1

SSHA 2006, Nov. 3, Minneapolis, USA

Rural community and democratization in pre-industrial Germany

Kagawa UniversitySatoshi Murayama

The Problem

Free cities and relatively autonomous religious congregations in the early modern

period show us what could be considered a ‘nascent democracy’, even though they

never evolved directly into a democratized state (Tilly, 43). A relatively free local

society, the city of Elberfeld in the Lower Rhine region in early modern Germany,

which was closely connected with its surrounding rural society, Barmen, produced a

number of new professions such as local lawyers, who could establish a new trust

network. In this paper we follow the family of certain local lawyers in relation to the

formation of an open-ended oligarchy, which will show us an aspect of the rural in pre-

modern German society.

Fig. 1: Continuity and change of trust networks

Demographic Structure

Economic Development and Democratization

Change of Mortality Crisis

Structural Urbanization

Cities and State Formation

Bureaucratization

Continuity and Change of Trust Networks

Rural Society

2

Elberfeld in the Wupper Valley

The Wupper Valley in the Lower Rhine region had two settlements, Elberfeld and

Barmen, which, in the nineteenth century, were referred to as twin cities. Around 1700,

however, they were more differentiated localities; Elberfeld was an urban settlement and

Barmen a relatively rural one. In 1698, Barmen had a population of 2,134, its number of

households was 430, with the average household containing 4.96 individuals. In 1703,

the city of Elberfeld had a population of 3,050, 768 households, and one poorhouse

where 22 persons lived. The size of the average household, excepting this poorhouse,

was 3.94.

Based on a population register for 1702/03 (Verzeichnis), we know the city of

Elberfeld’s employment structure at that time. A conventional German city of its day, it

was inhabited by many craftsmen as well as many workers in the textile industry, and its

ten wealthiest export merchants were the leaders and shakers of the Wupper Valley

economy. In Barmen, in 1709 (Haacke, 1911), there also existed 55 individuals engaged

in agriculture besides other professions, especially in the textile industry.

The Wupper Valley in the early modern period was a district where various textile

industries developed, originating in a business that bleached and exported flaxen thread.

In 1527, a territorial prince granted the special privilege of monopoly to the common

people who lived off of this business, which utilised the water and the fertile plain

beside the Wupper River. This special privilege of monopoly was called Garnnahrung

(= Yarn-Sustenance), and it was granted to city inhabitants, the peripheral inhabitants of

the city, and to the rural inhabitants of Barmen, next to the city of Elberfeld. This

privilege was given to the general populace of the Wupper Valley as a communal

interest. In this sense, the whole community within the Valley became one fixed

management body.

A single Calvinist community was established in the Wupper Valley in the 16th century.

However, the religious constitution was changed because of the migration after the

second half of the 17th century. It was changed especially after a large fire which broke

3

out in Elberfeld on May 22, 1687 and destroyed approximately 300 houses (Kollekte). It

is likely that this fire left approximately 1,500 people homeless, though few died. After

the fire, the city authorities requested that the territorial prince grant an exemption from

land taxes. On July 10, less than three weeks after the fire, the territorial sovereign

withdrew an ordinance of land taxation for Elberfeld, effectively creating an exemption

for Elberfeld residents.

This exemption, good for 20 years, was also granted to people who wanted to move to

the city of Elberfeld, and thanks to this 20-year exemption, people flocked mostly from

surrounding rural areas to the city. As a result of this immigration, the religious

constitution of the city changed greatly. Whereas almost all of the inhabitants of the old

city had been Calvinist, throughout the eighteenth century more and more Lutherans

and Catholics came to live in the city. At the end of the eighteenth century, 53.4 percent

of the inhabitants were Calvinist, 38.6 percent were Lutheran, and the remaining 9.8

percent were Catholic (Murayama, 1990).

The city and a reformed church in the Wupper Valley

Jülich and Berg had been interconnected through a union of personnel since 1423.

Although this existed until the end of the old empire, the two territories never merged to

become a uniform state but protected a considerable autonomy in differentiated

bureaucracy. This clearly appears especially at the constitution of “Landstände”. One of

the two representatives was a knight and the other was from the city. The clergy was not

represented in the state parliaments (Walz, 39).

Year Calvinist Lutheran Catholic TotalAround 1708 3968 409 209 4586

in % 86.5 8.9 4.6 100.01792 9157 6307 1677 17141in % 53.4 38.6 9.8 100.0

Table 1: Estimated parish population in Elberfeld

4

On the side of the cities, circumstances were more complicated. In the fourteenth and

fifteenth centuries still a larger number of cities attended the state parliaments.

However, in the course of the sixteenth century the representation became an oligarchy.

Four cities in Jülich were represented and four in Berg were represented. In Jülich, these

cities were Jülich, Düren, Münstereifel and Euskirchen; in Berg they were Lennep,

Wipperfürth, Ratingen and Düsseldorf. These cities were called main cities (=

“Hauptstädte”).

At the beginning of the sixteenth century, Berg contained eight cities. Besides the four

main cities, there existed Blankenberg, Radevormwald, Gerresheim and Solingen. The

settlement of Elberfeld, which still did not possess any city rights, had acquired since

between 1430 and 1444 the right of “Freiheit”. Elberfed, a “Freiheit”, however, had a

“Ratsverfassung” with a mayor, “Rat”, “Schultheiß”, and “Schöffen”. After the death

of Johann Wilhelm I, the last duke of Jülich, Kleve, Berg, Mark and Ravensberg, who

was since 1592 the ruler of Berg, continued from 1609 an extraordinarily vehement

competition for succession. The main claimants were Johan Sigismund, Elector of

Brandenburg, as son-in-law of his eldest sister, and Wolfgang Wilhelm, count of the

Palatinate of Neuburg, as son of Johann Wilhelm’s second-eldest sister. The two princes

took the countries Jülich-Kleve-Berg-Mark-Ravensberg and the Dutch Ravenstein

together. Under the double reign of Palatinate-Neuburg and Brandenburg, the

“Freiheit” Elberfeld obtained the privilege of a city in 1610. This city privilege did not

include the court privilege, which was acquired in 1708.

In the contract of Xant in 1614, an agreement was reached in which for a while the

territory of Kleve-Mark-Ravensberg and Ravenstein belonged to Brandenburg, and

Main cities Population of each parish in 1792City 15.Jh Calvinist Lutheran Catholic Total

Wipperfürth ○ 0 894 4763 5657 ?

Blankenberg 0 0 503 503 ?Lennep ○ 0 2991 0 2991 3000

Ratingen ○ 1144 125 2510 3779 ?

Düsseldorf ○ 819 986 18759 20564 8600Radevormwald 1179 2239 266 3684 ?Gerresheim 0 0 1474 1474 ?Solingen 6587 1801 0 8388 2000Elberfeld 1610 1708 9157 6307 1677 17141 3000Bergische Geschichte, 77Beiträge zur Churpfalzischen Staatengeschichte, Beilage G

12221245

Table 2: Cities in the Duchy of Berg and their populations

1368

Population of the cityaround 1700

1374

City and Court Prvilege

1260er

1276

12881327

(Jahr)

5

Jülich-Berg to Palatinate-Neuburg. In 1666, the settlement in Kleve confirmed the

previous regulation in favor of Palatinate-Neuburg in general. The line of the house of

Palatinate-Neuburg, to which the territory of the Palatinate had belonged since 1685,

died out with the death of the Elector Karl Philip in 1742. Therefore, the Prussian king

Friedrich Wilhelm I had renewed the claims on the duchy of Berg. Friedrich II gave up

his claim on the territories of Jülich-Berg; however, after the final relinquishment of the

Palatinate of the territories of Cleve-Mark-Ravensberg he supported the demands of

Bavaria for the emperor‘s crown, as Emperor Karl IV had died unexpectedly. The

granddaughter of the last Palatinate-Neuburg, Elisabeth Augusts of Palatinate-Sulzbach

(1721-1794), married her cousin, the young duke, Karl Theodor of Palatinate-Sulzbach,

who reigned the Berg from 1742 to 1799 and also became elector of Bavaria in 1777.

The Berg remained together with the duchy of Jülich until the Napoleonic period under

the reign of the Palatine line of the house Wittelsbach.

The Calvinists of the Lower Rhine created under these complicated territorial conditions

an autonomous synod system for the Presbyterian Church in a process that reflected

three major social changes. The first change was the Reformation movement in the

Netherlands, which began in the 1530's, and the persecution of the people there by Carl

V of the Habsburg house and by Philip II. Such strong persecution of Protestantism

caused first the Lutherans and then the Calvinists to to flee to the region of the Lower

Rhine. Religious refugees from the Netherlands thus decisively influenced the

formation of the church system in this area. The second change was a church reform

campaign in favor of Calvinism under the leadership of a territorial prince. Because

Frederick III, coming from the Palatinate-Simmeln house, had begun to reorganize the

church in his territory in favor of Calvinism after 1559, a church reform campaign

developed around the upper Rhine. The Calvinist Elector of the Rhine Palatinate

became a central actor among certain Calvinist sovereigns in the German culture zone

as a result of this reform movement. The third social change was caused by economic

expansion, which resulted in new personal networks.

Each community had a Presbyterian conference that sustained the religious life of the

community members. The organization into Klassen allowed mutual management of

6

those communities and, at the upper level of this system, the Calvinists in the Lower

Rhine had a provincial synod (Provinzialsynode) that was organized into an area unit of

the districts of Jülich and Berg. A large synod (Generalsynode) generally controlled

those district synods. This Presbyterian Church synod system, which organized small

area units into a larger unit, was established without the special leadership of a

territorial prince. The activities of clergymen and the common people empowered the

formation of such a church system, which originated in the institutions of religious

refugees. The synod system created a mechanism for the mutual aid of individual

communities on the basis that the core organization was established as a Presbyterian

conference composed of the separate communities.

An autonomous congregation under territorial states

The Brandenburg elector, Johann Sigismund, and the Palatinate count, Wolfgang

Wilhelm of Neuburg, who were still Lutheran, had already granted religious freedom for

their new Catholic and reformed subjects in 1609. The churchs’ circumstances, however,

still were uncertain. All reformed congregations of the Lower Rhine joined together in

Duisburg in 1610, without direct state support of the two Lutheran princes.

However, this relatively peaceful situation for the Calvinists of the Lower Rhine

changed into a repressive one, because Wolfgang Wilhelm became inclined toward

Catholicism in 1614, while Johann Sigismund was converted to the Calvinistic religion

in 1613. Through these conversions, the unity of the dual reign over the territories came

to an end. In the contract of Xant in 1614, the religious regulations of 1609 were revised,

but it was decided that, while the two new rulers further claimed their double reign over

all four territories, the Catholic Palatinate count administrated the duchies of Jülich and

Berg with the Dutch Ravenstein, while the Calvinistic elector administered the dukedom

Cleve, and counties of Mark and Ravensberg.

In order to execute the counter-reformation in his state with force if necessary,

Wolfgang Wilhelm initially requested that the Jesuits enter the Protestant areas of his

7

territory. In 1625, the Jesuit de Bois, named Petame, under the order of Wolfgang

Wilhelm entered Elberfeld. The church of Elberfeld still remained in the hands of

Calvinist inhabitants at that time. But in the spring of the year 1629, the crucial blow

against the reformed community was felt in Elberfeld: Despite all requests of the

magistrate and presbytery of Elberfeld, the Palatinate count occupied the reformed

church in Elberfeld through soldiers with force. After the Dutchmen had gained the

fortress of Wesel on 19. August 1629, they could protect their religious colleagues

effectively. Indeed, their troops expelled the Spanish personnel from the city of

Elberfeld and the church in Elberfeld was returned to its reformed inhabitants. However,

the reformed community of Elberfeld experienced much need and distress following

their return. Nevertheless, the congregation underwent no further changes, even though

Wolfgang Wilhelm didn't ease the efforts of his counter-reformation after the peace of

Minster and Osnabrück in 1648. After long negotiations, the religious agreement

between Brandenburg and Palatinate-Neuburg at Cölln an der Spree, which finally

arranged the religious circumstances, was established in 1672: Brandenburg took over

the Protestants’ protection in Jülich-Berg, while the Palatinate count took over the

protection of the Catholics in Kleve-Mark.

Without a solid organization inside and outside, and without the Presbyterian Church

system, the reformed communities would hardly have survived in Berg against the

sovereign power. Not only the preachers but also parishioners transacting business in

their congregations seem to have struggled against the territorial power. Such

parishioners were called “Kirchmeister” (= chairperson), “Provisor” (= Presbyter for

poor welfare), and “Scholarch” (= Presbyter for school system). The synod system as a

territorial as well as an over-territorial association always supported the individual

congregations although it did not possess any political authority.

Meanwhile, the Calvinists’ general synod finally composed their own church order,

which was acknowledged by the government in Jülich-Berg in 1671. This church order,

which was developed gradually from below, represented the congregational church

elements in the Lower Rhine region. On the other hand, a church order which was

acknowledged in 1662 in the Brandenburg provinces of Kleve-Mark experienced some

8

differences, because confirmation and intervention rights of the sovereign power had

been introduced there.

Privileges and the citizenship

Although the Garnnahrung had had a community character, it is clear that the church

community was a much more important organization in the Wupper Valley. For example,

when the Freiheit acquired the privilege of a city from the territorial sovereign by

payment of 2,300 Reichstalter, the church community contributed to the fund. This area

was politically unstable despite the establishment of an autonomous church organization

there. Acquisition of a city privilege wowould necessarily benefit the congregation.

Although financial conflicts occurred between the city and the church in the 1820s

(Wittmütz, 124), both of these elements at that time are considered to have constituted

one body.

A court privilege was acquired by payment of 5000 Reichstaler in 1708, allowing

Elberfeld for the first time to obtain all the privileges as other cities in Berg. At this time,

the widow of a past mayor, as well as another past mayor and the pastor of the reformed

church had lent funds. The expense of these privileges was not necessarily an immense

amount. However, in order to separate from a sovereign’s power in a court system,

various procedures and negotiations were required. The person who took the lead was

Year Privilege Amount Who paied Credit

1527 Garnnarhung 861 Goldgulden 41 individual bleachersJohann III von Jülich-Cleve-Berg-Mark-Ravensberg

1610 City privilege 2300 Reichstaler city Congregation ofCalvinists

Under the double powers of Pfalz-Neuburg und Brandenburg

1708 Court privilege 5000 Reichstaler city

Widow of JohannTeschemacher(BM1700) (3000Rthl); Mayoralty(1706) Schlösser(1500 Rthl.); PfarrerMeier (500 Rthl)

Johann Wilhelm, Count Palatine ofRhein, Elector in Bayern, Duke ofBerg

Table 3: Cost of privileges

9

Friedrich Wülfing, who is recorded as Dr. Adovocatus on the population register of

1703.

Fig. 2: Dr. Adovocatus Friedrich Wülfing and his family on the population register of

1703

An open-ended oligarchy under the high mortality regime

In 1729, Court Councilor Wülfing opined that Elberfeld “by virtue of its world

commerce might be legitimately referred to as a small Amsterdam. There are merchants

here whose wealth and business acumen can be compared to that of the Dutch… and

adjacent to the famous town of Elberfeld is the equally pleasant locality of ‘Amt Ober-

und Unter-Barmen’ consisting for the most part of linen yarn bleaching establishments

and merchants of all kinds …” (Kisch 1972, 342).

10

A qualified analogy with Dutch conditions might be equally invoked when scrutinizing

the Wupper Valley‘s political structure. In view of the area’s overwhelmingly

commercial character, it is hardly surprising that for all practical purposes the rich

entrepreneurs should have constituted an indigenous oligarchy. To be sure, this

oligarchy was more open-ended than similar power groupings in the older metropolitan

centers of Holland, France and England. Nevertheless, the Elberfeld-Barmen merchants

formed a coterie of interrelated families who buttressed their economic domination by

monopolizing, through Mutual Corporation, the honorific offices within their respective

communities. They accordingly held the posts of churchwarden, city alderman

(including Mayor) and Garnnahrung trustee as if by hereditary right. Thus, increasingly,

these budding merchant-princes came to shape the destinies of local life.

It turns out that the formation of such a prominent group could acquire the court

privilege. However, it is clear that the families in early modern times often suffered the

destiny of demographic ‘random dealings’ (Murayama, 2004; Macfarlane, 1998, 121).

In this sense, the oligarchy was not a solid system in the early modern period. Not only

the poor but also the rich families could not stay alive easily.

Fig. 3: Macrostatistical change of baptisms, marriages, and burials

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1584 1606 1628 1650 1672 1694 1716 1738 1760 1782 1804

Baptism

Burial

Marriage

11

City lawyer’s family and the political structure

Peter Wülfing is the first lawyer to be historically confirmed. He was called Stadt-

Syndikus u. -Schreiber. He worked until his death in 1640. Such a job was a lifelong one.

His nephew, Werner Wülfing, succeeded the job of Stadt-Syndikus, and the job of Stadt-

Schreiber was succeeded by Johannes Lucas. The name of the job is not uniform in the

literature. However, the son of Werner Wülfing, Friedrich Wülfing, was surely called

Adovokat (= Lawyer). He was a successor of his father.

The job of the city secretary also succeeded from father to son, because Gottfried was a

son of Johannes Lucas. All city lawyers had the title of doctor of law. Friedrich Wilhelm

Bröckelmann, who was the nephew of Friedrich Wülfing, was titled as doctor of law,

and inherited the job of city and court secretary in 1730. The city secretary had also

received the job of court secretary after 1708. Each of them held the job until he died.

Friedrich Wülfing died in 1738, and Friedrich Wilhelm Bröckelmann inherited the job

of the city lawyer further. Since then one professional lawyer succeeded the three jobs.

Election to the jobs was not only a matter to be attended to by the citizens, but also by

the sovereign power, because the sovereign confirmed the jobs’ nominations. In 1756,

the Catholic government located in Düsseldorf created difficulties at the election of

Friedrich Wilhelm Bröckelmann, because, contrary to the government’s wish, Calvinist

applicants were always recommended. Therefore the regime threatened the city with the

mandate of 11 October 1756; if in the future a Catholic candidate was not recommended,

the city‘s court privilege would be withdrawn for reimbursement of the charge achieved

in the year 1708 on the amount of 5000 Reichstaler, and confirmation would be

pronounced only provisionally (Strutz, 1920/21, 53). However, the candidates remained

Calvinists, and it happened later that a job was conferred without the sovereign’s

confirmation.

Lucas’ house had several contacts with the oligarchy, and the son of Gottfried Lucas,

Johann Gottfried Lucas (1685-1748), and was elected mayor in 1723. However, none of

the other lawyers’ families had close relations with the wealthiest families, which had

12

produced a large number of mayors. Unlike the city secretary's genealogy, the Lucas

family produced a large number of doctors of law. The field of their activities went

beyond the level of local society as in the case of pastors, and they played a more active

role in the state government during the process of its democratization.

Dr. jur. Peter Wülfing -1640

*Stadt-Advokat *Stadtschreiber

Dr. jur. Werner Wülfing 1640-1698 Johannes Lucas 1640-1672

Gottfried Lucas 1672-1708

*Stadt- und Gerichtsschreiber

Dr. jur. David Friedrich Wülfing 1698-1738 Gottfried Lucas 1708-1712

↓ ↓

↓ Johann Jakob Sombart 1712-1730

↓ ↓

↓ Dr. jur. Friedrich Wilhelm Bröckelmann 1730-1755

Dr. jur. Friedrich WilhelmBröckelmann 1738-1755

↓

Dr. jur. Johannes Lüttringhausen 1755-1765

↓

Dr jur. Johann Jakob WülfingMar.21-

Oct.19.1765

↓

Dr. jur. Karl Jakob FriedrichSchnabel

Mar.21.1766,Oct.11.1766-

1787

↓Dr. jur. Friedrich Karl Eberhard

SchoelerJuli 14, 1787-

1807

Fig. 4: City lawyers in Elberfeld

*Stadt-Syndikus u. -schreiber

*Stadt-Advokat und Stadt- u. Gerichtsschreiber

13

Conclusion

The formation of the open-ended oligarchy had helped to obtain court privilege for city

inhabitants. The oligarchy was not a solid family system, but a dense trust network

system. The lawyers of the Lucas and Wülfing’s families were also a product of the

local society and enjoyed sufficient economic development because the family belonged

to the propertied class and contributed to its local community. However, the families

were not directly connected to the families of the “merchant-princes” who had been

developed by the urban-rural combination.

The Calvinist community in the Wupper Valley, which covered not only urban but also

rural areas, developed economically and also socially in mutual dense relations.

However, because of the rapid population increase caused by the migration of other

religious believers, the Calvinists’ city oligarchy must have changed its political

functions dramatically. The separation between urban and rural areas was first

institutionalized by the formation of the new lawyers’ system within the city.

14

References:

1. Original sources

Kirchenbücher: Personenstandsarchiv Brühl.

Kollekte nach dem Brand von 1687 (Archiv der Ev. Reformierten Gemeinde Elberfeld IIIA7-1.1.)

Verzeichnis der in Elberfeld ansässigen Familien 1702/03 (Stadtarchiv Wuppertal AV29)

2. Literature

Bericht des Hofkammerrats Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi über die Industrie der HerzögtümerJülich und Berg aus den Jahren 1773 und 1774. Ed. by W. Gebhard, pp.1-148 in Zeitschriftdes Bergischen Geschichtsvereins 18 (1882).

Haacke, Heinrich. 1911. Barmens Bevölkerung im XVII. und XVIII.Jahrhundert, unterbesonderer Berücksichtigung der Volkszählung vom Dezember 1698 nach zeitgenössischenUrkunden dargestellt . Barmen.

Hashagen, Justus et al. 1958. Bergische Geschichte. Ad. Mann Nachfl.: Remscheid-Lennep.

Kisch, Herbert. 1972. “From monopoly to Laissez faire: The early growth of theWupper valley textile trades.” The Journal of European Economic History 1-2: 298-407,later pp.162-257 in Die hausindustriellen Textilgewerbe am Niederrhein vor derindustriellen Revolution (Göttingen 1981).

Macfarlane, Alan. 1998. “The mystery of propery: inheritance and industrialization inEngland and Japan”, in C.M.Hann (ed.), Property Relations. Renewing theAnthropological Tradition. Cambridge, 1998.

Murayama, Satoshi. 1990. Konfession und Gesellschaft in einem Gewerbezentrum des

frühneuzeitlichen Deutschland: Das Wuppertal （Elberfeld-Barmen） von 1650 bis 1820.Tokyo: Keio Tsushin.

-. 2004. “The Thirty Years War and a change of marriage pattern in a reformed church inGermany”, presented at the 29th Annual Meeting of the Social Science HistoryAssociation, in November 18-21, in Chicago (USA).

Strutz, Edmund. 1920/21. Die Stadt- und Gerichtsverfassung Elberfelds von 1610-1807.Zeitschrift des Bergischen Geschichtsvereins 25: 1-93.

Strutz, Edmund. (1963). Die Ahnentafeln der Elberfelder Bürgermeister und Stadtrichtervon 1708 – 1808. Neustadt an der Aisch: Verlag Degener & Co.

15

Tilly, Charles. Contention and Democracy in Europe, 1650-2000. Cambridge UnversityPress: Cambridge UK et al.

Walz, Rainer. 1982. Stände und frühmoderner Staat. Die Landstände von Jülich-Berg im16. und 17. Jahrhundert (= Bergische Forschungen Bd. XVII). Neustadt a.d.Aisch:Ph.C.W.Schmidt.

Wittmütz, Volkmar. 1981. “Kirche und Kommune. Zu den Beziehungen zwischen derreformierten Kirchengemeinde und der Stadt Elberfeld in den ersten Jahren derpreußischen Herrschaft (1815ß1830)” Wuppertaler Geographische Studien 2: 119-133.