfiihke A d e l ("nobles eligible for cathedral canonries") duringthe eighteenth century. Only one-third of the daughters, as op-posed to half of the sons, married in the period from 1720 to1769, although about half of each sex nlarried in the later eight-eenth century. Reifs figures might reflect a regional difference inmarriage strategy; the Miinster St$Sfahi,ye A d e l also had muchlower proportions of both men and women who eventuallynlarried than other German nobles did."'

In my sample of eleven families from the Zil?zl?zevische Chvonik ,60 percent of the Inen and 73 percent of the women born between1400 and 1699 and surviving to the age of fifteen eventuallynlarried (see Table I and Figure I) . In the fifteenth century, onlyabout half of all sons and all daughters married; this proportion issimilar to Spiess' findings for the same social group during thesame period. Only in the late fifteenth century did Inore daughtersthan sons remain unmarried. In this period of economic depres-sion, counts and barons normally allowed only one son per gen-eration to marry. Apparently, they also tried to save money ondowries by placing an unusually high proportion of their daughtersin convents. The portion given to a daughter wh o became a nunwas only about one-tenth the value of the dowry given to adaughter who married."

The proportion of sons marrying increased as the economicsituation improved after 1500. About two-thirds of all sons mar-ried in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, when morefrequent divisions of estates allowed more sons per generation tomarry, but the proportion of sons lnarrying declined slightly inthe economic depression of the late seventeenth century.A substantial gender gap developed in the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries. Three-quarters to four-fifths of all daugh-ters married, compared with about two-thirds of all sons. Molho'shypothesis is that the higher celibacy rates among men wouldforce the women to marry spouses whose econo~nic nd socialstatus was lower than their own. However, the hostile attitudes10 Michael M ltterau er, "Z ur Frage des Heiratsverhalterls in1 osterreichischen Adel," inHeinrich Fichtcnau and Erich Zollner (eds.), B ei t i~ ge i r iieriieret~ Gerchichte Oerfeireiclzs (Vi-enna, 1974), 187; Gregory Pedlow, T h e Suriiiiinl o j t h e Hessiniz N obilt ty 1770-1870 (Princeton,1988), 37; Heinz Reif, I.l7ertfti1ischei Ad el 1770-1860. Voi n Herirchaft srfnt~d u v regionaleit Elite(Gottingen, 1979), 242.11 O n thc value of nun'\ portion\, see Freed, AJoTuble Bot~dswreiz, 178; Spiess, Favrilie cciidVeruiaiidtschgfi, 373.


9/28

--

Table 1 P r o p o r t i o n of S o n s a n d of D a u g h t e r s M a r r y i n g , B i r t h C o h o r t s1400-1 699

SONS DAUGHTERS

BIRTH COHORT TOTAL MAR R YING TOTAL MAR R YINGN

1400-1449 5 1145-1499 54ISOO-I549 49Catholic 4 I Protestant 8 1550-1599 65Catholic 37Protestant 2 81600-1 649 62Catholic 38Protestant 24165-1699 57Catholic 45Protestant 12Total 1400-1699

338Totals by Confession 1500-AU 23 3Catholic 161Protestant 72

Fig. 1 P r o p o r t i o n o f S o n s a n d o f D a u g h te r s M a r r y in g

A ons0 Daughters

40 [ I I I I I1400-49 1450-99 1500-49 1550-99 1600-49 1650-99Birth Cohort


10/28

M A R R I A G E S T R A T E G Y A M O N G T H E G E R M A N N O B I L I T Y / 177of the German nobility toward intermarriage meant that fewmarriages actually crossed the boundaries between the differentorders of nobility, much less the chasm between nobles andnon-nobles.

ATTITUDES TOWARD INTERMARRIAGE Although some nurriagesbetween the old freeborn nobility and fanlilies of ministerial originoccurred in the late Middle Ages, social disapproval of suchmarriages increased as the legal boundaries between the lower andhigher nobility became more rigid in the sixteenth and seven-teenth centuries. According to Schmidt, the offspring of themarriage between a husband from the high nobility and a wifefrom the lower nobility were accepted as social equals of the fatherin the fifteenth century, but not in the sixteenth century.l2

Marriage to non-nobles, even to the wealthiest of the urbanpatriciate, was almost out of the question for the Gerinan nobility.Such unions continued to carry the legal disability of "inequalityof birth" (Unebenburtigkeit), which meant that children of themarriage could not inherit the title or estate of the higher-rankingparent. The nobility also protected its exclusivity by requiringinembers of elite cathedral chapters and tournament societies toprove four generations of purely noble ancestry. Hence, a noble-man's marriage to a non-noble wife would affect the prospects ofhis descendants for more than a century. The handful of suchmarriages noted in the Zivnrnerische Chronik were remarriages ofnobles who already had heirs from a niarriage to a social equal.The scandal of a nobleman's marriage to a lion-noble could beused as evidence of his unfitness to nianage his ow11 affairs and tobe head of the family. For example, the allegation that the profli-gate Count Christoph Friedrich von Zollern had secretly marriedhis mistress Anna Rhelinger, a meniber of the Augsburg patriciate,gave his guardians the necessary grounds to force him to give uphis estates to an uncle.1i

The goal of a German noble family was to "maintain andelevate the lineage (Stawn t~ndNamen)," that is, to continue thefamily in the niale line and to enhance its territorial base and its12 Schmidt, Il/effernireu G mfenve uein, 482. 13 O n ' ' inequali~ f birth" (Unebenbu~t&kei f )and its legal consequence5, see Adalbert Erler and Ekkehard Kaufnlann (ed~.), nndbuch zuv deufschei~ echfes~eschichte Berlin, 1963- ), s.v. "Ebenbiirtigkeit," "Millheirat." For the st017 of Chsistoph Friedrich vorl Zollern and Anna Rhelinger, see ZC, 11, 208.


11/28

178 / JU l I I TH J . H U R W I C Hprestige through niarriage alliances with other families of at leastequal rank. Spiess portrayed medieval counts and barons as ambi-tious social climbers in vigorous pursuit of heiresses and wealthywidows, preferably of a higher rank. Schmidt, however, niain-tained that sixteenth-century counts and barons were primarilydefensive in their outlook on marriage, niore concerned withmaintaining their status than with advancing it.14

Both the obsession with maintaining existing status and theaggressive pursuit of wives of superior status are evident in theZi~nmevischeChvonik's account of Johann Werner I von Zimniern'schildren. His banishnient in 1488 led to the sequestration of theZimniern estates for sixteen years and left the family heavilyburdened with debt. In 1507, Margrave Christoph of Baden triedto alleviate the financial difficulties ofJohann Werner 11, the oldestson, by arranging a match for him with Sophia Bocklin, thewidow of a count of Tiibingen. Many of the kinsnien ofJohannWerner I1 viewed a match with Sophia as acceptable, even thoughshe came from the urban patriciate. Since the German nobilitypracticed partible inheritance, the future of the Zimmern lineagedid not rest entirely o n Johann Werner I1 and his direct descen-dants. Alniost all of his friends and relatives urged him to acceptthe match o n the grounds that the widow's fortune would enableJohann Werner II's two brothers to niar1-y according to their rank.Their children could participate in tournanients even if his owncould not.

Johann Werner I1 rejected the match 011 the advice of Arch-bishop Jakob von Trier that "he should remember his ancestry.His ancestors had made honorable marriages looking only forfriendship and honor [alliance with families of high rank], andtherefore married into the most eniinent families and did notbargain for money or goods." Froben Christoph von Zimniernpraised his father for rejecting the match, even though he therebylost the favor of his patron. Although Johann Werner I1 hurt theZininiern fanlily financially in the short mn, he maintained theprestige of the lineage in the long run.15

Both ofJohann Werner 11's younger brothers eventually madeupwardly mobile marriages through their own efforts. With the

I 4 Spiess, Familie nnd Vetumttdtscizajt, 9, 49-6'; Schmidt, Il/effeuarrev Guqfent~eve in,478 15 ZC, I , 358-360.


12/28

M A R R I A G E S T R A T EG Y A M O N G T H E G E R M A N N O B I L I T Y 1 179aid of his patron Duke Ulrich vo11 Wiirtteniberg, GottfriedWerner succeeded in marlying Apollonia von Henneberg, despitethe opposition of her father. Although the Zitlztlzerische Chvonikdepicts the marriage as a love niatch, Gottfried Werner boastedof his coup in marrying a "countess of princely rank" k f i tvs te teGvafin) and argued that the higher status of his wife entitled him,rather than his elder brother, to receive the main Ziinmem estateat Messkirch. Wilhelm Werner, who was granted the title of countas a reward for his service as an iniperial judge, married as hissecond wife the widowed Anialia vo11 Leuchtenberg. Since theLandgraves of Leuchtenberg were considered "equal to princes,"Wilhelm Werner celebrated his climb up the social ladder withan ostentatious homecoming feast to which he invited "most ofthe nobility froni the circles of the Black Forest and the Neckar."16

Statements in the Zi~nmevische Chvonik about the goals ofniarriage always refer to the niarriages of males, and it is not clearwhether Gernian nobles consciously attached less importance tothe status of spouses in the marriages of females. However, awoman's marriage would not directly affect the status of futurenienibers of the lineage, since the lineage was traced only throughthe male line of descent.

Three of the sisters ofJohann Werner I1 von Zimmern madedownwardly mobile niarriages. Margarethe and Barbara both en-tered into secret engagenients and niarried men of the lowernobility, evidently fearing that their elder brother would leavethem unmarried to avoid paying their dowries. The chroniclerexpresses sympathy for both women, and blames Johann WernerI1 for failing in his duty to arrange matches for his sisters withtheir social equals. In a niore shocking violation of social norms,Icatharina von Zimmern, the last abbess of a convent in Zurich,married a Zwinglian burgher after the city authorities closed theconvent. These t~ze'sallinncesof the Zininiern sisters did not preventtheir brothers froni marlying women of equal or higher rank thanthemselves; nor did they damage the marriage prospects of theirbrothers' descendants. Lazarus von Schwendi, the imperial generalwho niarried the seventh daughter of Froben Christoph vonZininiern in I 573, wrote that his wife "had six sisters married to

r6 ZC, 11, 104, 189-rgz; 11, 316-317, 321


13/28

the leading counts and barons of Gerniany, and had establishedwide connections with the most noble families."17RANK OF SPOUSES IN REGIONAL STUDIES Regional studies dem-onstrate that Gennan nobles were even more highly endogamousthan other early niodern European elites (see Table 2 ) . Both Spiessand Schniidt found that niore than So percent of all marriages infaniilies of counts and barons were to other families of the non-princely high nobility. Molho refers to a "high rate of endoganiy"in high-status lineages of Florence during the fifteenth centurywhen only 5 5 percent of the marriages took place within the socialgroup.lXMy study of eleven southwestern German families, 1400 to1699, supports Schmidt's view that the lower nobility and bour-geoisie "played practically no role" in the marriage strategy ofcounts and barons. Although Bohme finds a higher degree ofintermarriage with the lower nobility, most of the marriages tonienibers of the lower nobility took place within one fanlily, theSchwarzenbergs, who had only recently been elevated from therank of knight to that of baron. Their continued intermarriagewith families of the lower nobility may indicate that they werestill not fully accepted as equals by the old high nobility.19

Although niarriages between the different levels of the Ger-man nobility were infrequent, regional studies ranging from thetwelfth century through the middle of the seventeenth centuryconsistently conclude that in such marriages, men tended to niarryspouses of higher rank and wonien spouses of lower rank.

Freed states that marriages of men fro111 Salzburg ministerialfamilies to wonien of free noble rank were "fairly common" inthe twelfth century, whereas marriages between noblemen andministerial wonien were rare. In the thirteenth century, minis-terial~were forced increasingly to intermarry with their socialinferiors, the knights, and "[olnce again it was predominantlyministerial women, like the noblewomen before theni, who niar-ried downward.""'17 ZC, I, 364-36s; 11, 2r-24. Lazarus vorl Schwendi is quoted in Jenny, Gvaf Frobeft Chvisfoph von Zirrimem, 199. I 8 Spies, Fa~qzilie uf td Venuandfscizaft, 398; Schmidt, Il/etterarrer Guafin~/eueitz,481, Table 5 ; Molho, 12rlnuuiafe Alliatzce, 294, 332. r 9 Schmidt, IVettevaueu Guafetz~/eveitz,481-482, Bohme, D a s Fr ankische R e i c i z s y ~ ~ f k o l l e ~ i i ~ m ~ 12-1 4. 20 Freed, 1Vo6le Botzdsiiien, 99-100, 139-140.


14/28

M A R R IA G E S T R A TE G Y A M O N G T H E G E R M A N N O B I L IT Y I 181Table 2 Social Status of Spouses of Counts and Barons in RegionalStudies

COUNTSAN D LOWERREGION DAT E N PRINCES BARONS NOBILIT Y BURGHERSMainza 1200-1550 6 3 0 6.3% 87.5% 6.2% o~ r a n c o n i a ~ 1475-1525 58 6.9% 70.1% 18.9% 3.4%WetterauC 1450-1648 499 12.4% 83.5% 3.6% 0.4%SW Germany 1400-1699 482 9.1% 89.4% 0.8% 0.6%"Carl-Heinz Spies , Farnilie rind 14nvaizdfschflfi inr dentschen Hoehadel des Spat n~i ffe lal tev s: 3. bisAi lfor if d a ~6Jah v l~nr tdev t ~Stut tgar t , 1993), 398.

E m ~ tB G h m e , D a s -fvh.nkische R e i c l ~ s ~ v ~ f k o l l e g i ~ i ~ ~ ~ n1 16. rind 1 7 .Jahvhrrizdevf (Stut tgar t , 1989) ,12-14.'Georg Schmrdt , Dev Il/etfevarrev Gv&nz~eveirz: Ocvankntion nizd Politik einev Reichskotpovafiorzztuischen Rc$ovn~afion rind I.l~es ~alisc hernvieden (Marburg, 1989), 481, Table 5 .

Spiess raised the question whether the counts and barons ofthe Mainz region during the late Middle Ages sought spouses oflower status for their daughters than for their sons in order toachieve a "positive balance of payments" in dowries paid andreceived, but concluded that such a deliberate strategy cannot beverified. Social rank was a far greater consideration than moneyin marriages of daughters, he argued. Othelwise, families of countsand barons would have consistently married their daughters tomen of the lower nobility who would have accepted lowerdowries; yet, few such marriages occurred. Nevertheless, much ofSpiess' evidence supports the hypothesis that sons' wives tendedto be of higher social and economic status than daughters' hus-bands. More sons than daughters lnarried upward into princelyfamilies, and in ten of the fifteen families in his study, the meanvalue of dowries received from sons' wives was higher than themean value of dowries given to daughters. At least one family,the Schenken von Erbach, is said to have climbed from the lowerto the higher nobility through a concerted effort to marly sonsupward and daughters downward within the n~bility.~'

Andermann's and Miiller's studies of the lower nobility of thePalatinate and Alsace during the late Middle Ages found that the21 S p i e s , Fanrilie rind Vern~andtschn'?,364-365; nlarriages into princely fanlilies are illustratedo n 399, F i g w e 36. O n th e rnarriage Ftrategy o f he Erbach L ~n lily , ee ibid., 402; B o l n n e , DasFvn'nkische R e i c i z s ~ r f l f k o l l e ~ i n ~ i ~ ~0-64.


15/28

182 / J U D I T H J . H U R W I C Honly cases of intemlarriage between the lower and the highernobility involved nien marrying wives of higher rank. Miillerstated that in the Fleckenstein family of Alsace, "the wives of sonswere generally froni more prominent families than the husbandsof daughters. "2'

In studies extending into the early modern period, Bohmestated that the counts of Franconia from 147 to I 530 were "nioreconscious of rank in choosing marriage partners for sons than ingiving away daughters." In nlarriages between different orders ofthe nobility, sons married spouses fro111 princely families anddaughters niarried spouses from the lower nobility. Bohme char-acterized these downwardly mobile niarriages for daughters as"marriages to provide financial support (Versorgungsheiraten),whichwere less significant for the family than the marriages of sons."Schmidt's study of the counts of Wetterau also found thatthroughout the period fro111 1450 to 1648, "it was primarily sonswho niarried partners from princely houses. ""

Freed's argument that this marriage pattern was due to thelegal disabilities attached to niarriages between ninisterials andfree nobles does not account for its persistence after 1400, whenniinisterials were no longer considered unfree. Moreover, thesame pattern was evident in niarriages between princely familiesand the nonprincely high nobility, which were not legally "un-equal." This fanily strategy probably should not be attributedso much to specific legal disabilities as to the more general socialbarriers between the different levels of the Gernian nobility,including the rigid system of marital paynients analyzed bySpiess.'"In medieval and early niodern Gernian elites, dowries werefixed according to rank and remained unchanged (at least in facevalue) for long stretches of tinie. There was little "niarket orien-tation" to allow wealthy menibers of the urban patriciate or thelower nobility to marry their daughters into the high nobility bypaying extraordinarily high dowries. Studies of dowries in France,22 I h r t A n de l. m an n, Stitdien zirr Geschichte des gfiilzischerz Niederadels in1 spiiterz hliftelalter( S p e y e r , 1982), 217-218; Peter Miiller, Di e Herren von Fleckensfein i m spiifen ~Miftelalfer: Infe r-sirchirn~en n r Geschichfes cines Adels~eschlechts i?z~f ilzish-elsa ssiscizr nGretzzfebiet (S tu t tgar t ,~ggo) ,320. 23 B o h n l e , Das Fri inkische Reicl~s~rafkol le~i ir t t~~3; Schn l ld t , I.ti.tferaner Gr


16/28

M A R R I AG E S T R A TE G Y A M O N G T H E G E R M A N N O B I L I TY 1 183England, and Spain have found that dramatic increases in dowrylevels during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centurieswere associated with increased marriages of elite men to wives oflower social status. In contrast, Freed noted that under the Gennansystem, the "dowries and dowers fixed by custom within verynarrow limits in effect protected all the members of an estate bymininlizing the competition for brides with rich dowries and byblocking the upward niobility of women of inferior birth."25

I11 the system of marital payments used by southwestern andwestern German nobles during the fifteenth and early sixteenthcenturies, the dowry (Heimstener.),which was nonnally paid incash, averaged about one-half of one year's income from the estateof the bride's father. In addition to the dowry, the bride's familyalso provided a trousseau (A&rt@tng) in clothing, jewelry, andsilver plate. The main marital payment from the groom's fanlilywas the widow's dower, or Widevlegttng ("matching payment"),which was equal in value to the dowry and consisted of landspledged to provide an annuity for the wife in widowhood. Thegroom's fanlily also paid a Moyengabe, or "morning-gift," whichbecame the property of the bride. The Moyengabe was traditionallyvalued at one-third to one-half the dowry; however, counts andbarons often fixed it at a lower value, equal to that of thet ro ~ i s s e a ~ i . ~ ~

25 Ibld., 179. Studies oi do wry levels in Rou en , England, and Barcelona are cited in Molllo,,2rlaurrnge Alliance, 325. Spiess finds no obsel~rable nc rea~en dowries given and received amongcounts and barons in the Mainz regon frorn the thirteenth through the fifteenth century(Fanrilie itnd Venvandfscllnji, 364) Reif, M't.s~falische~del, 254-256, finds an increase in dowrylevel5 111 Mdn~terduring the late sixteenth century. However, thls increase has not beendocutnented for western and southwestern Gennany. Exanlples oiexceptionally high dowrieswere not unknown anlong German nobles: Spies, Fantilie find Ve't.nunrzdtscl~q'?, 47, 352-354,359; Euler, "Wandung d e ~genfnbe to dowry varied according to regior~ nd timeperiod. See Schroder, Gescllicllte des eizelichetz Gufevuecllts, 11, 82, 238; Freed, Noble Bondsn~etz,


17/28

184 / J U D I T H J . HUKWICHAlthough the payments from the bride's family and the

groom's fainily were theoretically equal in value, the down^ systemof the German nobility functioned in such a way that it was muchless costly to marry a so11 than a daughter to a spouse of highersocial rank. Since dowries were based on the status of the husband,a son marn~ing woman of higher rank would receive only adowry con~mensuratewith his rank, or perhaps even a lowerdowry as a trade-off for his wife's higher social prestige. Themarital payments from the groom's family were proportional tothe size of the bride's dowry; it was 110 more expensive for a familyof counts to marry a so11 to a bride from a princely family thanto a bride from a family of counts. Moreover, marital paymentsdid not usually represent a permanent loss of property to thegroom's fanlily. The lands pledged for the Widerlegung remainedin its possession, and the Afoyengabe nonnally descended to thechildren of the marriage.

O n the other hand, women had to bring much higher dow-ries to husbands of superior rank than to ones of their own socialstanding, and this property (paid in cash) was permanently lost totheir own family. Since counts normally gave dowries of less than~o ,ooogulden, and princes dowries of more than 24,000 gulden-more than a year's income for even the wealthiest counts-it wasprohibitively expensive for counts to marry their daughters toprinces. Sonic of the "house regulations" drawn up by noblefanlilies fixed maxiniu111 dowry levels in order to prevent ambi-tious or indulgent fathers from doing pernianent damage to thepatrimony of the lineage by paying exorbitant dowries to marrytheir daughters into higher-ranking families.27RANK OF SPOUSES IN THE SOUTHWEST GERMAN NOBILITY Thestudies reviewed above analyze the choice of spouses for sons andfor daughters chiefly through the exceptional marriages thatcrossed the boundaries between levels of the nobility. My studyof the marriage strategy of the counts and barons of southwestGermany includes the much Illore frequent marriages in which

171-176; Spies, Fandie ut td Venuntzdt sc i zq '? , 139-145. A one-to-one ratio o f I Z ' i d e r l e ~ t i i z , ~o do\vry was ~tandard mong nobles in west and so uthw e~ tGermany during the fif teen th and early sixteenth centuries. 27 On maxirnunl dowry levels in "house regulations," see ib id . . 366.


18/28

MARRIAC:E STR AT EG Y AMONC: T HE GEK MA N NOBI LIT Y / 185both spouses belonged to the same social order. Out of 509marriages in niy sample that took place between 1400 and 1699,the status of the spouse (indicated by the title of the groom or ofthe bride's father at the date of the marriage) can be ascertainedfor 482 cases (23o marriages of men and 2 5 2 marriages of women).The findings are shown in Table 3 and in figures 2a and 2b.28

Marriages to spouses outside the high nobility were rare forboth sexes. Only seven such marriages occurred during the threecenturies under study, and at least fo~ir f them were based o npersonal choice rather than family arrangement.29

In arranging marriages for their daughters, family heads clearlytried to avoid matches that were legally or socially consideredm6salliances. However, a comparison of the status of wives of sonsand husbands of daughters shows that family heads were morewilling to niarry daughters than sons to spouses of lower rankwithin the spectrum of the high nobility.

Throughout the period from 1400 to 1699, men in the elevenfanlilies in this saniple were more likely than women to marryspouses from princely families; women were far more likely thanmen to marry spouses from families in the lowest rank of the highnobility (Schenk or baron). The majority of men married intofamilies of counts or princes throughout the period; the majorityof women married Schenken or barons until the sixteenth century.

The second half of the fifieenth century saw the greatestcontrast between the status of sons' wives and daughters' husbands:63 percent of the daughters, but only 15 percent of the sons,married spouses from the lowest rank of the high nobility. Sincethis period suffered severe economic depression, families wereprobably investing their money in the one heir who was allowedto niarry, while economizing on the marriages of daughters.

During the first half of the sixteenth century, the proportionof men who married spouses from princely families increased28 Th e sample includes 186 first marriages and 44 remarriages of men, and 224 first marriagesand 28 remarriages of women. Although Spi e~s efers to "the conilrnled tendency of \vido\v\to marly a lower-ranking partner in a second marriage" (I;nmilie iirlii I/eriuarliitjciigfi, 405), nosuch trend was evident in thi\ \ample either for widows or for \\-idowers. Marriages for \vhichthe \tatus of the spouse could not be a~certained hiefly involved marriages to \\-idows andmarriages to \pou\e\ from non-German nobilities.29 Three of the four cases involving women were th ox of the daughters ofJohann WernerI von Zinunern. One of the three cases involving men \va\ the morganatic second mat-riageof llegenhart von Gundelfingen to a woman of burgher status. probably hi\ concubine.


19/28

Table 3 R a n k of Spouses of Sons and of Daughters, Marriage Cohorts 1400-1699i_l

SONS: R A N K OF WIFE'S FATHER D A U G H T E R S : R A N K OF HUSBAND C2MARRIAGE SCHENK/ MARRIAGE S C H E N K / 2COHORT 'TOTAL PRINCE COUNT BARON OTHER COHORT TOTAL PRINCE COUNT BARON OTHER L.

N % N 'j/o1400-1 449 1400-144') 11 501450-1499 1450-1499 8 35I SO@-1 549 1500-1549 19 5 01550-IS99 1550-1 599 33 61Catholic Catholic 17 63Protestant protestant 16 59I600-1 649 r 600-1 649 38 58Catholic Catholic 22 5 1i'rotestant Protestant 16 731650-1699 1650-1699 32 64Catholic Catholic 20 69Protestant Protestant 12 57Totals I 400-1 699 Totals I 400-1 699

230 24 ro 151 66 5 2 23 3 1 252 20 8 141 56 87 34 4 2Totals by Confession I 550-1 699 Totals by Confession r 550-1699All 142 1 5 11 94 66 32 23 I I A11 169 20 12 103 61 46 27 o o

Catholic 75 6 8 52 69 17 23 o o Catholic 99 12 12 59 60 28 28 o oProtestant 67 9 13 42 63 15 22 I I Protestant 70 8 I I 44 63 18 26 o o


20/28

Fiq. 20 Rank of Spouses of Sons

1400- 49 1450-99 1500-49 1550-99 1600-49 1650-99Marriage Cohort

O t h e rk Baron

CountPrtnce

t'icq.2h Rank of Spouses of Daughters

9 1550-99 1600 -49 1650 -99e Marriage CohorrS

O t h e rBaronCount


21/28


22/28

M A R R I AG E S T R A TE G Y A M O N G T H E G E R M A N N O B I L IT Y 1 189phasized greater equality within the sibling group and encouragedmore marriages of younger sons. In order to take into accountthe possible effect of the Reformation on the family strategy ofsouthwest German nobles, separate calculations have been madefor the different confessions, both for proportions of sons anddaughters marrying (Table I ; figures 3a and 3b) and for rank ofspouses (Table 3; figures 4a, qb, 4c, 4d).""

The first generation of Protestant counts and barons in thesample for this article found spouses for almost all of their children,both sons and daughters. Some of the daughters, especially thosein large sibling groups, married for the first time at the age ofthirty or even older. In subsequent generations, Protestant countsand barons made more consistent efforts to find spouses for almostall of their daughters than for almost all of their sons. Under thesecircumstances, Protestant women might have been forced moreoften than Catholic women to settle for husbands of lower socialrank.

The statistics for the different confessions from the mid-sixteenth century to the end of the seventeenth century show that,as expected, Protestant families had fewer sons and fewer daugh-ters remaining unmarried than did Catholic families. Among Prot-estants born between 1500 and 1699, 72 percent of the sons and87 percent of the daughters married; among Catholics in the samebirth cohorts, 60 percent of the sons and 74 percent of thedaughters married. However, there is no evidence that Protestantwomen were forced to marry down more frequently than Catho-lic women. The trend in the period from 1550 to 1699 towardgreater equality of rank between the husbands of daughters andthe wives of sons holds for both Protestants and Catholics.

For the period from 1550 to 1699, as a whole, there is nosignificant difference between the status of Protestant women'sand Catholic women's husbands. In the last marriage cohort, thatof 1650 to 1699, Protestant women enjoyed a less favorableposition compared with Protestant men than did Catholic womencompared with Catholic men. However, there was an unusuallylarge discrepancy between the number of sons and the numberof daughters in Protestant families in this cohort. Since three out3 0 Panla Sutter Fichtner, Protestaiifistir aiid 1'rimi;qcnitrirc iii Ea rl y Afi~deur l G a m ~ a i i y NewHaven, 1989), 46-48.


23/28


24/28

- --- - ------

M A R R I A G E S T R A T E G Y A M O N G T H E G E R M A N N O B I L I T Y I 191 Fig. gb Protestants: Proportion of Sons and of Daughters Manying

A Sonsa

I I I1500-49 1550-99 1600-49 1650-99

Birth Cohort

German nobles c. 1700 appear to have followed marriagestrategies that set them apart from both Catholic and Protestantelites in other countries. The most striking distinction was thehigh proportion of German noblewomen who married. South-west German Catholic nobles in the cohort born in the period1650 to 1699 had higher proportions of both men and womenmarrying than did other Catholic elites of this period. Amongsouthwest German Protestant nobles, the proportion of men mar-rying was similar to that of other Protestant elites, but the pro-portion of women marrying was higher. Among both Catholicand Protestant German nobles, more men than women remainedunmarried, whereas in most other elites c. 1700, the percentageof men and of women who remained unmarried was roughlyequal. If Molho's theory of a link between greater male celibacyand downwardly mobile marriages for women is valid, then Ger-man noblewomen, whether Catholic or Protestant, were morelikely than women in other elites to marry husbands of lowerstatus.Cooper cites several studies of other Western European elites,however, that show a marked discrepancy between the proportionof men and of women remaining unmamed. In these studies,


25/28

Fig. 4a Catholics: Rank of Spouses of Sons

9 1 5 5 0 - 9 9 1 6 0 0 - 4 9 1 6 5 0 - 9 9e Marr iage CohortS

Fig. 4b Catholics: Rank of Spouses of Daughters

O t h e rBaronCountPr incen

O t h e rBaronCountPrrncen

1550-99 1600-49 1650-99Marriage Cohort


26/28

Ftg. q c Protestants: Rank of Spouses of Sons

IIOtherBaroncount

1550-99 1600-49 1650-99Marriage Cohort

F&. qd Protestants: Kank of Spouses of Daughters

O t h e r1Baron

CountPrincen

1550-99 1600-49 1650-99Marriage Cohort


27/28

higher proportions of sons than of daughters remained unmarriedduring the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, whereas higherproportions of daughters remained unmarried during the laterseventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. These variations, com-bined with the apparent reversal of earlier patterns in the south-west German nobility during the late seventeenth centuly, warnthat we must be cautious about taking data for c.1700 as a reliableguide to practices in earlier eras3'This study of the southwest Gernlan nobility, 1400-1699, supportsthe hypothesis that in the medieval and early modern Germannobility, upward social mobility took place primarily through themarriage of men of lower rank to women of higher rank. Thewives of sons from German noble families were, on average,drawn from wealthier and more prestigious families than were thehusbands of daughters. Although the Reformation led to an in-crease in the percentage of both sons and daughters in Protestantnoble families who eventually married, Protestant Gernlan noblesfollowed the same strategy as their Catholic neighbors in choosingthe rank of spouses for their sons and their daughters.This marriage strategy might be a specifically Gernlan phe-nomenon, caused by a dowly system that militated against theupward mobility of wealthy women with unusually high dowries.If so, the marriage strategy is evidence of the distinctive characterof the German nobility in the medieval and early modern period,particularly the rigidity of its hierarchy. The German nobility alsodiffered from other Western European elites in other aspects offamily strategy, most notably in its reluctance to adopt primogeni-ture or other strategies of impartible inheritance long after otherelites did so.

However, this study also raises questions about the assump-tion that in early modern Western European elites, men weremore likely than women to marry spouses of lower rank. Dewald'sand Stone's comments about the predominance of this strategy32 Th e cases cited by Cooper, "Patterns of Inheritance," in which a greater proportion ofson7 than of daughters remained unmarried, include the Florentine patriciate, I 500-1799(287), British peen' children born within the period I 575-1625 (290), and Castilian noblef a i ~ l h e ~n the sixteenth centuly (291). Cases in which a greater proportion of daughters thanof son7 renrained unnrarried include the nobility of To u lou~e orn within the period1700-1760 (289), British peers' children born within the pe~iod1625-1825 (290), and theGenevan elite born within the period 1650-1749 (304).


28/28

M A R R I A G E S I R A T E G Y A MO NC ; T H E G E R M A N N O UI L I I Y / 195refer primarily to the eighteenth century, and evidence indeedsuggests that the marriage strategy of German nobles differedsignificantly from that of other Western European elites c.1700.O n the other hand, both Molho's data about the rank of spousesin fifteenth-centu~y Florence and the greater proportion of sonsthan of daughters remaining unmarried in several other WesternEuropean elites in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries suggestthat a strategy of marrying daughters to spouses of lower rank mayhave been practiced by other elites before 1650. The marriagestrategy of the German nobility may therefore have perpetuateda previously widespread practice in an era when other elites hadchanged their strategy. If so, the questions are, Why did otherelites change their strategy, and Do the apparent changes in themarriage strategy of southwest German nobles in the late seven-teenth century indicate that the German nobility was moving inthe same direction as other Western European elites?

Unfortunately, so few scholars have analyzed marriages ofnoblewon~en n the early modern period that little statisticalevidence is available on the strategies used to choose their spouses.More studies of the marriages of women compared with those ofmen in other European elites are needed to deternine whetherthe German nobles were indeed unique in their strategy ofmarrying sons up and daughters down, or whether this was apractice common in Western European elites before the eight-eenth century.

Documents

Hurwich, Marriage Strategy Among the German Nobility, 1400-1699