........................................

SOCIOLOGY, HISTORY AND THE ORIGINS

OF THE EUROPEAN PROLETARIAT

Charles Tilly
University of Michigan
December 1976
.......................................

CRSO ~ o r k i n iPaper /'I48 Copies available through :

Center for Research on
Social Organization
University of Michigan
330 Packard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
 SOCIOLOGY,

HISTORY,

AND THE ORIGINS

OF THE EUROPEAN PROLETARIAT

Charles Tilly

University of Michigan

December 1976

prepared for presentation at the annual meeting

of the American Historical Association

Washington, D.C., December 1976

 Sociology and h i s t o r y ? When someone u t t e r s t h o s e magic words, a

s t r o n g f e e l i n g w e l l s up i n m e . The f e e l i n g i s unquenchable apathy,

u n u t t e r a b l e ennui. (The ennui, I f e a r , e x t e n d s t o t h e dozen o r s o e s s a y s

on t h e s u b j e c t I have myself committed over t h e y e a r s . The apathy might

even s t e m from t h o s e e s s a y s . ) The t o p i c c a l l s f o r t h t h e worst i n b o t h

s o c i o l o g i s t s and h i s t o r i a n s . It c a l l s f o r t h d r e a r y d i s q u i s i t i o n s on t h e

.. L ,
epistemology of ~ e i s t e s w i s s e n s c h a f ~ &
f l~a,t u l e n t t r a c t s on t h e e v i l s of

. , Philistinism, exhortations t o interdisciplinary e f f o r t s , earnest essays

' . a s k i n g whether h i s t o r y * i s , o r ought t o b e , q u a n t i f i a b l e . Have we no

..I . ~

c h o i c e s b u t t o c h a t t e r , grumble, mumble, o r s h o u t ?
.. ,
. . Y e s , we have o t h e r c h o i c e s . W e can l o o k backward o r forward, and
I. - ...
..
.:,
. \:. speak s o f t l y b u t c l e a r l y about what w e see. Looking backward, w e can
?:

examine p r e v i o u s e f f o r t s t o answer q u e s t i o n s which l i e i n t h e zone of

o v e r l a p between s o c i o l o g y and h i s t o r y . Looking forward, w e can i d e n t i f y

f r u i t f u l areas f o r collaboration. Let u s t a l k about a problem which r e -

q u i r e s u s t o look i n both d i r e c t i o n s . L e t u s t a l k about t h e o r i g i n s of

t h e European p r o l e t a r i a t .

The t o p i c i s o l d . It c e r t a i n l y a n t e d a t e s t h e i n v e n t i o n of sociology

a s a separate discipline. L i s t e n t o what Adam Smith wrote i n t h e c e n t u r y

b e f o r e s o c i o l o g y d e c l a r e d independence, and p u b l i s h e d i n t h e y e a r t h a t t h e

American c o l o n i e s d e c l a r e d independence: "The demand f o r t h o s e who l i v e by

wages n a t u r a l l y i n c r e a s e s w i t h t h e i n c r e a s e of n a t i o n a l w e a l t h , and cannot

p o s s i b l y i n c r e a s e without i t " (Wealth -

of N a t i o n s , Book I , c h a p t e r 8 ) .
"Those who l i v e by wages" i s t h e s h o r t d e f i n i t i o n of t h e p r o l e t a r i a t .

"The l i b e r a l reward of l a b o r , t h e r e f o r e , " s a i d Smith l a t e r on, "as i t i s

t h e e f f e c t of i n c r e a s i n g w e a l t h , s o i t i s t h e c a u s e of i n c r e a s i n g ' p o p u -

lation. To complain of i t i s t o lament o v e r t h e n e c e s s a r y e f f e c t and

c a u s e of t h e g r e a t e s t p u b l i c p r o s p e r i t y . " I n Smith's a n a l y s i s , t h e .
i n c r e a s i n g d i v i s i o n of l a b o r r e s u l t e d from t h e r a t i o n a l d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e

f a c t o r s of p r o d u c t i o n -- l a n d , l a b o r and c a p i t a l -- by t h o s e who c o n t r o l l e d

each of them. S i n c e t h e i n c r e a s i n g d i v i s i o n of l a b o r enhanced p r o d u c t i -

v i t y , i t i n c r e a s e d t h e r e t u r n t o a l l f a c t o r s of p r o d u c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g

labor. I n d i r e c t l y , t h e r a t i o n a l d i s p o s i t i o n of r e s o u r c e s l e d t o t h e growth

of t h a t p a r t of t h e p o p u l a t i o n which l i v e d from wages a l o n e . It l e d t o t h e

growth of t h e p r o l e t a r i a t .

How d i d t h a t growth occur? So f a r a s I know, Adam Smith never

analyzed t h e h i s t o r i c a l p r o c e s s i n d e t a i l . P e r h a p s i t seemed t o o obvious:

wage-laborers m u l t i p l i e d because t h e demand f o r t h e i r l a b o r i n c r e a s e d .

Malthus' gloss on Smith, after 0 ,d o e s l i t t l e more than e l a b o r a t e t h a t

basic relationship.

W r i t i n g a c e n t u r y l a t e r , however, K a r l Marx considered t h e h i s t o r i c a l

p r o c e s s of p r o l e t a r i a n i z a t i o n t o b e b o t h fundamental and problematic.

Chapters twenty-five t o t h i r t y - t w o of Das Kapital discuss a t length the

f o r m a t i o n of t h e E n g l i s h p r o l e t a r i a t . Marx d e n i e d e m p h a t i c a l l y t h a t t h e

smooth o p e r a t i o n of demand accounted f o r t h e p r o l e t a r i a n i z a t i o n of t h e

English-labor force. "The p r o l e t a r i a t c r e a t e d by t h e breaking up of t h e

bands of f e u d a l r e t a i n e r s and by t h e f o r c i b l e e x p r o p r i a t i o n of t h e people

from t h e s o i l , " h e w r o t e , " t h i s ' f r e e ' p r o l e t a r i a t could n o t p o s s i b l y be

absorbed by t h e n a s c e n t manufactures as f a s t a s i t w a s thrown upon t h e

world" ( c h a p t e r 28). Thus, a c c o r d i n g t o Marx, t h e i n d u s t r i a l r e s e r v e army

 which was essential to the operation of capitalist labor markets began to

form. It is worth noting that Marx concentrated on rural, and especially

agricultural, workers; only since his time has the term "proletarian" taken

on its current connotation of large-shop manufacturing. ..

In general, Marx portrayed proletarianization as the forcible

wresting of control over the means of production away from artisans and,

especially, peasants. "In the history of primitive'accumulation," he de-

clared at the end of chapter twenty-six,

all revolutions are epoch-making that act as levers for the

. . capitalist class in course of formation; but, above all, those

:>r
._. moments when great basses of men are suddenly and forcibly
, I torn from their means of subsistence, and hurled as free

*f . and "unattached" proletarians on the labour-market. The

t
L -
expropriation of the agricultural producer, of the peasant,
, .
: 1:
from the soil, is the basis of the whole process.
'..
. + T h u s the central fact was the creation of a rural proletariat, working

mainly for wages in agriculture, but available at bargain rates for indus-

trial production.

Marx had little to say about the numbers involved, or about how

those numbers changed from one period to the next. His implicit argument

in that regard .had two elements. First, the important increases in the

number of proletarians occurred in bursts of expropriation such as the

enclosures. Second, once people were proletarians, they more or less

reproduced themselves: proletarians begat proletarians,.apparently in con-

stant numbers. If that is the case, the growth of the proletariat directly

measures both the progress of expropriation and the current extent of

exploitation.
 Here sociology and history come together. ~ a r x 'analysis, and his

apparent insouciance about the numbers involved, provide a prime oppor-

tunity for complementary work by people from the two disciplines. There

is the opportunity to verify the main lines of Marx' analysis -- for example,

the idea of spurts of proletarianization as a consequence of massive expro-

priation. There is the opportunity to specify the different paths by

which people moved from artisanal or peasant production into various forms

of wage labor. There is the opportunity to assign relative weights to

those paths: which ones bore the most traffic? There is the opportunity to

integrate them into a general account of the flows of people by which the

'largely peasant and artisanal European population of 1500 or 1600 became

.the overwhelmingly proletarian European population of 1900 and later.

7 -
,. \
., : - How and'why diid'that great shift occur? Why in Europe rather than
> 4

. . elsewhere? In the century since Marx, one version or another of that double

question has dominated the agenda of modern European economic and social

,history. Some of the debate has pivoted on the facts: how many yeomen, for

example, did enclosures actually displace? Some of the debate has concerned

the proper way to state the questions: Weber and Tawney differed over the

appropriate Problemstellung as much as over the historical facts. And much

of the debate has dealt with explanations: why did capitalism flourish

earlier in Britain than in Prussia?

These problems are essentially historical: they concern real people

at specific times and places in the past. Why, then, might proud and self-

sufficient historians want to share them with mere sociologists? Well, both

a backward look and a forward look identify these problems as a fruitful

zone of collaboration between historians and sociologists. The backward

look shows that one group of specialists within sociology has already
0
 given h i s t o r i a n s v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e i n i d e n t i f y i n g and assembling t h e

c r u c i a l evidence. Those s p e c i a l i s t s a r e t h e demographers. Once h i s t o r i a n s

saw t h e v a l u e of demographic approaches t o t h e i r problems t o b e s u r e ,

they a c q u i r e d many of t h e e s s e n t i a l s k i l l s themselves. Nonetheless, t h e

c o n t i n u i n g c o n t r i b u t i o n s of such,demographers as Louis Henry remained

c r u c i a l t o t h e h i s t o r i c a l study of European p o p u l a t i o n s . Furthermore, t h e

forward look r e v e a l s a whole s e r i e s of f u r t h e r problems t o which socio-

l o g i c a l e x p e r t i s e i s r e l e v a n t , perhaps even i n d i s p e n s a b l e .

One d u l l , r o u t i n e s o c i o l o g i c a l p r o c e d u r e which promises t o h e l p t h e

s e a r c h f o r t h e o r i g i n s of t h e ~ u r ' o ~ e apnr o l e t a r i a t i s t o break t h e s e a r c h

into three parts. The f i r s t p a r t i s t h e a n a l y s i s of components of growth.

The second, t h e e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e i n d i v i d u a l components and t h e i r i n t e r -

I _*, ' actions. The t h i r d , t h e i n t e g r a t i o n of t h o s e p a r t i a l e x p l a n a t i o n s i n t o a

<?
r .
--P " g e n e r a l account of t h e process. Let m e s t r e s s a t once t h a t t h e s e a r e

l o g i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n s of t h e t a s k , not' d i s t i n c t temporal s t a g e s . If we
. .' ,'don't b e g i n w i t h a p i e c e of t h e t h i r d p a r t , w i t h a t e n t a t i v e account of t h e

e n t i r e p r o c e s s of p r o l e t a r i a n i z a t i o n , i n d e e d , w e a r e q u i t e l i k e l y t o

wander through t h e a n a l y s i s of components of growth, and t o stumble through

t h e e x p l a n a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l components and t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s . The

s e c r e t i s t o begin w i t h a t e n t a t i v e account which i s c l e a r l y v e r i f i a b l e ,

f a l s i f i a b l e and c o r r e c t i b l e . . O r , b e t t e r s t i l l , two o r t h r e e competing

accounts which a r e c l e a r l y v e r i f i a b l e , f a l s i f i a b l e , and c o r r e c t i b l e .

Accounts b u i l t on t h e arguments of Adam Smith and K a r l Marx, l e t u s s a y .

Components of growth? A t i t s s i m p l e s t , t h e a n a l y s i s c o n s i s t s of

d e f i n i n g p r e c i s e l y t h e change being a n a l y z e d , p r e p a r i n g a l o g i c a l l y

e x h a u s t i v e l i s t of t h e components of t h a t change, and e s t i m a t i n g t h e

c o n t r i b u t i o n of each component t o t h e change a s a whole. I n t h e c a s e of

 European proletarianization, we must begin with working definitions of
11
Europe" and "proletarian". That means deciding what to do with Iceland,

Constantinople, Malta, the Azores, and so on. It also means deciding

whether it is possible to be a little bit proletarian -- for example,

whether the independent weaver who hires himself out for the harvest

qualifies as a proletarian, as one quarter of a proletarian, or as no

proletarian at all. What about his young children? Uninteresting deci-

sions, these, except that they significantly affect the results of the

analysis.

These dull but crucial decisions made, we can begin to ask how the

absolute number and the proportion of the European population in the

. . category 'Iproletarian" changed from, say, 1500 to 1900. We'll come back

_ . . _ .- to guesses.at the real numbers later. For now, the thing to notice is
) . . that we can break down those numbers into geographic, temporal and, most

important, logical components. We may ask where the transformation of

. "non-proletarian populations into proletarian populations occurred. Did it

happen mainly in areas of advanced capitalism? We may ask when the

transformation occurred? Did the process accelerate greatly with the

d

expansion of large-scale manufacturing after 1800? We may also ask -

how

it happened. But the how, in this case, concerns the logical components

of the change.

If we turn to standard demographic accounting procedures, we find

three logical possibilities. Each is in turn the resultant of two possible

changes. The three logical possibilities are reclassification, natural

increase and net migration. Marx stressed reclassification: the movement

of a'particular social unit from one category to another as a consequence of

an alteration in its own characteristics or relationships. If individuals

 are our social units, every person who in his own lifetime loses control

over his or her means of production adds to the toll of proletarianization.

Thus every landowning peasant who loses his land and becomes an agri-

cultural wage-worker counts. However, every wage-worker who sets up

business for himself subtracts himself from the toll of proletarianization.

In fact, the same individual often oscillates between the two categories

throughout his or her lifetime. The net effect of all such moves across

the boundary is the component of reclassification.

Natural increase is the resultant of births and deaths. If I

read him aright, Marx' implicit assumption was that natural increase was
.
.
. ,... . ,
an unimportant component of the growth of the European proletariat: the
- I deaths more or less balanced out the births, while net enlargements of
' .
. : .z.
. L
.. .. . .: .-
the proletariat.depended on new entries by.peoplewho began life as non-
r .:
f.
proletarians. This is where the components-of-growth analysis gets inter-

esting. For several alternative possibilitiesexist. Given their vulnera-

bility-toinfectious .disease,-stamtion and war, proletarians sometimes

underwent a natural decrease: deaths exceeded births. The question is:

how often and how much? If natural decrease were the normal situation of

proletarians, the proletarian population would be in something like the

situation of most pre-industrial cities: they would have to recruit sub-

stantial numbers of newcomers merely to maintain their current size. To

grow, they would have to recruit very large numbers indeed.

It is also possible that the normal situation of proletarians was

for their birth rates to run above their death rates. In that case, the

proletarian population could grow without any new recruitment of non-

proletarians. If the proletarian rate of natural increase were higher than

that of the population as a whole, the proletarian share of the total popu-
 lation would tend to rise, even in the absence of lifetime mobility from

non-proletarian to proletarian. With additional permutations of fertility

and mortality, still further alternatives are quite possible; for example,

the proletarian rate of natural increase could have risen over time.

The third component -- net migration -- likewise offers multiple

possibilities. If we are considering the European population as a whole,

the migration that matters consists of moves of proletarians into and out

of the continent. Because that component, too, sums up numerous losses

and gains, its overall effect may have been nil, a substantial addition to

the proletariat, a substantial subtraction from the proletariat, a change

over time, or something else. If we start considering migration into and

out of the proletarian populations of different European regions, the

problem becomes more complex and interesting.

To recapitulate: as in any population change, we can break down the

increase of the European proletarian population from 1500 to 1900 (or for

a , any other interval) in terms of a standard accounting equation:

P2 = P1 + (IC - OC) + (B - D) + (IM - OM) +e

where P and P2 are the populations at the two points in time, IC and OC
1
are the numbers of persons who make lifetime moves into the category and

out of it, B and D are births and deaths of members of the category, IM and

OM are in-migration and out-migration, and e is the measurement error

summed over all these observations.

Now, why should anyone care about these hypothetical numbers? For

more reasons than one. First, if we are to attempt any general account of

Europe's proletarianization, we have no choice but to formulate hypotheses

about the components of growth. The hypotheses may be implicit, and

they may be very crude; they may consist, for example, of assigning an

indefinitely large positive value to the net effect of lifetime moves and

zero values to all the other components. That is the tone of Marx'

analysis. Adam Smith, on the other hand, wrote as if natural increase were

the only component differing significantly from zero. Thus in the absence

of any exact numbers, the simple knowledge of which domponents were posi-

tive or negative, large or small, would give us the means of judging

whether Marx' formulation, Smith's formulation, or some modification of one

or the other, was more adequate.

Second, the relative weight and direction of the three components

make a genuine difference to our understanding of the historical experience

of'proletarianization. To the extent that lifetime moves into.the prole-

tariat comprised the dominant process, we might expect a good deal of

proletarian action to consist of efforts to retain or regain individual

control over the means of production. On the other hand, chat same exten-

sive recruitment through lifetime moves would make it more difficult to

account for the existence of an autonomous proletarian culture, persikting

from one generation to-thenext. To the extent that natural increase was

the main source of growth in the proletariat, we would find it easy to

understand autonomous, persistent proletarian culture, but hard to account

for artisanal and peasant themes in'that culture. To the extent that net

migration was the primary source, we might expect the proletariat to be

the locus not only of alienation but of aliens, and to be correspondingly

resistant to unification. The contrasting portraits of proletarian experi-

ence which come to us from, say, E. P. Thompson and Louis Chevalier may

result in part from their having studied populations which differed signifi-
cantly in these regards, or from their having implicitly assumed differing

configurations of reclassification, natural increase and net migration.

Third, the composition of the three major components matters as

well. Zero net migration over a long period may result from no moves in

either direction, from large but exactly equal flows of definitive in-

migrants and definitive out-migrants, from numerous circular migrants who

spend some time at the destination and then return to their-pointsof

origin, and from a number of other equalizing migration patterns. These

are very different social.situations. They have very different impli-

cations for social control, proletarian culture, class conflict and the

recruitment of an industrial labor force.

Positive or negative net migration may likewise result from a wide

variety of migratory patterns, each affecting life at the destination in

different ways. The same observation holds for the sub-components of

reclassification: temporary or definitive moves into the proletariat,

.temporary or definitive moves out of the proletariat. Clearly it holds.for

births and deaths as well. Consider the difference between a) slight

natural increase due to high fertility which is almost balanced by high

mortality and b) slight natural increase due to low fertility which is

matched with even lower mortality. That is the difference between the death-

ridden experience of the sixteenth century and the long life of the twentieth.

To make such distinctions, we do not need the precise numbers. But we do

need to consider the full set of components of growth.

It is a good thing we don't need the precise numbers. If we did,

the task would be impossible in our lifetimes. Although the methods of

archeology, paleobotany and historical demography may one day converge on

fine estimating procedures for the European population, at present we have

only a c r u d e s e n s e of t h e grand t o t a l s . What i s more, w e have no large-

s c a l e estimates of t h e p r o l e t a r i a n p o p u l a t i o n . Indeed, w e f a c e one of

t h o s e r e c u r r e n t h i s t o r i o g r a p h i c a l i r o n i e s : t h e i d e a s of " l a b o r f o r c e " and

I1
employment" a r e a t once e s s e n t i a l t o t h e keeping of t h e s o r t s of s t a t i s -

t i c s we need and c o n t i n g e n t on t h e v e r y p r o c e s s w e hope t o t r a c e : prole-

tarianization. I n g e n e r a l , we cannot look t o t h e s t a t i s t i c a l r e p o r t s of

n a t i o n a l s t a t e s b e f o r e t h e . f u l 1 bloom of n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y p r o l e t a r i a n i -

zation. For earlier p e r i o d s , w e must combine a n a l y s i s of t r e n d s i n small

a r e a s which h i s t o r i a n s have s t u d i e d i n t e n s i v e l y w i t h i n d i r e c t i n f e r e n c e s

from o t h e r , more g e n e r a l t r e n d s .

We might, f o r example, r e f l e c t on t r e n d s i n t o t a l and urban popula-

I
t i o n s i n c e 1500. Table 1 and F i g u r e 1 assemble d a t a from many d i s p a r a t e

sources -- e s p e c i a l l y . f r o m Chandler and Fox.' mammoth compilation of

urban p o p u l a t i o n s . The numbers r u n h i g h e r t h a n t h e u s u a l e s t i m a t e s ( f o r

example, t h o s e i n D e V r i e s 1976) because t h e y i n c l u d e European R u s s i a ,

" U r o p e a n Turkey and therest of e a s t e r n and Mediterranean Europe. I f the

numbers have any r e l a t i o n t o r e a l i t y , t h e y a r e b e g u i l i n g . They i n d i c a t e a

r e l a t i v e l y c o n s t a n t rate of European p o p u l a t i o n growth b e f o r e 1750: a b i t

f a s t e r i n t h e e a r l y s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y , a b i t slower i n t h e e a r l y seven-

-
t e e n t h , b u t g e n e r a l l y f l u c t u a t i n g around a q u a r t e r of one p e r c e n t p e r y e a r .

A f t e r 1750, and e s p e c i a l l y from 1850 t o 1900, w e w i t n e s s a n a c c e l e r a t i o n of

t o t a l growth d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t n e t e m i g r a t i o n from Europe was l i k e w i s e

accelerating. I n t h e s e f i g u r e s , t h e "expansion" of t h e s i x t e e n t h century

and t h e " c r i s i s " of t h e s e v e n t e e n t h appear a s minor d e v i a t i o n s from a well-

e s t a b l i s h e d t r e n d r a t h e r than a s major t u r n a b o u t s . However, s i n c e t h e

e s t i m a t e s b e f o r e 1800 r e s u l t from i n t e r p o l a t i o n s and ap,proximations, we

should t r e a t t h e i r ups and downs a s f r a g i l e hypotheses.

 The f i g u r e s - f o r urban p o p u l a t i o n a r e a b i t more s o l i d . They

r e s u l t from t h e c o l l a t i o n of r e p o r t e d f i g u r e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l p l a c e s

throughout t h e 450-year i n t e r v a l , i n t e r p o l a t e d and summed a t t h e f i f t y -

y e a r marks. They i n d i c a t e more o r less c o n t i n u o u s ' u r b a n growth through-

o u t t h e p e r i o d , a s w e might e x p e c t . They show t h e expected speeding up

of urban growth a f t e r 1800. Y e t t h e y a l s o have an unexpected impli-

cation. I f t h e f i g u r e s a r e c o r r e c t , t h e s h a r e of t h e European population

i n b i g c i t i e s r o s e dramatically i n t h e e a r l y s i x t e e n t h century. From 1500

t o 1550, t h e p r o p o r t i o n of t h e p o p u l a t i o n i n c i t i e s of 100,000 o r more

went from 1 . 6 t o 2.9 p e r c e n t . A major p a r t of t h a t s i x t e e n t h - c e n t u r y

growth occurred i n Mediterranean c i t i e s , i n c l u d i n g Constantinople. Never-

t h e l e s s , f u t u r e North European l e a d e r s such a s London, Copenhagen, Danzig

and Amsterdam were growing'as w e l l . The f i g u r e s i n d i c a t e t h a t a f t e r t h e

f i r s t s u r g e of s i x t e e n t h - c e n t u r y urban growth, t h e p r o p o r t i o n of t h e popu-

l a t i o n i n l a r g e c i t i e s d i d not r i s e again u n t i l t h e nineteenth century.

I n f a c t , i f we sum t h e f i g u r e s f o r c i t i e s of 20,000 and l a r g e r , they show

a de-urbanization of Europe a f t e r ' 1 6 0 0 .

Now, t h a t s u r p r i s i n g c o n c l u s i o n may w e l l f a d e away i n t h e l i g h t of

f u l l e r evidence. Nonetheless, i t i s n o t s o i m p l a u s i b l e on t h e second look

a s i t i s on t h e f i r s t . I f t h e f i g u r e s a r e c o r r e c t , Europe de-urbanized

from 1600 t o 1800 because urban growth slowed w h i l e t o t a l growth continueG.

To put i t a n o t h e r way, t h e r u r a l and small-town p o p u l a t i o n grew f a s t e r ths:.

t h e population i n l a r g e c i t i e s . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e normal n a t u r a l

d e c r e a s e of c i t i e s grew l a r g e r a s s a n i t a t i o n , n u t r i t i o n and h e a l t h c a r e

d e c l i n e d , t h a t t h e normal n a t u r a l i n c r e a s e of r u r a l a r e a s i n c r e a s e d a s

f e r t i l i t y r o s e o r m o r t a l i t y d e c l i n e d , and t h a t t h e normal rural-to-urban

flow of m i g r a n t s diminished. A l l t h r e e may w e l l have happened.

Table 1. Total and Urban Population of Europe, 1500-1950.

Percent of Total in Cities of:

Total 50,000 20,000
Population to to
Year In Thousands 100,O O W 99,999 49,999
Figure 1. Europe 1500-1950: Numbers of People by Size of Settlement.
 These hypothetical changes are thinkable for several reasons.

First, Europe's larger cities were unhealthy places, and may well have

gotten unhealthier as they grew. Second, the food supply of large cities

was growing increasingly problematic in the seventeenth and eighteenth

centuries despite modest increases in agricultural productivity. Urban

growth may well have overrun the general capacity of European agriculture

to support non-producers, surpassed the abilities of merchants and officials

to extract whatever.surplus did exist, strained the limits to shipping of

food set by reliance on navigable waterways, and exceeded the possibility

that particular cities and their immediate hinterlands could produce enough

S t to sustain their own non-agricultural populations. In such circumstances

we would expect the cost of food to rise prohibitively in urban areas.

. . .. - .. . The eighteenth-century rise of the food.riot..and

the elaboration of muni-
:Z1 .
,-I
' _ _
' . cipal and national controls over food supply certainly suggest a sharpening
... _
.' . struggle over the disposition of food during the period of apparent de-
urbanization. Third, as we shall see, there are reasons for thinking that

'natural increase rose in important parts of rural and small-town Europe

during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Whether such increases.

resulted from declining mortality, rising fertility, or both, remains

debatable. We shall return to that problem, too.

The final possible source of de-urbanization connects the most

directly with our inquiry into the origins of the proletariat. Two kinds

of employment were growing rapidly in the Europe of 1600 to 1800; they were

surely growing more rapidly in small towns and rural areas than in.big

cities. One was wage-labor in agriculture. The other was cottage industry

The expansion of agricultural wage-labor proletarianized, almost by defi-

nition; it was the principal case Marx had in mind. The growth of cottage
 industry did not necessarily proletarianize; tha,tdepended on who held

control of the means of production. But in fact the major European forms

of cottage industry-createda workforce which depended for survival on the

-
sale of its labor power. Thus it is plausible (although far-fromestab-

lished) that a temporary de-urbanization of Europe did-occurin the seven-

teenth and eighteenth centuries, and that the growth of a rural proletariat

contributed significantly to that de-urbanization.

If we start our inquiry at 1500 and end it at 1900, we are dealing

wi.th an increase in the total European population from fifty or sixty mil-

lion to around 500 million. That makes a net rise of about 450 million.

A large portion of that increase consisted of net additions to the prole-

where
tariat. But how much, whenland how? Of the estimated 56 million Europeans

in 1500, a good half were probably peasants -- people 1iving.mainly from

. ' . agriculture who supplied the bulk of their own labor requirements and

exercised substantial control over the land they farmed. It is unlikely

that many more than a million were landlords, officials, merchants or

,'
artisans who disposed of the products of their labor. That leaves a possible

twenty million wage-workers in agriculture, manufacturing and services.

By 1900, the great majority of the 500 million Europeans were wage-

workers and their households. Now, setting limits on all these speculative

numbers is itself an important task for theory and research. Since at this

point we are only seeking orders of magnitude, however, let us simply

guess the number of proletarians in 1900 at a conservative 300 million.

That figure would leave us a net increase of 280 million proletarians to

account for. ' (It would also, incidentally, give us a net increase of some-

thing like 160 million -

non-proletarians to explain.) If those are the

rhere
numbers, we must ask when and how the increase occurred.
 The timing of total population growth sets important limits on the

possible timetable of proletarianization. Since the population of Europe

rose from under 200 million to around 500 million during the nineteenth

- century, a large part of the net increase in the proletariat must also

have occured in the nineteenth century. Nevertheless,. given the signifi-

cant eighteenth-century expansion of wage labor in such widely scattered

areas as England, Poland and Spain, it is quite possible that by 1800 some-

thing like 100 million Europeans were already proletarians and their

households. Now, according to my estimates no more than twelve million

people then lived in cities of 20,000 or larger. Nine-tenths if Europe's

proletarians therefore probably lived in smaller cities, towns and rural

'areas. In tracing the proletarianization of Europe before 1800, we have

'.togive priority to farms and villages. From the nineteenth century on-

ward, larger cities start occupying our attention.

We are thinking about components of growth within a population

which broke down something like this:

. i

(millions of persons)
1500 1800 1900

total population 55 190 500

non-proletarians: peasants,
artisans, landlords, officials, etc. 30 100 200

proletarians in cities of 20,000+ 3 10 100

proletarians in smaller places 22 80 200

To avoid any misunderstanding, let me repeat: these numbers are no more

than thoughtful guesses, orders of magnitude, hypotheses to verify. Their

revision stands high on the agenda of historical demography. I have de-

 liberately understated my own sense of the size of the proletariat in

1900, in order td avoid fruitless controversies about so-called peasants

who owned an acre of land, or so-called artisans who had nothing but a

toolbox to call their own. Even understated, the numbers suggest

. . a

thirty-fold increase in the proletarian population in larger cities, a

ten-fold increase of proletarians in smaller places, a more rapid increase

of proletarians in smaller places before 1800, a great acceleration of

urban proletarianization in the nineteenth century. With these orders of

magnitude in mind, let us return to the components of growth: reclassi-

fication, natural increase and net migration. .

Reclassification

Speaking of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Netherlands, Jan

De Vries distinguishes between two models of rural social organization: a

peasant model and a specialization model. Peasants produce enough to

. . survive at a conventional level of well-being and to meet their basic

outside obligations. They work to insulate themselves from the market's

' I
vagaries.. They produce a variety of non-agricultural goods and services,

while avoiding purchases of goods and services as much as possible. They

seek in general to maintain all their offspring on the land. With natural

increase that strategy produces subdivision of holdings and intensified

cultivation of the available land. The result is then that per captia in-

come almost never rises, but remains constant or declines.

Specialists, on the other hand, exploit the market by concentrating

on profitable crops. They specialize in agricultural production, and pur-

chase goods and services they cannot produce profitably. They accumulate

capital and reinvest it in land and equipment. Such children as they can-

not profitably employ on the land they place in other forms of enterprise.
 Over the long run, their p.er capita income tends to rise. The specialists

are capitalists, the peasants non-capitalists, often anti-capitalists.

The two models identify two quite different exits from the peasantry.

The peasant path leads eventually to wage-labor in agriculture or in in-

dustry. The specialization path leads to cash-crop farming. The peasant

strategy proletarianizes, while the specialization strategy, if successful,

capitalizes. The peasant strategy leads to wage labor for two reasons:

first, because its internal logic results sooner or later in the.over-

running of the household's capacity to support itself from the land it

controls; second, because in the meantime capitalists are expanding their

cmtrol over the land and over other means of production. English enclo-
b

sures and Polish "refeudalization" are variants on that second pattern.

.Whether the new proletarians remained in agricultural wage labor, moved

., li...
.'
. . .. into manufacturing or took up some combination of the two varied.signifi-

cantly as a function of the-locallabor requirements of agriculture and the

market for local manufactures. In the Swiss mountain areas studies by

Rudolf Braun, cottage textile manufacturing oriented toward Zurich dis-

placed the subsistence agriculture of the uplands. In the Leicestershire

agricultural villages studies by David Levine, cottage industry provided

the context for proletarianization where the landlord tolerated it, but

dairy farming produced a later, slower and more subtle form of proletarian-

ization where the landlord would not tolerate manufacturing. In the Flan-

ders studied by Franklin Mendels, the proletarianizing populations of the

coast moved into agricultural wage labor, while those of the interior

moved into a mixture of agriculture and textile industry, and shifted their

weight from one to the other as a function of the available wage.

Parallel paths led away from theworld of artisans, Artisans skidded

into the proletariat as cheaper. production processes reduced the demand

for their wares and as entrepreneurs assumed control over the means of

production. But a few artisans climbed into the bourgeoisie by becoming

successful entrepreneurs. Herbert Kisch gives us the contrast between

Silesia and the Rhineland (Kisch 1959, 1965, 19'68). In both places the

growth of rural textile production undercut the urban craft guilds. But

in Silesia the process was one of almost pure proletarianization, as a

small number of chartered merchants worked with large landlords who were

happy to have weaver-serfs contributing to the incomes of their estates.

In the Rhineland proletarianization was likewise the main trend, but a '

..fewmaster craftsman in Cologne, Barmen, Aachen and elsewhere accumulated

capital and made themselves pivotal figures in textile production. Although

Kisch does not give us the details of labor force recruitment, lifetime

movement from artisan to proletarian must have been a common experience

.*inboth regions. In neither case, however, is it likely that reclassifica-

tion was the main component of the proletariat's growth. Natural increase

and migtatianmrPst have been important in both Silesia and the Rhineland.

Natural Increase

Natural increase or decrease is the net effect of births and deaths.

The proletariat grows through natural increase when, in any given period,

more proletarians are born than die. Perhaps we should distcnguish between

the proletarian children of non-proletarian parents and the proletarian

children of proletarians. In the first case we are midway between reclas-

sification and natural increase: if at a given succession a peasant holding

fragments into pieces too small to support the heirs, we may debate how

much of chat family's move into the proletariat is due to natural increase.

The same is true of the "extra" child of a peasant family who.spends life
 a s a s e r v a n t o r day-laborer. Yet a t l e a s t some of t h e r e s u l t i , n g expansion

of t h e p r o l e t a r i a t i s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o n a t u r a l i n c r e a s e . .

The l e a s t ambiguous, and most i m p o r t a n t , c a s e i s somehow t h e most

ignored. It is t h e n a t u r a l i n c r e a s e of f u l l - f l e d g e d p r o l e t a r i a n s . I f , on

t h e a v e r a g e , t h e n a t u r a l i n c r e a s e of wage l a b o r e r s were g r e a t e r than t h a t

of p e a s a n t s and a r t i s a n s , t h a t f a c t a l o n e would b e s u f f i c i e n t t o produce a

r e l a t i v e growth of t h e p r o l e t a r i a t w i t h o u t any s k i d d i n g of p e a s a n t s o r

a r t i s a n s and w i t h o u t any in-migration of p r o l e t a r i a n s . I suspect that

d i f f e r e n t i a l n a t u r a l i n c r e a s e was t h e p r i n c i p a l component i n t h e r e l a t i v e

growth of t h e E u r o p e a n p r o l e t a r i a t from 1500 t o 1900. More p r e c i s e l y , I

s u s p e c t t h a t t h e p r i n c i p a l component w a s n a t u r a l i n c r e a s e r e s u l t i n g from

t h e d i f f e r e n c e between f a i r l y h i g h m o r t a l i t y and v e r y h i g h f e r t i l i t y . More

p r e c i s e l y y e t , I propose t h e f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s i s : on t h e average, p r o l e t a r -

. .
, . . iansi?responded t o economic expansion w i t h g r e a t e r d e c l i n e s i n m o r t a l i t y and

g r e a t e r i n c r e a s e s i n f e r t i l i t y t h a n t h e n o n - p r o l e t a r i a n p o p u l a t i o n , and

responded t o economic c o n t r a c t i o n w i t h g r e a t e r i n c r e a s e s i n m o r t a l i t y b u t

ho greater d e c l i n e s i n f e r t i l i t y t h a n t h e n o n - p r o l e t a r i a n ; t h e consequence

was a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e n a t u r a l i n c r e a s e of p r o l e t a r i a n s i n good times which

was uncompensated by t h e n a t u r a l d e c r e a s e of bad t i m e s . Since the period

w e a r e c o n s i d e r i n g was on t h e whole a t i m e of economic expansion, such a

system would have produced a s i g n i f i c a n t tendency f o r t h e p r o l e t a r i a t t o

i n c r e a s e more r a p i d l y than t h e rest of t h e populati'on. My h y p o t h e s i s i s

t h a t it did.

I n one muted form o r a n o t h e r , t h e h y p o t h e s i s i s q u i t e o l d . In his

p i o n e e r i n g s t u d y of t h e Vale of T r e n t , J . D . Chambers noted t h e h i g h e r

n a t u r a l i n c r e a s e of p a r i s h e s w i t h r u r a l i n d u s t r y d u r i n g t h e y e a r s from 1670

t o 1800. Although they l a c k c r u c i a l e v i d e n c e concerning t h e components of

growth, Karlheinz Blaschke's analysis of Saxony, Arnost ~lzma'sdiscussion

of Bohemia and Rudolf Braun's portrayal of the Zurich Uplands all bring out

a similar contrast between slow-growing regions of agriculture and fast-

growing regions of rural industry. In his fairly direct attack on the prob-

lem, David Levine identifies a relationship between rising natural increase

and rural industrial growth in eighteenth-century Shepshead, between rising

natural increase and agricultural proletarianization in nineteenth-century

Bottesford.

If such a relationship holds, it reverses some of our conventional

wisdom. We commonly think of rural proletarianization as a consequence of

rapid population growth -- too many people for the available land. But

the possibility we see here is that proletarianization may induce rapid

population growth. Of course, both may be true. Then a process of

proletarianization initiated by some such action as enclosure will tend

to perpetuate itself up -- or, rather, down -- to the limit set by starva-

tion.

How and why would the natural increase of proletarians tend to exceed

that of non-proletarians? The critical relationships link fertility, mar-

riage and the availability of employment. In a world in which most house-

holds control their own means of production, the chief opportunities for

young adults are to inherit positions within their own households, or to

enter other households. In the world of European artisans and peasants,

the capital of a household set stringent limits on the number of persons

it could sustain; household capital thereby limited the number of children

who could remain home into adulthood, and especially into marriage and

parenthood. The only way to enter another household was.a full-fledged

adult was to marry in. Persons who entered as servants, apprentices, day-
 l a b o r e r s and t h e l i k e o r d i n a r i l y a c q u i r e d no c o n t r o l over t h e household

means of p r o d u c t i o n , and no r i g h t t o marry o r t o p r o c r e a t e . Opportunities

t o marry, t o have c h i l d r e n , and t o p l a c e o n e ' s own c h i l d r e n i n f u l l - f l e d g e d

a d u l t p o s i t i o n s t h u s depended on t h e r a t e a t which s e n i o r p o s i t i o n s i n

households were opening up. M o r t a l i t y was t h e c h i e f d e t e r m i n a n t of t h a t

rate. But on o c c a s i o n out-migration o r t h e p u t t i n g of new l a n d i n t o cul-

t i v a t i o n a l s o provided new a d u 1 t . o p p o r t u n i t i e s .

Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , c o u p l e s adapted b o t h t h e i r m a r r i a g e r a t e

and t h e i r f e r t i l i t y t o t h e p r o b a b l e a v a i l a b i l i t y of a d u l t p o s i t i o n s and t o

t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e i r newborn c h i l d r e n would s u r v i v e t o adulthood.

A s a r e s u l t , m a r r i a g e and f e r t i l i t y s u r g e d a f t e r famine o r p e s t i l e n c e wiped

o u t many a d u l t s , and slowed when m o r t a l i t y d e c l i n e d . O r s o i t seems. Any

8
L..-
.
h y p o t h e s i s which . i m p l i e s widespread, d e l i b e r a t e f e r t i l i t y c o n t r o l b e f o r e
, >

t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y i s c o n t r o v e r s i a l i n t h e p r e s e n t s t a t e . o f o u r knowledge.
<
:' ,
.
.: Furthermore, t h e main r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e h a r d t o d i s e n t a n g l e e m p i r i c a l l y

. . from o t h e c o n t r a r y e f f e c t s . It i s l i k e l y , f o r example, t h a t improvements

i n n u t r i t i o n b o o s t e d f e r t i l i t y and d e p r e s s e d m o r t a l i t y s i m u l t a n e o u s l y

(McKeown 1976, Lee 1977b). It i s q u i t e p o s s i b l e , a s W i l l i a m Langer h a s sug-

g e s t e d , t h a t t h e expanding c u l t i v a t i o n of American p l a n t s such a s t h e p o t a t o

s i g n i f i c a n t l y improved l i f e expectancy, and t h u s c o n t r i b u t e d t o n a t u r a l in-

c r e a s e w i t h o u t any n e c e s s a r y rise i n f e r t i l i t y . Yet t h e g e n e r a l h y p o t h e s i s

t h a t people a d j u s t e d m a r r i a g e and f e r t i l i t y t o t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of a d u l t

p l a c e s i n c r a f t s and on t h e l a n d i s n o t absurd. I n one form o r a n o t h e r ,

i t has been around s i n c e Malthus. And i t i s compatible w i t h many forms of

- f e r t i l i t y c o n t r o l s h o r t of t h e s e l f - c o n s c i o u s e f f i c a c y of t w e n t i e t h - c e n t u r y

contraception.

P r o l e t a r i a n s f a c e d a d i f f e r e n t s e t of circumstances. To t h e e x t e n t

t h a t t h e world around them was p r o l e t a r i a n , they had both t h e i n c e n t i v e and

 the opportunity to marry and form their own households early. They could

acquire the means of survival as adults at quite a young.age. The charac-

teristic organization of work and the characteristic lifetime curve of earn-

ings provided further encouragements to marriage and fertility. Especially

in the many variants of domestic industry, the standard labor unit was

not a single individual but a household -- for example, a weaver plus

several spinners and tenders (see Tilly and Scott 1977). To work in these

arrangments, it was almost essential to form a household. The fact that

children began bringing in income at'an early age and the further fact that

income peaked early in life and then declined with enfeebling age increased

the incentives to high fertility. So long as employment opportunties, how-

ever marginal, were expanding, a proletarian strategy of early marriage and

,. $ high fertility made sense. At least it made sense in the short run.

Net Migration

Migration figured in the formation of the Europeanproletariat in two

t,
rather different ways: as a crude component of growth, and as a process af-

fecting reclassification and natural increase. From the perspective of

Europe as a whole from 1500 to 1900, the chief contribution of migration

was negative: the continent shipped out many more migrants than it took in,

and the bulk of the out-migrants were proletarian. Before 1750 the net out-

flows were small: colonists to the Americas, Slavs into continental Asia,

trickles of settlers into other parts.of the world. With the accelerating

population growth of the later eighteenth century, out-migration speeded

up as well. A plausible estimate for the period from 1800 to World War I

is a net loss of 50 million Europeans to extracontinental migration. Be-

fore 1900, those out-migrants came disproportionately from the British Isles.

From 1846 to 1890, for example, an estimated 48% of all Europeanout-migrants

came from England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland (~osfnski1970: 57). The

 loss of migrants was equivalent to a fifth or a sixth of the continent's

entire nineteenth-century population growth.

Most of those millions were proletarians. A prototype of the trans-

atlantic migration was the outflow from seventeenth-century Tourouvre-au-

Perche (Charbonneau 1970). The roughly 300 migrants from Tourouvre and

vicinity and their numerous descendants played a major part in the settle-

ment of Quebec. Labor recruiters intervened into a local but very active

system of migration, in which wage-laborers already predominated. The

recruiters drewa high proportion of young men in theit twenties, most

of them apparently servants and day-laborers. In Canada, to be sure,

their grants of land transferred them out of the proletariat. In the

European reckoning, they were simply a loss of a few hundred proletarians.

L 1, Or. take one.of,the best-documented flows after 1800: from Denmark
..- .- to America (Hvidt 1975). Denmark's nineteenth-century population ran

.,. , . . in the vicinity of two million people. That small country sent almost
.. .
300 thousand migrants to North America between 1840 and 1914. The bulk

of the migrants were servants, wage-laborers and othe proletarians. The

ideal candidates for emigration seem to have been young people who had

already made the move from farms and villages to a nearby, slow-moving
!J

regional center. Many -- probably the great majority -- moved within

chains of friends, neighbors and kinsmen who kept information about

American opportunities flowing back to Denmark, and who helped the migrants

find the passage money, j.obs and housing. The chains also made it easier

for those who disliked America to return home. But their main effect

was to facilitate the flow of emigrants from Denmark. ~heir'demographic

effect was a net loss of some 200 thousand Danish proletarians.

Migration also influenced the, growth of the proletariat indirectly

 through its effect on reclassification and natural increase. One of the

most valuable by-products of recent European historical demography has

been the accumulating evidence of high mobility levels before the period

of large-scale industrialization. Contrary to the idea of an immobile

pre-industrial world, historians of many different parts of Europe turn

up village after village with annual migration rates of 10% or more

(e.g. Bukatzsch 1951, Cornwall 1967, Gaunt 1976, Hammer 1976, Hollingsworth

1971, Patten 1973, Poussou 1974, Sabean 1971). Americans of the last

century have considered themselves exceptionally mobile because in the

average year about 20% of the population have changed residence -- and

, a great mariy of them have moved within the same community. Comparable.

levels of mobility are showing up in many parts of Europe before massive

industrialization.

That high pre-industrial mobility, however, requires several qualifi-

cations. First, that earlier Europe was not pre-industrial in a strict

sense of the term. Dispersed, small-scale manufacturing played an import-

ant part in rural and small-town life, occupying a significant part of the

population at least part-time. People working in small-scale industry

were a relatively mobile segment of the population. They also comprised

a significant part of t h e E u r o p - e a n p r o l e t a r i a t . Second, most of the moves

were quite local. They consisted largely of exchanges of labor among

nearby villages and of a small city's making up its natural decrease

through the recruitment of youngsters from its immediate hinterland.

Third, the most active migrants were proletarians. Proletarianization it-

self produced migration, as when a household displaced by enclosures left

the land or an extra child of a peasant family trudged off to work as a

mercenary soldier or domestic servant. In addition, the proletarian.

worker had the least to tie him to any particular locality, and the

greatest incentive to follow the trail of better wages into a new labor

market. The local authorities of seventeenth-century England considered

the ever-present wanderers as potential workers in good times and as

11
vagrants" in bad times (Slack 1974). In good times or bad they were

quintessential proletarians.

The pattern of proletarian mobility affected the performance of re-

classification and natural increase as components of'the growth of the

proletariat. The existence of well-established flows of migrants probably

facilitated the proletarianization of the population in two ways. First,

it helped produce a whole series of intermediate positions between the

full artisan or peasant and the full proletarian -- the Alpine peasant

who walked.off to be p.eddler in the winter, the weaver who-followedthe .

harvest in.the fall, and so'on.. What appeared to be temporary expedients

imperceptibly became a proletarian life. Second, the existence of well-

established migratory flows withdrew the proletarianizing populations from

the communities in which they had rights and solidarity, and placed them

in communities in which they had neither. If the choice had been sharper

and more dramatic in either regard, one might suppose that the proletar-

ians would have resisted their fate with greater determination and effec-

tiveness. When the choice was sharp and the proletarianizing populations

still embedded in their communities, they did often fight back. They

fought by attacking others who were seizing control of the means of pro-

duction, and they fought by adopting family strategies which limited the

strain on household resources: strategies of late marriage, low fertility,

regrouped inheritance, and so on. That fight against proletarianization

pervades eighteenth-century peasant struggles

.. against enclosures and
alienation of common rights, nineteenth-century artisanal struggles

against work-discipline, twentieth-century winegrowers' struggle against

big producers. It was a losing battle, but .passionately fought.

Caveats and Conclusions

In hacking out the contours of this massive problem, I have neglected

all the graceful refinements which make the problem interesting. For

example, the detailed timetable of proletarianization matters a good

deal. Surely the absolute number of peasants, artisans, and other non-

proletarians increased substantially in the centuries after 1500; is it

possible that at first they increased more rapidly than the population

as a whole, and in that sense the sixteenth century was a time of -

de-

proletarianization? The geography of proletarianization likewise cries

out for attention. At a minimum we need contrasts among the legal enserf-

ment of essentially landless laborers on the large estates of eastern

Europe, the creation of a legally free proletarian labor force in England,

and the emergence of landowning peasants and cash-crop farmers in import-

ant parts of western Europe. Finally, a historically useful portrayal

of the demography of proletarianization cannot stop with the tabulation

of reclassification, natural increase and net migration as separate

components. .It must specify their interplay. All this requires a more

refined and sophisticated analysis than I have provided here.

Back at the beginning of this long discussion I said there were

three steps to the appropriate sociological procedure: the delineation

of the components of growth, the separateexplanationof each of the com-

ponents, and the int.egration of those explanations into'a comprehensive

account of the whole process, We have not, by any means, completed that

entire program. Yet the fragmentary observations we have made point to

the utility of a modified Marxian account of Europeanproletarianization.

The most important modification consists of the large significance at-

tributed to natural increase within the existing proletariat. Marx

implicitly made lifetime entries of non-proletarians -- that is, re-

classification -- the major component of the proletariat's increase.

The modification fits nicely with that brand of Marxian analysis, typi-

fied by E.P. Thompson, which emphasizes the continuity of working-class

culture from one generation to the next.

Now, that is a gratifying conclusion for a reason we have not dis-

cussed at all. It tells us we need not make some drastic choice between
1q quantitative" and "qualitative" analyses, between numbers and people,

between demagraphic characteristics and cultural characteristics, between

sociology and history. In the particular context we have been exploring,

the available sociology has the advantage of helping specify what is to

be explained, and of helping sort out the available explanations. But

it leads right back to honest history, history rooted in real times and

places.

Despite my initial disclaimers, I seem to have unfurled a banner.

A red flag, you might say. The idea of Karl Marx as the master historical
demographer containssomet;h~~ngto
offend historians of almost every

theoretical persuasion. That includes Marxists. Yet I have not woven

the flag of whole cloth. On the contrary: it is athingof gaps and patches.

The available sociology traces a broad pattern across the banner's riotous

fragments. It is up to historians whoknow the real people, places and

.processes involved to reweave the material into a coherent and valid

design.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My thanks to Martha Guest for help with bibliography. Financial sup-

port for the research underlying this paper came from the Horace Rackham
School of Graduate Studies, University of Michigan, and from the National
Science Foundation.

REFERENCES

Lutz Berkner

1977 "Peasant Household Organization and Demographic Change in Lower .

Saxony (1689-1766) ,I1 in Ronald Lee, ed. , ~o~ulation
Patterns
in the Past. New York: Academic Press, forthcoming.

Lutz Berkner and Franklin Mendels

1977 "Inheritance Systems, Family Structure, and Demographic Patterns

in western Europe (1700-1900)," in Charles Tilly, ed., Histor-
ical Studies of Changing Fertility. Princeton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press, forthcoming.

Karlheinz Blaschke

1967 ~'ev6lkerungs~eschichtevon Sachsen bis zur industriellen Revol-

ution. Weimar :. B'dhlhaus.'
Rudolf Braun

1960 "Industrialisierung und Volksleben. Die ~ e r k d e r u nder

~ lebens-
formen in einem landlichen Industriegebiet (Zcricher Oberland).
Zurich: Rentsch.

1977 "Early Industrialization and Demographic Changes in the Canton

of Zurich (~witzerland), " in Charles Tilly, ed., Historical
Studies of Changing Fertility. Princeton: Princeton Univer-
sity Press, forthcoming.

C.J. Bakatzsch

1951 "The Constancy of Local Population and Migration in England

before 1800," Population Studies 5: 62-69.

J .D. Chambers

1957 The Vale of Trent, 1670-1800. A Regional Study of Economic

Cha.nge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Economic His-
tory Review Supplements, 3.

1965 "Three Essays on the Population and Economy of the Midlands,"

in D.V. Glass and D.E,C. Eversley, eds., Population in History.
Chicago: Aldine.
Tertius Chandler and Gerald Fox

1974 3000 Years of Urban Growth. New York: Academic Press.

Hubert Charbonneau

1974 Tourouvre-au-Perche au XVIIe et XVIIIe sikcles. Paris: Presses

Universitaires de France. Institut National dtEtudes~ g m o -
graphiques, Travaux et Documents, Cahier 55.

A.V. Chayanov

1966 The Theory of Peasant Economy. Homewood, Illinois: Richard C.

Irwin.

Louis Chevalier

1958 Classes laborieuses et classes dangereuses . Paris : Plon.

Carlo Cipolla

1976 Before the Industrial Revolution. European Society and Economy,

1000-1700. New York: Norton

Jon S. Cohen and Martin L. Weitzman

1975 "Enclosures and ~ e ~ o ~ u l a t i oAn Marxian

: Analysis," in William
N. Parker and Eric L. Jones, eds., European Peasants and
their Markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Alain Corbin

1975 Archaisme et modernit; en Limousin au XIXe si&cle. Paris: Mar-

cel ~ivizre. 2 vols.

Julian Cornwall

1967 "Evidence of Population Mobility in the Seventeenth Century,"

Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 40: 143-152.

John Durand

1967 "The Modern Expansion of World Population," Proceedings of the

American ~hiloso~hical Society, 111: 136-159.

Richard A. Easterlin

1977 "The Economics arid Sociology of Fertility: A Synthesis," in

Charles Tilly, ed., Historical Studies of Changing Fertility.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, forthcoming.

M.W. Flinn

1970 British Population Growth, 1700-1850. London: Macmillan.

John Foster

1974 Class Struggle and the Industrial Revolution. Early Industrial

Capitalism in Three Towns. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Dov Friedlander

1973 "Demographic Patterns and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the

coal- ini in^
Population in Englsnd and Wales in the Nineteenth
century," Economic Development and Cultural Change, 22: 39-51.

David Gaunt

1976 "The Swedens We Have Lost: Social, Economic and Ecological

. . Determinants of Population Structure in Pre-Industrial Society" -
Unpublished paper, University of Uppsala.

.
H. J Habakkuk

1971 Population Growth and Economic Development since 1750. ~eices-

ter: Leicester University Press;

Carl Hammer
-.
1976 "The o obi lit^ of Skilled Labour in Late Medieval England. Some
Oxford Evidence, Vierteljahrschrift fir Sozial- and Wirtschafts-
geschichte, 63: 194-210.

Michael Hanagan

1976- "Artisans.andAIndustrialWorkers: Work Structure, Technological '

Change, and Worker Militancy in Three French Towns, 1870-1914."

Unpublished doctoral dissertation in history, University of Mich-
igan.

T.H. Hollingsworth

1971 "Historical Studies of Migration," Annales de ~gmographie

Historique 1970: 87-96.

Kristian Hvidt

1975 Flight to America. The Social Background of 300,000 Danish

Emigrants. New York: Academic Press.

V.K. Iatsounski
1971 "Le r81e des migrations et : d l'accroissement nature1 dans la '

colonisation des nouvelles regions de la Russie," Annales de

~ g m o ~ r a ~ hHistorique
ie 1970: 302-308.

Arthur E. Imhof

1976 Aspekte der Bev8lkerungsgeschichte in den nordischen L%nden

1720-1750. Bern: ~ranckeVerlag. 2 vols.

Carl Jantke and Dietrich Hilger

1965 eds., Die Eigentumslosen. Der deutsche Pauperismus und die

Emanzipationskrise in Darstellung und Deutungen der zeitgenos-
sischen Literatur. Freiburg & Munich: Karl Alber.
Hermann Kellenbenz

1976 The Rise of the.European Economy. An Economic History of Contin-

ental Europe from the Fifteenth to the Eighteenth Century. Lon-
dbn : Wiedenfeld & Nicholson.

~erbertKisch

1959 "The Textile Industries in Silesia and the Rhineland: A Compara-

tive Study.'.inIndustrialization," Journal of Economic History,
19: 541-564.

1965 "Das Erbe des Mittelalters, ein Hemnis wirtschaftlicher Entwick-

lung: Aachens Tuchgewerbe vor 1790,'' Rheinische.Vierteljahrs-
blztter , 30: 253-'308.

1968 "Prussian Mercantilism and the Rise of the Krefeld Silk Industry.
Variations Upon-an Eighteenth-Century Theme," Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, n.s., 58, Part 7.

Rrnbst ~lzka

1974 "The Role of Rural Domestic Industry in Bohemia in the Eighteenth

Century," Economic History Review, 27: 48-56.
0
Leskek Kosinski

1970 The Population of Europe. London: Longman.

J.T. Krause

1967 "Some Aspects of Population Change, 1690-1790," in E.L. Jones

and G.E. Mingay, eds., Land, ~abourand Population in the Indus-
trial Revolution. London: Arnold.

William Langer

1972 "Checks on Population Growth, 1750-1850," Scientific American,

February: 93-99.

Peter Laslett

1968 "Le brassage de la population en France et en Angleterre aux

XVIIe et XVIIIe sibcles," Annales de ~grno~ra~hieHistorique
1968: 99-109.

Ronald Lee

1976 "An Historical Perspective on Economic Asepcts of the Population

Explosion: The Case of Preindustrial England," Unpublished paper,
National Bureau of Economic Research.

1977a "Methods and Models for Analyzing Historical Series of Births,

Deaths, iind Marriages," in Ronald Lee, ed., Population Patterns
in the Past. New York: Academic Press, forthcoming.
 1977b "Models of Preindustrial Population Ddynamics, with Application
to England," in Charles Tilly, ed., Historical Studies of .
Changing Fertility. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Giovanni Levi

1974 "Sviluppo urbano e flussi migratori nel Peimonte nel 1600," in

M. Aymard et al., Les migrations dans les pays mgditerrangens
au XVII&me et au dgbut du ~1X8me. Nice: Centre de la ~tiditerrange
Moderne et Contemporaine.

David Levine

1977 Family Formation in an Age of Nascent Capitalism. New York:

Academic Press, forthcoming.

Thomas McKeown

1976 The Modern Rise of Population. New York: Academic Press.

Franklin F. Mendels

1975 "Agriculture and Peasant Industry in Eighteenth-Century Flanders,"

in William N. Parker and Erick L. Jones, eds., European Peasants
and their Markets. Princeton: Princton University Press.

Marc Merlove

1974 "Household and economy:-toward a new theory of population and

economic growth," Journal of Political Economy, 82: 5200-5218.

, Douglass C. North and Robert Paul Thomas

1973 The Rise of the Western World. A New Economic History. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Bo Ohngren

1974 Folk i rsrelse.' ~amh"llsutvecklin~,flyttningsmonster och folk-

rzrelser i Eskilstuna 1870-1900. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell .
Studia Historica Upsaliensia, 55.

John Patten

1973 Rural-Urban Migration in Pre-Industrial England. Oxford: School

of Geography. Research Papers, No. 6.

Luciano Pellicani

1973 "La rivoluzione industriale e il fenomeno della proletarizzazior.~,"

Rassegna Italiana de Sociologia, 14: 63-84.

Sidney Pollard and David W. Crossley

1968 The Wealth of Britain, 1085-1966. London: Batsford.

= Jean-Pierre Poussou
\
1971 "Les mouvements migratoires en France et a partir de la France
de la fin du XVe siscle au dgbut du XIXe siscle. Approches
pourune synth&e," Annales de ~gmographieHistorique 1970:
11-78.

1974 "Introduction & l'itude des mouvements migratoires en Espagne,

Italie et France mgditerrangenne au XVIIIe siacle," in M.
Apart et al., Les migrations dans les pays mgdiditerran6ens au
Nice: Centre de la ~gditerrange
XVIIIeme et au d6but du ~ 1 ~ 2 m e .
Moderne et Contemporaine.

1965 "Struktur und Dynamik der industriellen Entwicklung in B'bhmen

im letzten Viertel des 18. Jahrhundert," Jahrbuch fgr Wirtschaf ts-
geschichte, 1965 No. 1: 160-196; No. 2: 103-124. .

Diedrich Sa.alfeld

1966 "Die Produktion und intensitgt der Landwirtschaft in Deutschland

und angrenzenden Gebieten urn 1800," Zeitschrift fcr Agrargeschi-
chte und Agrarsoziologie 14: 137-175.

David Sabean

1971 "Household Formation and Geographic Mobility: A Family Register

Study in a Wurttemberg Village 1760-1900," Annales de ~grnogra~hie
Historique 1970: 275-294.

1976 "Aspects of kinship behavior and property in rural Western

Europe before 1800," in Jack Goody, Joan Thirsk and E.P.
Thompson, eds., Family and Inheritance. Rural Society in
Western Europe, 1200-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.

Jane Schneider and Peter Schneider

1976 Culture and Political Economy in Western Sicily. New York:

Academic Press.

Lawrence Schofer

1975 The Formation of a Modern Labor Force. Upper Silesia 1865-191i.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lennart Schon

1972 "~;sternorrland in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century. A Stkg

in the Transition from Small-Scale to Capitalistic Production,"
11 Economy and ~istory,15: 83-111.
Joan W. Scott

1974 The Glassworkers of Carmaux. ~renchCraftsmen and Political Ac-

tion in a Nineteenth Century City. Cambridge: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.

Paul A. Slack

1974 "Vagrants and Vagrancy in England, 1598-1664," ~cono'mic

History
Review, 2d. s., 27: 360-379.

Margaret Spufford

1976 "Peasant inheritance customs and land distribution in

Cambridgeshire from the sixteenth to the eighteenth
centuries," in Jack Goody, Joan Thirsk and E.P. Thompson,
eds., Family and Inheritance. Rural Society in Western
Europe, 1200-1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

E.P. Thompson
1963 The Making.of the English Working Class. London: Gollancz.

1967 "Time'; Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism," Past and

Present, 38: 56-97.

1976 "The grid of inheritance: a comment,"' in Jack Goody, Joan

Thirsk and E.P. Thompson, eds., Family and Inheritance,
Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200-1800. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

Louise A. Tilly

1973 "The Working Class of Milan, 1881-1911." Unpublished doctoral

dissertation in history, University of Toronto.

1977 "Urban Growth, Industrialization and Women's Employment in

Milan, Italy, 1881-1911," Journal of Urban IIistory, forthcoming

Louise A. Tilly and Joan W. Scott

1977 Women, Work and Family in Modern Europe (provisional title).

New York: Praeger, forthcoming.

Michael Vester

1970 Die Entstehung des Proletariats als Lernprozess. Die Entstenung

antikapitalistischer Theorie und Praxis in England 1792-1848.
Frankfurt a/Main : ~uro~axsche Verlaganstalt .
Jan de ~ r i e s

1974 The Dutch Rural Economy in the Golden Age, 1500-1700. New Haven,
Yale University Press.

1975 "Peasant Demand Patterns and Economic Development: ~riesland,

1550-1750," in William N. Parker and Eric L. Jones, eds., Euro-
pean Peasants and their Markets. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.

1976 The Economy of Europe in an Age of Crisis, 1600-1750. Cambridge:

Cambridge university Press.

Immanuel Wallerstein

1974 The Modem World-System. Capttalist Agriculture and the Origins

of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New
York: Academic Press.

E.A. Wrigley

1961 Industrial Growth and Population Change. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.
- -
1972 "The Process of Modernization and the Industrial Revolution in
'

England,"'Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 3: 2254259.

1977 "Fertility Strategy . for the Individual and the Group," in Charles
Tilly, ed., Historical-Studiesof Changing Fertility. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, forthcoming.