Preliminary Programme

This paper deals with several cases of property arrangement among noble brothers in early modern Tyrol. Two main types of property arrangements related to each other characterized the organization of wealth in Tyrolean noble families in the sixteenth and seventeenth century: the equal division of the family estate among all succeeding sons and the joint property among brothers.
The families of Tyrolean nobility didn’t practice primogeniture in the early modern period. Usually several sons married and were admitted to the inheritance of the family estate, whereas the marrying daughters were excluded from inheritance in return for the marriage portion they were given on their marriage. The definitive division of the family estate through inheritance was a very delicate moment in the process of wealth transfer in noble families. The exclusion of daughters and sisters from inheritance at their marriage was a legally ambivalent practice which in the Tyrolean Statutes was provided only for noble brides and not for women from cities and from the peasantry. As the law itself was ambiguous – it was not clearly defined on which inheritance the daughters had to renounce – and the practice went contrary to the interests of another family, the family the daughter had married into, the issue was highly conflict-prone and the families adopted measures to avoid such conflict in advance. The main family strategy to avoid conflicts in relation to inheritance of the family estate was to maintain the estate undivided among brothers and to stipulate an Auszeigung, that means an allocation of usage rights. As this didn’t mean a definitive division of the estate, daughters had no possibility to claim further rights on the family inheritance.
On the basis of this main aim of an allocation of usage rights among brothers the paper studies the norms and the different forms of this practice in Tyrolean noble families in early modern period. Joint property among brothers could be a temporary solution until the definitive division of family estate or it could last over several generations. These different property arrangements as well as the role of womens property, the property of wifes and sisters, in them are largely unexplored research questions. (Show less)

Conflicts about succession and property between brothers (or brothers in law) became one of the most existential and critical threats in dynastic politics during the early modern period, since a more and more patrilineal organized order of society was established. On the one hand patrilineality could minimize the number of offspring that was legitimated to claim an equal share of property. It sharpened on the long run, however, the competition between male members of a family because many noble houses tried to keep their power by privileging a single (male) heir – mostly the eldest son. But the firstborn male child was not in every case the only distinguished person. Next to him stood the youngest, and sometimes even the one in the middle. Things became even more complicated, if there was offspring from different marriages who demanded claims.
The paper aims to identify strategies of brothers (brothers in law) to manage the transfer of power and property in settings which privileged practices of undivided devolution in the context of the HRE between 1500 and 1700. (Show less)

Keeping the family patrimony undivided for business purposes was a widespread practice in the early modern period?the best known cases being the Venetian fraterna and the Genoese fratria. A similar case has been documented in the prince-bishopric of Trento, where the Salvadori resorted to the strategy of keeping undivided the patrimony of an extended family from the late seventeenth century through the eighteenth century. This undivided property?not merely among brothers, but even among uncles and cousins?strenghtened the financial position of the firm, which engaged in the eighteenth century in the manufacture and trade of silk yarns. However, following some relevant marriages with daughters of wealthy merchants, important hereditary acquisitions enabled the Salvadori family to accumulate a fairly large patrimony other than the firm’s assets. Interestingly, as opposed to business assets which were kept undivided throughout the eighteenth century, the other family assets were subjected to division, thus highlighting a different attitude towards business property and non-commercial estates.
What emerges, therefore, is a composite strategy, which was articulated differently based on the kind of property involved. Leaving aside the relationships among different lineages of the family?which have already been investigated in a previous study?in this paper I focus on the relations among brothers, which I explore in greater detail in order to explain their strategies in relation to different patrimonies. To this end, the investigation is extended from the eighteenth to the nineteenth century, and the Salvadori case is compared to the strategies of other wealthy families in Trentino who also engaged in commercial actitivies, in the attempt to cast further light on the role of the undivided property among brothers, as related to different types of assets. (Show less)

In this paper, I will explore the phenomenon of undivided fraternal property among peasants in the rural court district of Sonnenburg in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. By looking at various cases, I will analyse its legal framework, how this was practiced, possible reasons for the use of this option, and different outcomes. Siglinde Clementi’s work shows that undivided fraternal property together with the renunciation of inheritance by daughters constituted important family strategies of the Tyrolean nobility. To maintain joint ownership between noble brothers, a particular legal tool was used called Auszeigung. This ensured that the brothers were allocated usage rights without dividing the property. Sisters had no entitlement to inherit from their brothers who held property jointly which contributed to the exclusion of women from succession to property.
The Sonnenburg court books contain cases of undivided fraternal property among the peasantry, where all sons, a group of sons, or the eldest and the youngest sons became successors to their father’s estate. They kept the property undivided until, in some cases, it was eventually divided. The sisters and the ceding brothers were compensated with their inheritance shares. These cases add to a fascinating comparison with other social milieus and regions. The peasants’ practice shared, for example, similar characteristics with the noble approach with the exception of the Auszeigung. And a comparison with the “frérèche” in France could shed more light on the benefit for agricultural households. I argue that undivided fraternal property amongst the peasantry in Sonnenburg formed a flexible legal tool situated between the noble concept and the local inheritance practice. It could act as a temporary solution for the descendants, favoured over a definite assignment to only one son. This practice was guided by the law that prescribed legal entitlements to all children, daughters and sons, and the legal requirement to maintain farmsteads undivided, if possible. The question remains, whether this legal hybrid had its origins in noble models or agricultural needs. (Show less)