<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf8'?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.1 20151215//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/archiving/1.1/JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article dtd-version="1.1" article-type="book-review">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id>TMR</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>The Medieval Review</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="epub">1096-746X</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Indiana University</publisher-name>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">12.06.13</article-id>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>12.06.13, Kitsikopoulos, Agrarian Change and Crisis in Europe, 1200-1500 (Paul Freedman)</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <name>
            <surname>Freedman</surname>
            <given-names/>
          </name>
          <aff>Yale University</aff>
          <address>
            <email>paul.freedman@yale.edu</email>
          </address>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date publication-format="epub" date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2012">
        <year>2012</year>
      </pub-date>
      <product product-type="book">
        <person-group>
          <name>
            <surname>Kitsikopoulos, Harry</surname>
            <given-names/>
          </name>
        </person-group>
        <source>Agrarian Change and Crisis in Europe, 1200-1500, Routledge Research in Medieval Studies</source>
        <year iso-8601-date="2012">2012</year>
        <publisher-loc>New York</publisher-loc>
        <publisher-name>Routledge</publisher-name>
        <page-range>Pp. x, 364</page-range>
        <price>$125</price>
        <isbn>978-0-415-89578-1</isbn>
      </product>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright 2012 Trustees of Indiana University. Indiana University provides the information contained in this file for non-commercial, personal, or research use only. All other use, including but not limited to commercial or scholarly reproductions, redistribution, publication or transmission, whether by electronic means or otherwise, without prior written permission of the copyright holder is strictly prohibited.</copyright-statement>
      </permissions>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <p>There was a time when the Black Death of 1348-1353 was not credited
(if that is the word) as the key agent for change in the transition
from medieval to modern Europe.  The traumatic epidemic and its
consequences were rediscovered in the nineteenth century and a book
published in 1832 by J. F. C. Hecker, <italic>Der Schwarze Tod im
vierzehnten Jahrhundert</italic> was especially influential in creating the
notion of a late-medieval crisis that affected every aspect of
subsequent European life and attitudes.  The Black Death did not
appear in a cloudless sky, however.  The disease reoccurred in
different forms and intensities repeatedly, and the era was in
addition marked by famines and climate events preceding the epidemic
as well as by devastating wars, divisions within the church and social
upheavals.  With the rise of social history in the twentieth century,
the Black Death's effects came to be seen not just as tearing apart
the moral fabric of the medieval world, but as provoking long lasting
economic retrenchment and radical changes to government and power.
The Black Death ushered in the Renaissance, even modernity itself, a
view of historical change particularly strong when there was more
confidence than now about what is constituted by modernity.</p>
    <p>The present volume weighs the evidence for an economic crisis in the
late Middle Ages.  It stands in a venerable line of debate and
research on endogamous factors, flaws, tensions or dislocations in the
European economy that existed before 1348 and that persisted long
after.  Without (for the most part) minimizing the impact of the Black
Death, the contributors are looking at longer term developments and
features.  The book is unusual in its comparison among many regions of
Europe (Germany is a notable omission, and the Low Countries are
discussed but not given separate treatment) and tries to draw out what
the editor refers to as a synthesis "at a high level of abstraction"
(1) to come to some conclusions about what drove economic change in
the period under consideration, and just how massive that change was.</p>
    <p>There are several ways of approaching the late medieval crisis and a
virtue of this collection is that its authors, although engaged in a
comparative enterprise, do not all embrace the same methodology or
ideology.  The neo-Ricardian/Malthusian position identified
particularly with M. M. Postan posited over-population before the
Black Death that in the absence of substantial technological
innovation degraded already fragile standards of living and
agricultural productivity. This does not work for many regions
(Eastern Europe, Russia, Spain, Scandinavia) that did not face a
Malthusian crisis in the early fourteenth century because they did not
experience a high degree of population density.  The Marxist theory
emphasizing economic mode of production and social factors rather than
exclusively demographic ones (the impress of the seigneurial regime in
particular) is embraced, in modified form, by Harry Kitsikopoulos
(England) and Janken Myrdal (Scandinavia).  Kitsikopoulos leavens his
methodological approach with the teachings of the so-called New
Institutional Economics which accepts social and institutional factors
as keys to economic trajectories.  Those institutions that are not
grossly exploitative create an equilibrium in which it is not to the
interests of anyone radically to change the social order.  Change,
according to this view, tends to be both gradual and contingent.  It
depends on particular conditions and circumstances so that the NIE
school denies that just because the basic problems are similar, the
outcomes will also have to be similar.</p>
    <p>Embracing the NIE teachings as well as accepting a sharper Marxist
notion of class conflict, Kitsikopoulos' chapter on England has the
unusual virtue of re-directing attention towards the seigneurial
regime and the burden it imposed increasingly on a subordinated
peasantry.  In treating the Italian case, by contrast, Paolo Malanima
is more Malthusian as well as more quantitative in his methods of
analysis.  He is also among the contributors to this book the most
taken with climate change as an important factor in the fourteenth-
century crisis before the Black Death.  In contrast to the assertion
by Robert Lopez that the vaunted Italian Renaissance was an era of
economic poverty, Malanima sees prosperity after the Black Death, a
prosperity based, to be sure, on the removal of much of the
population.  This ended with the late sixteenth century when
population growth and its corresponding impoverishment returned.</p>
    <p>For France, George Grantham offers a rather optimistic picture of
conditions on the eve of the Plague and emphasizes as well the
survival of an independent and fairly prosperous peasantry.  His
approach resembles that pioneered by Bruce Campbell for England,
focused on demand rather than supply, and drawing attention to the
commercial side of demand and its positive effects on agriculture.
There was a crisis in France, to be sure, but it was due to exogenous
factors (the Black Death, the Hundred Years' War) rather than
fundamental problems of technology, social structure or productivity.</p>
    <p>In what used to be thought of as the European periphery the population
pressures before the Plague were minimal.  Eastern Europe, Russia and
Scandinavia were thinly settled, and the Christian conquest of Islamic
Spain and (in Castile) the expulsion of the Muslim population
attracted migration to new lands and substantially reduced overall
density of habitation.  Spain suffered a late medieval crisis, but it
was related to political disorder, disease and climate change more
than to demography.  Here the picture is not so different from Italy,
centered around a fifteenth-century recovery (although the earlier
period was more favorable in Spain).  Dysfunctional social relations
(as Myrdal terms it) are also more important than disease or
demography in the Scandinavian realms.  For Eastern/Central Europe and
Russia there was no general crisis.  Grzegorz Myśliwski denies the
significance of the Black Death in particular, taking particular issue
with Ole Benedictow's neo-catastrophist theory.  There is reason to
doubt Myśliwski's confidence, especially in the long-standing and
widely diffused assumption that Bohemia was almost untouched by the
epidemic. [1]  For Russia, the period 1200-1500 was similarly
characterized more by continuity than rupture.  In both cases, the
subsequent development of serfdom and changes in the nature of
lordship and the economy occurred for reasons that are not buried in
the medieval past.</p>
    <p>The book is unusual in including the remnants of the Byzantine Empire
(a chapter by Kostas Smyrlis) in evaluating European crisis and
change.  In certain respects Greece and the Balkan lands remaining to
the Empire followed what has been regarded as a conventional European
pattern:  problems before the Black Death attributable to population
pressures and better conditions for the peasantry in the aftermath of
substantial population decline.  The difference is of course the
dislocation from the slow but continuous collapse of the political and
military situation of the Byzantine state, a particularly harsh
exogenous factor affecting agrarian change and crisis.</p>
    <p>The result of these disparate studies is multi-faceted but coherent.
The editor has taken care to avoid a "free-range chicken" model (as he
puts it) in which the approaches to the question of the late medieval
crisis are so distinct that they cannot be compared.  In an "Epilogue"
Kitsikopoulos organizes the European nations or regions as of 1300
into two basic groups.  Group A was densely populated and had
substantial urban networks: Italy, the Byzantine Empire, England,
northern France and the Low Countries.  Group B is defined in terms of
its non-Malthusian demography and as incompletely "feudalized," that
is, there were substantial numbers of independent peasants and the
seigneurial regime faced limitations on its extent and impress.  What
is here called Central Europe (Bohemia, Poland, Hungary), Russia and
Scandinavia fit into this group.  Spain is a special case because of
the distinction between Catalonia and Castile with the former more
densely populated and its peasantry more subordinated to their lords.
Within Group A, some regions were more progressive in their ability to
intensify their agricultural methods and so increase productivity.
Elites were willing to invest in improvements involving drainage,
flexible field systems, crop rotation and fertilizer inputs.  North-
central Italy, southeastern England and a triangle including the Low
Countries and north-central France are in this sub-group.  The other
sub-group of "laggards" in Group A was less successful in relieving
the Malthusian pressure.  They form a larger proportion of Group A
than the progressives, consisting of most of France, most of Italy,
much of England, and Byzantium.  In both the progressive and laggard
regions of Group A, land-holding was fragmented and the seigneurial
regime was strong.</p>
    <p>There is thus a way of looking at Europe before the Black Death in
terms of demography as well as social institutions, with differential
degrees of tension or crisis and a variety of responses.  The economy
of the fourteenth century here is viewed as structurally unsound, but
this was not caused by a single factor nor did it have the same
outcomes everywhere.  Both population pressure and class conflict are
important.  The model used in summarizing the disparate data relies on
the outlook of Bas van Bavel for Holland and Flanders that, in keeping
with the New Institutional Economics school, emphasizes the way
society was organized and governed, and how institutions determined
the outcomes in response to the crisis.  Those regions with more
liberal institutions (less scope for seigneurial oppression,
conditions favoring social mobility and investment in land) fared
better, took advantage of opportunities, and continued to develop a
diversified (increasingly urban) economy.</p>
    <p>This synthesis of economic history represents a valiant effort to put
together social-historical investigations of particular places and to
account for the apparent turmoil of late medieval Europe.  The project
is to some extent hampered by its reliance on the Brenner Debate which
played out in the pages of <italic>Past &amp; Present</italic> more than twenty-five
years ago.  Robert Brenner questioned what was then the dominant
demographic Malthusian framework for describing the late medieval
crisis, positing instead the oppression of the peasantry by an
extractive seigneurial system which proved resistant to labor-market
forces in the wake of population decline.  Brenner offered a
comparative framework similar to what is presented here, if not so
broad, and regarded the conflicts of the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries as the necessary prologue to modernity, or to various kinds
of modernity.</p>
    <p>The ways of looking at medieval social processes are changing and this
affects the supposed fourteenth-century crisis.  One cannot deny the
existence of terrible events such as the Great Famine of 1315-1317 or
the Black Death, but it is possible to question just how
demographically saturated even Group A was and it is possible to
challenge the confidence that by 1300 Europe was faced with critical
structural problems.  A recent group of articles in <italic>Annales</italic>
examines the rural societies of Languedoc, Italy and Catalonia and
finds no evidence for widespread over-population, declining
productivity, peasant pauperization or any general regression of
standards of living around 1300. [2]</p>
    <p>On the other side of the divide marked by the great epidemic, the
recent tendency has been on the one hand to see the mortality rate as
even graver than the one-quarter to one-third once widely circulated,
but to be careful about attributing everything from peasant wars to
Renaissance Art and the Protestant Reformation to the long-term impact
of the Plague.  The resilience of late medieval society is surprising;
the absence of a catastrophic breakdown of civilization is, given the
apparent fragility of the world we inhabit, puzzling, perhaps
astounding.</p>
    <p>The crisis of the fourteenth century looks now more like a collection
of contingencies (albeit very grim ones) rather than the manifestation
of structural flaws or the interaction of forces such as population,
wages, prices, or productivity.  <italic>Agrarian Change and Crisis</italic> is
a thoughtful and diverse synthesis, but a crisis (or perhaps progress)
in historiography undermines its results.</p>
    <p>--------</p>
    <p>Notes:</p>
    <p>1. See David Mengel, "A Plague Over Bohemia? Mapping the Black Death,
" <italic>Past &amp; Present</italic> 211 (2011): 3-34.</p>
    <p>2. Monique Bourin, Sandro Carocci, François Menant, Lluís To Figueras,
"Les campagnes de la Méditerrané occidentale autour de 1300: tensions
destructrices, tensions novatrices, " <italic>Annales HSS</italic> (2003): 663-
704.</p>
    <p/>
  </body>
</article>
