Property is one of the key elements of the structure in a town. Not only does it tell us about the owner of urban space who might have had influence through this property, but also who lived on this property. It is interesting if the owner of the property is identical with the one who lived on the land and the one who owned the house. By studying these topics, conclusions of the social structure of a town can be drawn. It is the idea of space, certainly not without the consideration of time, that leads to historical knowledge in a way of multidimensional understanding.
Here this is examined by comparing the two Hansa towns Bergen and Lübeck. Two towns that supposedly show similar economic and demographic structures. Thus differences can be made more obvious. To get a narrow and exact view on the topic only the elite of the town, the social group we know most about through the sources, is regarded.
It is worth knowing how external effects like economical changes as well as social developments and demographical evolutions may had impact on urban structures like for example such of property of land or buildings. The focus should be on the question how the political and economic elites did compete this challenges in the regarded time period from the 16th to the 18th century and what was the impact on property structures.
It was important for the leading groups to be present in the town centre for different reasons (e.g. the need for control), but what exactly was the place of the elite? How important was property of urban land for the leading groups in the Early Modern times? Did they keep their urban property or are there changes of property to be regarded during this period? Finally are there huge differences between Bergen and Lübeck, two towns that on a first view seem to be so likewise?
On the way to answer these questions some general considerations about urban theories and especially spatial arrangements are made. Further the question of what defines the elite and what are the settings in Norwegian and German society is elaborated including theoretical considerations on the topic. The economic and social changes in both countries are as well outlined before the towns are separately discussed. The society and its determination is regarded as well as urban space in connection with property and living space.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical and Methodological Considerations
2.1 Theories on preindustrial Towns: Sjoberg and Carter
2.2 Definition of “Stand”, Estate and Class according to Max Weber and the systems in Germany and Norway
3. Social and economic changes in towns from the 16th to the 18th century
3.1 Social and economic change in Lübeck
3.2 Social and economic change in Bergen/ Norway
4. The elite in the urban area: The cases of Lübeck and Bergen
4.1 Lübeck
4.1.1 Social structure and legal status of plots in town
4.1.2 The social places in town
4.2 Bergen
4.2.1 Social structure, legal rights
4.2.2 The social places in town
4.3 Comparison of the two towns
5. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This work explores the nexus between urban property structures, spatial arrangements, and the social elite in the Early Modern Hanseatic towns of Bergen and Lübeck. It investigates how political and economic elites navigated economic and demographic shifts from the 16th to the 18th century and seeks to determine whether their urban property ownership reflected social segregation patterns consistent with preindustrial city models.
- Comparison of social and economic structures in Bergen and Lübeck.
- Theoretical examination of urban land use and elite spatial behavior.
- Impact of property legislation on urban living conditions and social status.
- Application and adaptation of the Sjoberg preindustrial city model.
- Analysis of the merchant class as the dominant political and economic power.
Excerpt from the Book
4.1.1 Social structure and legal status of plots in town
As well as the economy, the social structure was also in movement during the regarded time period as described in chapter 2.2. The mediaeval elite of wealthy merchants had to compete with the emergence of newcomers trying to get access to the upper class. These were often lawyers, either from other towns or the sons of Lübeck merchants themselves. It was, however, important for them to get linked to the traditionally leading families of the towns, which often was achieved by marriage. This shows that contact to a well established elite was still essential for those attempting to get access to these circles. Also domiciles in certain areas of the town they could reach by marriage may have played a role. Upward social mobility was possible for people who had economic success which formed the basis of further political power.
When discussing the upper class, it must be clear that this is an idea of our times. So an exact definition of what the elite is must be unsatisfying. Ministerial officials, high ranking military officers, wealthy merchants organized in high status corporations (such as the Kaufleutekompanie and the Zirkelkompanie) as well as university trained academics may be counted into that group. Boundaries are difficult to detect and memberships are overlapping. However, a certain amount of money and political influence is characteristic. Following Cowan we can talk of an estimated 4% of the total population, which realistically must have been between 25,000 and 35,000 in the 17th century.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the research scope concerning urban property, the elite in Bergen and Lübeck, and the importance of spatial and temporal historical analysis.
2. Theoretical and Methodological Considerations: Discusses urban theories (Sjoberg and Carter) and defines key social terms like "Stand" (estate) and "class" using Max Weber’s framework.
3. Social and economic changes in towns from the 16th to the 18th century: Outlines the economic shifts, trade challenges, and demographic developments impacting Bergen and Lübeck during the Early Modern period.
4. The elite in the urban area: The cases of Lübeck and Bergen: Investigates the social and legal status of the elite, property ownership, and the spatial distribution of their residences in both cities.
5. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, confirming that while social hierarchies were in flux, the elite remained dominant, utilizing urban property for both income and symbolic power.
Keywords
Hanseatic towns, Bergen, Lübeck, Urban property, Social structure, Elite, Early Modern times, Sjoberg model, Social segregation, Burghers, Trade, Land rent, Estate society, Property rights, Spatial arrangements
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research?
The work examines how the political and economic elites of the Hansa towns Bergen and Lübeck interacted with urban property structures and spatial arrangements from the 16th to the 18th century.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The central themes include the influence of economic and demographic changes on urban topography, the legal and social definition of the elite, and the application of preindustrial city theories to these specific Scandinavian and German cases.
What is the central research question?
The research asks how the political and economic elites coped with social and demographic challenges of the Early Modern era and what impact these factors had on property structures and spatial segregation in the town centers.
Which scientific methods are applied?
The study utilizes a comparative historical approach, applying urban theories—specifically Gideon Sjoberg’s model of concentric circles—to empirical data from property registers, tax records, and secondary literature.
What does the main part of the work address?
The main section details the social hierarchies of Bergen and Lübeck, explores the legal status of urban plots, compares household patterns and elite locations, and adapts theoretical models to fit the observed historic realities.
Which keywords characterize the work?
The work is defined by terms such as Early Modern times, urban property, elite, Hansa towns, social structure, Sjoberg model, and estate society.
How does the property situation in Bergen differ from that in Lübeck?
In Bergen, land ownership often remained with the original proprietors while merchant elites rented the land and owned the houses. In Lübeck, it was more common for the wealthy to own both the ground and the buildings upon it.
What does the author conclude about the "concentric circle model" in this context?
The author concludes that while the model is a helpful framework, it must be adapted to reality; for Bergen, the model manifests more as a "horseshoe shape" centered around the harbour rather than a perfect circle.
- Quote paper
- Benjamin Veser (Author), 2007, Property Structures and Spatial Arrangements of Urban Land in Early Modern Times , Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/93916
