The problem with early-modern petitions: safety valve or powder keg?

In this article the author critically discusses the notion of petitions as a peaceful way of interaction between rulers and subjects in early-modern Europe. Specifically, he targets the idea of petitions as a safety valve. According to this idea, petitions enabled subjects to vent displeasure to the authorities; by doing so they grew less restive and more content with the strictly hierarchical and unequal structures of early-modern Europe. The author questions how often petitions really performed this function, firstly by considering the limited social background of the petitioners and then the many rules and hindrances petitioners faced. These rules were, thirdly, put in place because petitions could galvanize and mobilize people into political action. Fourthly, previous research has underestimated the complicated link between petitioning and legitimacy. It is not at all certain that petitions increased the legitimacy of the political system. Clearly, the complexity of the issue warrants new approaches. The empirical evidence for this article mainly comes from early-modern Sweden, Denmark-Norway, England and the Holy Roman Empire. Consequently, this article weds petition research usually separated by language barriers, providing a fuller European perspective where Northern Europe is fully integrated into the discussion.