In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

8 Drinking and Social Identity The Boundaries of Sociability T   urban tavern provided a routine meeting place in which city dwellers established and maintained group identity with their social network . Augsburg’s artisans used tavern space, participation (or nonparticipation ) in a drinking bout (Zech), and the disputes fueled by alcohol to establish and reconfirm their social identity. Just as was the case with the fights and rituals already discussed, the decision to drink together was governed by certain ground rules. Sociologists and anthropologists have identified similar ground rules in many other cultures in which alcohol is used. As Dwight Heath has observed, “the drinking of alcoholic beverages tends to be hedged about with rules concerning who may and may not drink how much of what, in what contexts, in the company of whom, and so forth.”1 The way in which these rules work in any society can serve as a mirror reflecting the values of society at large; or, more eloquently stated, “Alcohol can indeed serve as a revealing stain on the slide in the historian’s microscope, highlighting the structures and relations of a society.”2 Drinking together implied more than casual acquaintance, and the documents reveal that Augsburg’s citizens were cautious about in whose company they drank. When fights or other incidents occurred in taverns, the participants were often careful to point out whether they were participating in the same drinking bout or drinking separately. Caspar Morhart, a guardsman who was involved in a duel with fellow guardsman Ernst Kratzer in , thus replied when asked with whom he had been drinking before the fight started that he had shared drinks “not with Ernst Kratzer but with others”;3 Morhart apparently considered the question of with whom he had not been drinking more relevant. Similarly, Hans Goff, a member of the city elite who was present in a public tavern in which another tavern guest read aloud an inflammatory letter of insult, was mindful to make clear in his testimony that, 147 Tlusty FINAL 08 (147-157) 6/6/01 7:58 PM Page 147 although the defendant had invited him for a drink, he had declined the invitation . Goff decided instead to seek company somewhere where “better wine” was served, presumably in one of the elite drinking rooms.4 Goff’s statement suggested social distance from the commoners present and thus nonparticipation in their inappropriate behavior. Craftsmen were also hesitant to drink with persons whose behavior did not conform to the unwritten rules of tavern society. Overly loud or aggressive behavior or failure to pay one’s tab were grounds for refusing to accept someone as a drinking companion. Members of one drinking party warned a journeyman who asked to join their party that he might join them only if he would do so as “a good fellow” (ein guter Gesell); the group subsequently came to blows because the newcomer irritated the company by his loud bragging.5 A drunken soldier who became loud and insolent was refused “brotherhood” (Bruderschaft) by all tables in the tavern, and a journeyman who asked to join an acquaintance was told that if he had money enough to share the tab, he would be a good fellow, but if not, he should seek company elsewhere.6 Witnesses to a tavern brawl that took place in  created a boundary between themselves and an unwelcome drinking companion by describing themselves as having been “merry and in a good mood” (fröhlich und guter Dinge) until Georg Enißhofer insisted on joining their drinking bout uninvited. Enißhofer, already drunk when he came into the tavern, offended the company by singing “shameful frivolous songs” (schändliche üppige Lieder). When his wife then tried to get him to leave the tavern, his drinking companions suggested that he take her advice and go home. The suggestion enraged Enißhofer, for it implied that they did not consider him fit company. He responded by demanding that “if someone finds fault with him, they should tell him, they could find none with him,” for “he didn’t want to mooch his wine.”7 Enißhofer then drew his weapon in defense of his honor, a move that would ultimately cost him his life. For some persons, social boundaries were drawn irrespective of behavior . Consistently excluded from drinking bouts in public taverns were persons belonging to professional groups designated as dishonorable. The taint of dishonor as defined by profession varied in different parts of Germany, but always at...

Share