Peasants Liberation

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The liberation of the peasants describes the over a hundred years of redemption of the personal obligations of the peasants to their landlords and lords, mainly in the 18th and 19th centuries. The term was introduced in 1887 by the Strasbourg economist Georg Friedrich Knapp (1842–1926). He also criticized the land cessions and the worsening economic fate of the landless classes in Prussia.

Situation from the late Middle Ages to the beginning of the 19th century

In the 16th century, nine-tenths of the German and four-fifths of the European population were dependent farmers. They were not owners of their farms and their land, nor did they have any hereditary interests under Roman law ( emphytheutika ), but only a revocable, non-hereditary right of use granted to them by a landlord, in the various regions of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and later in the German Confederation was structured differently.

In return, the farmers owed labor and taxes in kind. Their children had to do serpentine services on the landlord's estate in many territories. The labor consisted of peasant work such as plowing, harrowing, sowing, mowing, threshing, but also construction and warfare including the provision of draft animals. Many farmers were serfs and were subject to the plaice obligation, so they had no right of withdrawal.

The original church tithe, which had been sold or pledged to a landlord over the centuries , was often added to the payments in kind . Compulsions and taxes in kind were hated and, because of their legal vagueness and the associated danger of expansion, were an obstacle to the development of agriculture.

It was characterized by large territorial differences, which are described in a simplified (and crude) way as east-west contrasts. What is correct is that the manor rule as an accumulation of manorial rule, corporal rule and patrimonial jurisdiction in one hand was widespread east of the Elbe and made the peasants unfree to a particularly large extent. Only in a few territories, there were free peasants, as in Domland Ratzeburg (country Boitien ) or in Dithmarschen on the west coast of Holstein and at the Schleswig lying west coast of North Friesland , which although was constitutionally outside the Holy Roman Empire, but formed with Holstein a legal entity.

The early bourgeois revolutions did not bring any relief for the peasants. The French Revolution , in which many feudal dependencies were lifted, provided a decisive impetus for the liberation of the peasants . In August 1789, the French National Assembly lifted feudal rights without compensation, which did not originate in the manorial system, but were based on serfdom or enforced introduction or for other reasons contradicted the common good.

In England the peasants' liberation began in the early modern period, when the peasants were granted personal freedom at the end of the 15th century. On the continent, the idea of ​​releasing the peasants from their sovereign obligations began in the Age of Enlightenment .

Feudal law literature and peasant liberation

From the 17th century onwards, the number of peasant trials and also the number of legal works that dealt with the rights and obligations of peasants rose sharply. Peasant law literature became a legal genre in its own right. She developed the “praesumptio pro libertate”, the refutable presumption that the farmer is free. The burden of presentation and proof for the required labor and duties was thereby shifted to the landlord or lord of the land. This eased the situation of the peasant in the process if the landlord wanted to demand new labor and taxes from him.

It was recognized that the relationship between the peasant and the landlord was full of conflict and that the peasants' labor and duties were hated.

The peasant's lack of freedom is not a property or characteristic of his person that is given in advance, but arises only when he waives his freedom by contract. The historical origin of serfdom goes back to the Frankish king Clovis I , who imposed it on the defeated Alemanni in 499.

When determining the legal status of the farmer, the different local customs are also important. In Mecklenburg and Pomerania it was the rule that farmers tied to the plaice; he had no right to deduct. The Dresden lawyer Johannes Leonhard Hauschild concluded the peasant liberation with a view based on natural law: everyone is free from the outset because they have to create products through work for their own and their descendants' support. He can only restrict his freedom through contracts. If the obligations entered into by the farmer become too obstructive, the economic cycle could come to a standstill because handicraft and commercial products would no longer be in demand.

If labor and taxes were reduced, only the value of large estates would fall; this damage weighs little in comparison with the growth of the state that would result if the peasants were free.

The peasant law literature had an immediate effect because it made it easier for the peasants to conduct litigation. In many cases the plaintiff peasants were able to mitigate their fate somewhat because there were no clear and accepted records of the services required of them. But it also had an indirect influence on the redemption of feudal burdens, because it sharpened the general awareness that agriculture can also be carried out without compulsory labor and contributions in kind.

18th century

In Germany, there had also been the first reforms in the 18th century (1781 abolition of serfdom in Austria, abolition of serfdom in Baden or conversion of compulsory labor into monetary payments under Hans Graf zu Rantzau in Holstein), but no fundamental reform took place, and with the peasant burdens did not disappear immediately after the end of serfdom.

An early plan for Bavaria

In 1778, the Bavarian Finance Minister Franz Karl von Hompesch, together with Ignaz von Arco and the 19-year-old prospective councilor Maximilian von Montgelas , prepared for a sudden abolition of feudal rights. They made a two-page note in advance, which they did not give anyone to know.

The annual labor and contributions in kind to be paid by the peasants should be owed from one day to the next to a state bank instead of the landlord and valued in money, and the obligated peasants should pay the bank in cash. Five million guilders should come together year after year. For the loss of labor and taxes in kind, the land-owning nobility was to receive government-guaranteed treasury bills of 80 million guilders. The landowners were to receive five percent interest on the treasury notes annually, a total of four million guilders, but no repayment for the time being. From the annual surplus of one million guilders, the bank's equity was to be formed, which would later be used to repay the treasury bills. The farmers would have become full owners of their land and with the repayment of the principal their transfer payments would have ended.

The implementation of the plan faced several obstacles that were left out in the memorandum. There was neither the administrative apparatus for evaluating compulsory labor and contributions in kind, nor for collecting and paying out the pensions. Neither Hompesch nor Montgelas ever came back to their plan during their long tenure. What is remarkable for the zeitgeist at the end of the 18th century, however, is that even traditionally conservative government and administrative circles came to the opinion that the feudal system had to be abolished, even quickly if necessary.

The thinking that the peasants' liberation could not be achieved without compensation to those entitled, and that the farmers had to liberate themselves to a large extent by raising the compensation, had a prophecy. Already in the 18th century it was foreseen that the transition from the natural economy to the monetary economy was necessary for the basic relief, that the state had to provide and guarantee larger amounts of paper money and that state mediation and help was required overall.

French Revolution

A decisive impetus for the liberation of the peasants was the French Revolution , as a result of which feudal dependencies were lifted. The French National Assembly had already in August 1789 all Fronen , tithes and other feudal rights , to the extent they had no other legal basis as violent introduction or were incompatible with the common good otherwise canceled without compensation.

19th century


Title page of the October Edict of 1807

In Prussia the serfdom of the domain farmers was abolished in 1799 under the Prussian agricultural constitution. Initially, there were no reform efforts with regard to private farmers. There was a decisive boost only in 1807 in the context of the Prussian reforms under vom Stein and Hardenberg . These Stein and Hardenberg reforms were a direct result of the Napoleonic Wars and the military defeat of Prussia against the French "revolutionary army".

  • the October edict of October 9, 1807 lifted the inheritance for peasants.
  • the regulation edict of September 14, 1811 was supposed to transfer ownership of the farms they managed to the farmers. They had to buy their way out of previous duties and labor through a payment to the landlords and the royal domain offices. This happened over decades through the new general commissions for the regulation of manorial and peasant conditions , which, in cooperation with the governments, undertook the granting of property (replacement, replacement) (completed around 1855).
  • the Declaration on the Regulation Edict (1816) regulated the compensation for the landowners.

The reforms from 1807 to 1816 only affected those peasants who were in a manorial relationship and who had to perform particularly high services. Initially, the landlord peasants who had better property rights were not affected. In addition, the group of peasants who could achieve a complete abolition of the relationship of dependency was considerably reduced. The farmers were also burdened by high land cessions. These reforms also only applied to Prussia in the area of ​​1807 after the peace of Tilsit .

  • 1850 Replacement of all servitutes (easements) on properties without compensation to the landlord. Replacement, redemption, regulation of real estate essentially complete for hereditary tenants, gardeners, etc. (Replacement Act of March 2, 1850). Amortization payments often lasted until the end of the 19th century and were pre-financed by new pension banks.

The liberation of the peasants in Prussia was not yet complete in 1816. The landlord farmers could only apply for money redemption in 1821; The reforms were only concluded after 1848/49 with the law of March 2, 1850.

In addition to the abolition of hereditary servitude and serfdom , this also included the replacement of the tithe and other taxes and services, for which the landlords were entitled to high compensation payments. Since there were usually no support loans from the state for the farmers, many farms remained committed to their landlords for a long time or were burdened with high debts for a long time.

There was an intense research debate about the consequences of the Prussian peasant liberation. The original assumption that the land cession would have significantly reduced the number of farms, however, could not be confirmed.


Growing dissatisfaction

Saxony belonged to the area of ​​application of the central German manorial rule. The elements of personal lack of freedom were less than in the agricultural constitutions of other territorial rulers.

In 1750 64% of the population of Electoral Saxony lived in the country; there were 1,000 manors, 42,000 farms and 392,000 cottagers, gardeners and residents. Agriculture was intensified between 1750 and 1800. Sheep breeding began, potato cultivation was increased and previously unknown crops were cultivated, such as clover , saspars , alfalfa and fodder beet . This brought new work with it. In addition, the first artificial fertilizers were used, which increased yields. Since the conflicts between farmers and landowners increased because of this, the Secret Cabinet instructed the district and official governors to settle these amicably. In 1771, the Dresden lawyer Johannes Leonhard Hauschild demanded the elimination of serfdom, which the formerly free peasants of Saxony had gradually gotten into.

From 1788, living conditions deteriorated as a result of weather events; in particular, there was a prolonged drought in 1790. The existing feudal ties were considered intolerable. The exaggerated electoral guardianship of game led to a plague of game; the farmers drove away the game and shot it. The hunting riots spread from the Wehlen office to the Dresden, Oschatz, Torgau and Hoyerswerda offices. The Churschütz farmers refused to do compulsory labor and 50 villages in fifteen manors joined them. The rebels were brought to the Königstein Fortress in chains . The elector issued a “mandate”, a sovereign ordinance against tumult and rebellion. The number of legal disputes increased; alone, the Court of Appeal of Dresden was in 1790 with 236 Fron-, service, drift - and tax matters in arrears.

Defensive attempts at solutions

To resolve the process backlog, the Secret Cabinet commissioned a draft mandate. However, it refused to publish it on October 15, 1791 because it feared the landlord's objection. On the same day, a legal commission was formed with the task of drafting instructions in the rank below a mandate, i.e. guidelines for determining and deciding the powers of landlords and peasants. This could have been used without being formally published beforehand. The Secret Cabinet again rejected the legal principles developed in this way in compulsory and official matters and in hat and trifle matters. However, they were felt to be practicable, and the draft was used by the courts as a successful set of rules for 25 years, although it was not binding.

Not only the taxes and compulsory labor, but also the grazing and drifting rights, which were drawn into the early summer, burdened the farmers. In the years 1796 and 1797, the farmers drove the manor sheep from the fields in eleven places in the Plauen district in Vogtland.

Between 1806 and 1812 the Secret Cabinet commissioned the state government to examine a reorganization of communal property (common division order). The Napoleonic wars prevented the passing of the bill, which had been discussed over and over again. After the Napoleonic Wars, the affected agriculture was rebuilt; But the number of legal disputes between farmers and landlords also increased.

The manor owners from Vogtland protested in 1820 against the fact that the Dresden Court of Appeal was applying the “legal principles” that had not come into force, such as current law. King Friedrich August and the Secret Cabinet again commissioned a commission to determine the “legal principles”.

Reform commissions before the revolution

In matters of hats and tricks, i.e. because of pasture justice, a peasant-hostile law was put into effect in 1828, which imposed on farmers to let the landlord's cattle graze on the land given to them and to put their own cattle behind. On the other hand, a law on the legal principles in compulsory and official matters with detailed regulations was peasant-friendly.

The law did not regulate the replacement of labor, services and taxes, so that it was misunderstood to mean that a replacement should be prevented. In 1829, Cabinet Secretary Julius von Könneritz therefore recommended that the Secret Cabinet regulate the replacement of labor and services. A commission for the replacement legislation was appointed, which should also take into account the experiences made in Westphalia, Hesse, Baden and Weimar. In the commission, the view prevailed that a unilateral application to start replacement negotiations should suffice. The experiences with the voluntary replacement of serfs of the manor Netzschkau were taken into account. Compensation for services that were no longer available there was only paid in money, not through the transfer of land. This view was also just able to gain acceptance in the Commission. In 1830 116 farmers from Neukirchen bei Chemnitz refused to do unmeasured labor. 50 farmers were arrested during harvest time.

July Revolution

In the same summer, the revolution started in Dresden and Leipzig, which led to a constitution and a constitutional monarchy.

Therefore, on September 13, 1830, the liberal Bernhard von Lindenau became chief cabinet minister. He supported the specialist Karl Friedrich Schaarschmidt, who in December 1830 was able to propose to the commission the establishment of a land pension bank. The landlord entitled to serve is to receive a redemption amount for the services he has lost as a one-off payment or a pension from the bank. The obligated farmer should repay the amount to the bank in installments within a maximum of 25 years. The state, as the sponsor of the bank, should assume the risk of the farmers becoming insolvent. The total risk of the state was put at 10 million thalers.

During the consultation process in 1831, farmers from nine villages submitted an extensive complaint about the burdens imposed on them to the Wechselburg judicial office. The spokesmen were sentenced to lengthy prison terms. Your defense lawyer Moritz August Richter was sentenced to one year in prison; he was able to emigrate to the United States before going to prison.

The estates hurried to approve the commission's draft because they feared that the state parliament, to be elected according to the constitution of September 4, 1831, would come up with a regulation that was more disadvantageous for the landlords.

On March 17, 1832, the Law on Redemption and Common Partitions and the Law on Land Rentenbank were published.

There were 25 152 proceedings in transfer cases; Most of the applications were received between 1852 and 1854. The last pensions to the landowners expired in 1913. The bank was wound up by 1932. The Landrentenbank was the first state-guaranteed credit institute for the feudal replacements. The state guarantee never had to be used.

The feudal replacement in the other member states of the German Confederation was also supported by a bank: Electorate Hesse (1832), Baden (1833), Braunschweig (1834), Grand Duchy of Hesse (1836), Hanover (1840), Württemberg (1848), Bavaria (1848), Prussia (1850) and the Austrian Empire (1850).

Effects and consequences of the feudal replacement in Saxony

The productivity of Saxon agriculture increased soon after the feudal burdens were replaced. Grain production and livestock grew. The government encouraged the use of artificial fertilizers; the crowds rose rapidly. The middle peasants were able to enlarge their farms, but the large landowners only little. The feudal replacement and the beginning industrialization complemented each other. Agriculture was able to supply the population, which was becoming more urban. On the other hand, the increasing revenue from money made it easier for the farmers to earn the transfer fees, which are set at 25 times the annual value. If the high redemption amounts, like powdery mildew, had been on the initiative of the peasants, the feudal replacement could have failed.

The right to deduct the sub-farming layers benefited the labor needs of the young industry.


Manorial rule in Bavaria

In the electorate of Bavaria there was serfdom in 1756; the serf was, however, fully financially capable and was entitled to a withdrawal permit.

The landlords of the 29,808 farms were the sovereign with 4,074 farms (13.7 percent), the higher clergy with 9,524 farms (32.0 percent), the lower clergy with 7,095 farms (23.8 percent), the nobility with 7,106 farms (23 , 8%) and other non-class landlords with 847 farms (2.8%). Free goods were determined as the difference with 1,162 yards (3.9%). Other non-class landlords were mostly institutions such as hospitals , poor houses and alms offices. The higher clergy consisted of class monasteries and collegiate donors .

The peasant loads

The peasant burdens consisted of the most varied of measured and unmeasured labor, which were only converted into monetary payments on the ruler's farms. The regular payments in kind to the landlord consisted of grain and other natural produce such as eggs, butter and poultry.

Often the church tithing passed to the landlord, who extended to grain and other products such as potatoes, beets and flax and was confiscated ("confiscated") from the field by the authorized person. Cattle, sheep, horses, pigs and poultry had to be brought to the authorized person.

Beginning of the state agricultural policy

In 1762 the first electoral ordinance was issued, according to which primarily fallow land should be cultivated. However, the regulation was only partially implemented by the administration. It was only when Elector Maximilian IV Joseph and his minister Maximilian von Montgelas took office in 1799 that the intention of increasing the productivity of agriculture took shape again. First, Montgelas and Joseph von Hazzi realized the common division, i.e. the division of the common property and its transfer to the private property of the individual community members. Distribution should be on a per head basis. As many dispossessed people as possible should become independent farmers.

The project failed because there was no way of avoiding disputes among the authorized users. Although fallow land was cultivated and the improved three-field economy was more widely used as crop rotation, the successes remained modest until the middle of the 19th century.

In 1762 and 1774, the ban on dividing larger farms was lifted. Incomplete implementation regulations were responsible for the fact that instead of larger, well-rounded farms, smaller and barely viable businesses emerged. In 1779, the elector converted the easier-to-terminate rights of use of the peasants to the land into the peasant-friendly right of inheritance on his landed property and limited the fees owed when taking up and submitting the right of inheritance to 7½ percent of the value, which are no longer paid at once had to be, but could be paid off in 20 annual installments upon request.

Free farming becomes a state goal

In 1799, the electoral government for the first time acknowledged the free peasantry as a state goal, but it shied away from interfering with the property of the landlords. It therefore limited itself to the prohibition on selling compulsory labor to other landlords and extended the tithe freedom in the cultivation of wasteland to 25 years.

The secularization brought the state a huge increase in agricultural land. After taking over the monastery property in 1803, the elector wanted to give the former monastic farmers the opportunity to redeem the grain taxes with a one-off payment. The farmers did not make use of this option, because 300 guilders were to be paid for every bushel of grain (222.36 l) owed annually. Both the grain price of 12 guilders per bushel and the transfer rate of 25 annual amounts were excessive. The transfer fee was based more on the state's need for money than on the farmers' payment options. An improved offer was also not accepted and the farmers preferred to continue to pay the previous grain interest, so that the intended basic relief for the farmers did not occur.

In the constitution of 1808 , the aristocracy was put on an equal footing with other citizens in terms of state burdens. The manorial rights were only guaranteed in accordance with special laws. Serfdom was lifted without compensation. The abolition of serfdom, the inalienability of compulsory labor and the freedom to tithe in Neuland were the only tangible results of the Montgela era from 1799 to 1817. There was no comprehensive basic relief. Up until 1848 other marginal areas of the basic relief were regulated; however, the excessive transfer fee was always kept and thus the basic relief was further thwarted.

Peasant uprisings and basic relief

In March 1848, peasant revolts broke out in Franconia , Swabia and Lower Bavaria . The peasants refused labor and taxes. The uprisings were stifled by the military, but the government tabled a draft law on basic relief.

After that, the farmer should give the state four percent. H. Pay interest from the redemption capital of his obligations to the landlord. The redemption capital was assumed to be 18 times an annual obligation, which was converted into money. An annual obligation of 100 guilders was to be paid to the state as follows: The redemption capital was 18 × 100 guilders, i.e. 1,800 guilders; the annual tax to the state was four per cent. H. out of this, so 72 guilders.

The landlord received 4% from the state for the foregone obligations. H. from 20 times an annual salary, ie 80 guilders. The difference of eight guilders was borne by the state, and the landlord had to forego 20 guilders in monetary value.

In relation to the entire Kingdom of Bavaria , the beneficiaries were to receive only 5,272,000 guilders instead of 6,590,000 guilders and those obliged to pay only 4,744,800 guilders. The state should inject 527,000 guilders annually.

Despite heated discussions, the meeting of the estates changed nothing about this principle, and the Basic Relief Act was promulgated in June 1848 after a legislative process that lasted only two months.

Effects of basic relief

The reforms up to 1848 had only minor legal and economic effects, because the state goal of a liberated peasantry was subordinated to the property rights of the landlords.

The common divisions between 1800 and 1820 led to a doubling of the cereal acreage between 1810 and 1833. The basic relief after 1848 no longer led to an increase in cultivated areas, but to an increase in the area yield to almost double between 1850 and 1880. Artificial fertilizer was only used in Bavaria used from 1890, which tripled the area yields in the first third of the 20th century.

Kingdom of Hanover

In the Kingdom of Hanover , the Redemption Act of October 10, 1831 and the Redemption Order of July 23, 1833, and finally the establishment of the Hannoversche Landeskreditanstalt by law , which began operations on January 15, 1841, were passed. In contrast to Prussia, the burdens of the farmers in the Kingdom of Hanover should not be relieved by the assignment of land , rather the farms should be retained for tax reasons, both in their size and, if possible, in their profitability .


Serfdom was abolished in the Habsburg lands in 1782 by Emperor Joseph II and replaced by moderate hereditary servitude . This was also abolished in 1848.

Other German states

In the German states west of the Elbe , which were under direct or indirect French influence, reforms also took place that made it possible to free themselves from feudal burdens, but only in return for financial compensation. Some of these reforms were withdrawn after the end of French rule. A second wave of reforms began after 1830 ( July Revolution ). It led to so-called redemption laws, which precisely regulated the compensation payments made by the peasants to their feudal lords. In the south-west German states, the rulers prevented a complete implementation of these reforms, so that there only the March Revolution of 1848 led to a breakthrough in the abolition of rural dependency. In some areas, manorial conditions persisted for many decades into the second half of the 19th century.

Since the late 1830s, redemption funds have made it possible for farmers to get a relatively cheap redemption, which, however, remained extremely burdensome for decades. The German inflation from 1914 to 1923 made repaying their debts a formality for the last peasants who were still paying redemption, and with the revolution of 1918/1919 the last semi-feudal structures also ceased to exist.


Formal liberation of the peasants in 1861 under the Russian Tsar Alexander II , only a few of which were carried out.


Serfdom was abolished in the Domaine royal in 1779; the French Revolution confirmed or reaffirmed this (including the declaration of human and civil rights on August 26, 1789).


  • Der Große Ploetz, The Encyclopedia of World History , 35th edition, Freiburg im Breisgau 2008.
  • Christof Dipper : The peasant liberation in Germany. 1790-1850 . Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 1980, ISBN 3-17-005223-3 . Kohlhammer 1991, ISBN 978-3170052239 .
  • Christof Dipper: Agriculture in Transition. New perspectives on Prussian-German agricultural history in the 19th century . In: Neue Politik Literatur , Vol. 38 (1993), pp. 29-42.
  • Jonas Euchard Erhard: Dissertatio inauguralis de operis rusticorum , 1622.
  • Edgar Feichtner: The peasant liberation in Lower Bavaria: the change of the rural economic and social structure in Bavaria through the reform of the agricultural constitution in the first half of the 19th century, Stuttgart 1993. At the same time Regensburg Univ. Diss. 1991.
  • Reiner Groß : The civil agrarian reform in Saxony in the first half of the 19th century . Weimar 1968.
  • Reiner Groß : History of Saxony . Berlin 2001.
  • Hartmut Harnisch : Capitalist Agrarian Reform and Industrial Revolution. Agricultural historical study of East Elbe Prussia between late feudalism and the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1848/49 with special consideration of the province of Brandenburg ("Publications of the Potsdam State Archives"; 19). Böhlau, Weimar 1984.
  • Johannes Leonhard Hauschild, Opusculum pro libertate naturali in causis rusticorum , Dresden 1738.
  • Wolfgang von Hippel: The peasant liberation in the Kingdom of Württemberg ("Research on German social history"). Verlag Boldt, Boppard / Rhein 1977, ISBN 3-7646-1672-5 .
  1. Representations
  2. swell
  • Johann Friedrich Husanus: Tractatus de hominibus propriis, in quo tum veteris, tum hodiernae servitutis jura breviter et dilucide explicantur , Hamburg 1590.
  • Georg Friedrich Knapp : The peasant liberation and the origin of the farm workers in the older parts of Prussia . Duncker & Humblot, Munich 1927.
  1. Overview of the development
  2. the regulation of the landlord-peasant relations from 1406 to 1857 according to the Acts
  • David Mevius : A brief concern about the questions, such as the condition, demands and repressed succession of the Bawrspeople, to which someone avoids acceptance, arise and occur at the present time , Stralsund 1645.
  • Karl H. Schneider, History of the Liberation of the Peasants , Stuttgart 2010, ISBN 978-3-15-018735-7
  • Winfried Schulze: The development of the "German peasant law" in the early modern period . In: Zeitschrift für Neuere Rechtsgeschichte 12, 1990, pp. 127–163.
  • Martin Vogt (Ed.), German History from the Beginnings to the Present. 3rd edition Frankfurt am Main 2006.
  • Eberhard Weis : Montgelas. First volume. Between revolution and reform. 1759– 1799. Second edition, Munich 1988

Individual evidence

  1. Ulrich Wengenroth in German History from the Beginnings to the Present, Ed. Martin Vogt, 3rd edition Frankfurt am Main 2006, p. 298.
  2. Birgit Emich in Der Große Ploetz, Die Enzyklopädie der Weltgeschichte, 35th edition, Freiburg im Breisgau 2008, p. 694.
  3. Title IX of the Pomeranian Peasant Order of 1616. According to: Winfried Schulze, The development of the “teutschen Bauernrechts” in the early modern period. In: Zeitschrift für Neuere Rechtsgeschichte 12, 1990, pp. 127–163, 157.
  4. ^ Winfried Schulze, The Development of the "German Peasant Law" in the Early Modern Age. In: Zeitschrift für Neuere Rechtsgeschichte 12, 1990, pp. 127–163, 162.
  5. ^ Winfried Schulze, The Development of the "German Peasant Law" in the Early Modern Age. In: Zeitschrift für Neuere Rechtsgeschichte 12, 1990, s. 127-163, 132 ff.
  6. ^ Winfried Schulze, The Development of the "German Peasant Law" in the Early Modern Age. In: Zeitschrift für Neuere Rechtsgeschichte 12, 1990, s. 127-163, 154.
  7. ^ Johann Friedrich Husanus, De hominibus propriis, 1590. Based on: Winfried Schulze, The development of the “teutschen Bauernrechts” in the early modern period. In: Zeitschrift für Neuere Rechtsgeschichte 12, 1990, pp. 127–163, 143 ff.
  8. David Mevius, Kurtzes Bedencken on the challenge and dislocated succession of Bawrsmen. After: Winfried Schulze, The Development of the "German Peasant Law" in the Early Modern Age. In: Zeitschrift für Neuere Rechtsgeschichte 12, 1990, pp. 127–163, 146 ff.
  9. ^ Johannes Leonhard Hauschild, Opusculum pro libertate naturali. After: Winfried Schulze, The Development of the "German Peasant Law" in the Early Modern Age. In: Zeitschrift für Neuere Rechtsgeschichte 12, 1990, pp. 127–163, 150 ff.
  10. Winfried Schulze, The development of “teutschen Bauernrechts” in the early modern period in: Zeitschrift für Neuere Rechtsgeschichte 12, 1990, pp. 127–163, 159 ff.
  11. Eberhard Weis , Montgelas I , pp. 293-296.
  12. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 26 f.
  13. Groß, Geschichte Sachsens, p. 162 f.
  14. Groß, Geschichte Sachsens, pp. 176–178.
  15. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 59.
  16. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 61 f.
  17. Groß, Geschichte Sachsens, p. 178.
  18. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 67.
  19. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 63.
  20. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 66 f.
  21. Groß, Geschichte Sachsens, p. 193.
  22. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 71.
  23. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, pp. 75 f.
  24. a b Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 89.
  25. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 83.
  26. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 93.
  27. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, pp. 85–88.
  28. Groß, Geschichte Sachsens, pp. 200–205.
  29. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 134.
  30. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 90.
  31. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 95.
  32. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform p. 103.
  33. Groß, Geschichte Sachsens, p. 206.
  34. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 124.
  35. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 127.
  36. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 143.
  37. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 144.
  38. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 145.
  39. Groß, Geschichte Sachsens, p. 206 f.
  40. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 150 ff.
  41. Groß, Bürgerliche Agrarreform, p. 162.
  42. Feichtner, Peasant Liberation in Lower Bavaria, pp. 27–29.
  43. Feichtner, Peasant Liberation in Lower Bavaria, pp. 40–42.
  44. Feichtner, Peasant Liberation in Lower Bavaria, p. 54.
  45. Feichtner, Peasant Liberation in Lower Bavaria, pp. 50–57.
  46. Feichtner, Liberation of farmers in Lower Bavaria, pp. 58–60.
  47. Feichtner, Peasant Liberation in Lower Bavaria, p. 61 f.
  48. Feichtner, Peasants Liberation in Lower Bavaria, p. 60 ff.
  49. Feichtner, Peasant Liberation in Lower Bavaria, p. 75.
  50. Feichtner, Peasant Liberation in Lower Bavaria, pp. 83–87.
  51. Feichtner, Liberation of the Peasants in Lower Bavaria, p. 91.
  52. Feichtner, Peasant Liberation in Lower Bavaria, p. 213 f.
  53. Feichtner, Peasant Liberation in Lower Bavaria, p. 171 f.
  54. Feichtner, Peasants Liberation in Lower Bavaria, p. 51.
  55. Feichtner, Peasant Liberation in Lower Bavaria, pp. 171–174.
  56. ^ Rainer Ertel , Waldemar R. Röhrbein : Hannoversche Landeskreditanstalt , in: Stadtlexikon Hannover , p. 260 f.
  57. Knapp, peasant liberation . Retrieved June 21, 2011.