Serfdom

From Free net encyclopedia

Image:Costumes of Slaves or Serfs from the Sixth to the Twelfth Centuries.png

Serfdom refers to the legal and economic status of some peasants under feudalism, specifically in the manorial (also known as seigneurialism) economic system. A serf is a laborer who is bound to the land. Serfs formed the lowest social class of the feudal society. Serfs differed from slaves in that serfs were allowed property for themselves and could not be sold apart from the land which they worked. Serfdom is the forced labour of serfs, on the fields of the privileged land owners, in return for protection and the right to work on their leased fields. Serfdom involved work not only on fields, but various agricultural-related works, like forestry, transportation (both land and river-based), work in craft and even in manufactures. Serfdom evolved from agricultural slavery of Roman Empire and spread through Europe around the 10th century. It was dominant during the Europe's Middle Ages. In England serfdom lasted up to the 1600's, in France until 1789. In most other European countries serfdom lasted until the early 19th century.

1 Etymology
2 Details
3 History of serfdom
4 Dates of emancipation from serfdom in various European countries
5 Return of Serfdom
6 See also
7 External links
8 References

[edit]

Etymology

Serf is derived from word servus, Latin for "slave."

[edit]

Details

All land was owned by various landowners - nobility, Church and monarchs. A serf may be defined as any peasant who holds lands in return for a promise of manual labor. This was a feudal contract much in the same fashion as a baron or a knight (but without the perks). A serf's feudal contract was that, in return for protection he would reside upon and work a parcel of land held by his Lord. The period rationale was that the a serf "worked for all" while a knight or baron "fought for all" and a churchman "prayed for all." Thus everyone had his place and all was right with God's world. Arguably a serf got the short end of the stick, but at least he had his place and, unlike slavery, there was a degree of reciprocity in the feudal contract. A manorial Lord could not sell his serfs as a Roman might sell his slaves. On the other hand, if his Lord chose to dispose of a parcel of land, the serf or serfs associated with that land went with it to serve their new Lord. Further, a serf could not abandon his lands without permission, nor could he sell them.

A free man became a serf usually through force or necessity. A few bad years or crop failure, a war or brigandage left him unable to fulfill his duties as a free man. In such a case a bargain is struck with his lord: protection and forgiveness of fees owed in exchange for service (not an unreasonable arrangement in a largely cashless society and an idea which is in accord with the prevailing feudal political ideology). The downside was that serfdom was heritable. A man was binding not only himself, but all his heirs as well : this, of course, was not true of a free man.

The line between freedom and serfdom was often indistinct. A man might own some lands under free tenancy(for instance: a "cottier" or "cotter" was a free man, tenant of a "cottage"); others might owe serf-like duties. It was always in the interest of the lords to prove that a servile arrangement existed as this provided them with greater rights to fees and taxes. The legal status of a man was a primary issue in many of the manorial court cases of the period.

The usual serf "paid" his fees and taxes in the form of seasonally appropriate labor, usually a couple of days a week ploughing his lord's fields (demesne), harvesting crops, digging ditches, repairing fences, etc. The rest of his time was his own to tend to his own fields, crops and animals. The tension of a serf's life derived from the fact that his work for his lord coincided and took precedence over the work he had to perform on his own lands. When the lord's crops were ready to be harvested, so were his own and so forth. On the other hand, he could look forward to being well fed during his service and it was a poor lord who did not provide a substantial meal for his serfs during the harvest and planting times.

In addition to service a serf was required to pay certain taxes and fees. Taxes were based on the assessed value of his lands and holdings (usually 1/3 of the value; the "third penny"), while fees were assessed for various reasons, the birth of a child, a marriage, war, etc. Both were usually paid in the form of foodstuffs rather than cash (often there were rather humorous test -- at least in retrospect -- to judge the worthiness of their tax payments. A chicken, for example, was required to be able to jump over a fence of a given height to be considered old enough or well enough to be valued for tax purposes).

In the end, the nature of serfdom began to change when the value of taxes paid in kind began to be less than the value of outright renting of the land. In such cases many Lords "freed" their serfs in exchange for cash rents rather than service. In practice, little changed for the peasants. They still had to farm their lands to feed their families, and pay their taxes. The main difference was that they could be turned off their lands if they failed to pay or if their Lord decided he wanted to use their fields for raising sheep (for example) rather than corn. The change in status following the enclosure movements beginning in the later 13th century, in which various Lords abandoned the open field farming of previous centuries in exchange for, essentially, taking all the best land for themselves and "freeing" their serfs may well have made serfdom a lifestyle devoutly to be wished for many peasant families. It is truly said that a slave must be fed, while a free man is free to starve.

A serf was a peasant. While most serfs were farmers, some serfs were craftsman - like the village blacksmith, miller or innkeeper.

Within these constraints, a serf had some freedom. Though the common wisdom was that a serf owned "only his belly" (even his clothes were the property, in law, of his lord) an industrious or lucky serf might still accumulate personal property and wealth, and some serfs became wealthier than their free neighbours - although this was rather an exception to the general rule. A well-to-do serf might even be able to buy his freedom. Serfs could raise what they saw fit on their lands (within reason -- a serf's taxes often had to be paid in wheat, a notoriously difficult crop), and sell the surplus at market. Their heirs were (usually) guaranteed an inheritance. The landlord could not dispossess his serfs without cause and was supposed to protect them from the depredations of outlaws or other lords, and he was expected to support them by charity in times of famine. The restraints of serfdom on personal and economic choice were enforced through various forms of manorial common law and the manorial administration and court.

Specifics of serfdom varied greatly through time and region. In some places, serfdom was merged with or exchanged for various forms of taxation. The amount of serfdom required varied, for example in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 13th century it was few days a year; in the 14th century, one day per week; 4 days per week in the 17th century and 6 days per week in the 18th century, and early serfdom was most limited on the royal territories (królewszczyzny). Sometimes, serfs served as soldiers in the event of conflict and could earn freedom or even ennoblement for valour in combat. In other cases, serfs could also purchase their freedom, be manumitted by their enlightened or generous owners, or flee to towns or newly-settled land where few questions were asked. Laws varied from country to country: in England a serf who made his way to a chartered town and evaded recapture for a year and a day obtained his freedom.

In many cases, serfs had to obtain permission from their landlord to marry a partner from off the manor (merchet). They could also be obliged to pay fines: on inheritance, on becoming a priest or monk or on having their children leave the manor and go to cities. Even upon their death a peasant paid a tax in the form of their best animal to their lord in exchange for confirming their heir's rights to the land. Furthermore, serfs had to pay to use the lord’s grain mill and bread oven and were charged for miscellaneous services such as using the lord’s carts to haul their produce. This was a great bone of contention within the village. Many peasants were fined for grinding their own grain and resented the fees paid to the miller (multure), usually 1/24 of the total grain milled. Millers were routinely accused of providing short measure or taking too great a portion for their fee. A period riddle runs, "What is the boldest thing on earth?" The answer is, "A miller's shirt for it clasps a thief by the throat every day." Many manors also required the use of the lord's oven to bake their daily bread. Such petty fees and usuries were the basis of much class resentment among peasants.

[edit]

History of serfdom

Social institutions similar to serfdom were known in ancient times. The status of the helots in the ancient Greek city-state of Sparta resembled that of the medieval serfs, as did the condition of the peasants working on government lands in ancient Rome. These Roman peasants, known as coloni, or "tenant farmers", are some of the possible precursors of the serfs. The Germanic tribes invading the Roman Empire for the most part displaced wealthy Romans as the landlords but left the economic system itself intact. However, medieval serfdom really began with the breakup of the Carolingian Empire around the 10th century. The demise of this empire, which had ruled much of the western Europe for more than 200 years, was followed by a long period during which no strong central governments existed in most of Europe. During this period powerful feudal lords encouraged the establishment of serfdom as a source of agricultural labor. Serfdom, indeed, was an institution that reflected a fairly common practice whereby great landlords are assured that others work to feed them and are held down, legally and economically, while doing so. This arrangement provided most of the agricultural labor throughout the Middle Ages. Slavery persisted right through the Middle Ages, but it was rare, diminishing and largely confined to the use of household slaves. Parts of Europe, including much of Scandinavia, never adopted many feudal institutions, including serfdom.

In the later Middle Ages serfdom began to disappear west of the Rhine even as it spread through eastern Europe. This was one important cause for the deep differences between the societies and economies of eastern and western Europe.

In Western Europe, the rise of powerful monarchs, towns, and an improving economy weakened the manorial system through the 13th and 14th centuries, and serfdom was rare following the Renaissance. Serfdom in Western Europe came largely to an end in the 15th and 16th centuries, because of changes in the economy, population, and laws governing lord-tenant relations in Western European nations. The enclosure of manor fields for livestock grazing and for larger arable plots made the economy of serfs’ small strips of land in open fields less attractive to the landowners. Also, the increasing use of money made tenant farming by serfs less profitable; for much less than it cost to support a serf, a lord could now hire workers who were more skilled and pay them in cash. Paid labor was also more flexible since workers could be hired only when they were needed. At the same time, increasing unrest and uprisings by serfs and peasants, like Tyler’s Rebellion in England in 1381, put pressure on the nobility and the clergy to reform the system. As a result serf and peasant demands were accommodated to some extent by the gradual establishment of new forms of leasing the land and increased personal liberties. Another important factor in the decline of serfdom was industrial development - especially the Industrial Revolution. With the growing profitabilty of industry farmers wanted to move to towns to receive higher wages than those they could earn working in the fields, while landowners also invested in the more profitable industry. This also led to the growing process of urbanization.

Image:Zboze Placi.jpg Serfdom reached Eastern European countries relatively later than Western Europe—it became dominant around the 15th century. Before that time Eastern Europe had been much less populated than Western Europe, and the lords of Eastern Europe created a peasantry-friendly environment to encourage migration eastTemplate:Fact. Serfdom developed in Eastern Europe after the Black Death epidemics, which not only stopped the migration but depopulated Eastern Europe. The resulting large land-to-labor ratio combined with Eastern Europe's vast, sparsely populated areas gave the lords an incentive to bind the remaining peasantry to their land. With increased demand for agricultural products in Western Europe during the later era when Western Europe limited and eventually abolished serfdom, serfdom remained in force throughout Eastern Europe during the 17th century so that nobility-owned estates could produce more agricultural products (especially grain) for the profitable export market. Such Eastern European countries include Prussia (Prussian Ordinances of 1525), Austria, Hungary (laws of late 15th/early 16th century), the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (szlachta privileges of early 16th century) and the Russian Empire (laws of late 16th/first half of 17th century). Image:Zboze Nie Placi.jpgThis also led to the slower industry development and urbanisation of those regions. Generally, this process, referred to as 'second serfdom' or 'export-led serfdom', which persisted until the mid-19th century, became very repressive and substantially limited serfs' rights. In many of these countries serfdom was abolished during the Napoleonic invasions of the early nineteenth century. Serfdom remained the practice on the most part of territory of Russia until February 19, 1861, though in Russian Baltic provinces it has been abolished in the beginning of 19th century (Russian Serfdom Reforms). Russian serfdom was perhaps the most unique among the Eastern European experiences, as it was never influenced by German law and migrations, and the serfdom and manorialism systems were forced by the crown (Tsar), not the nobility.

[edit]

Dates of emancipation from serfdom in various European countries

Savoy: 19 December 1771
Baden: 23 July 1783
Denmark: 20 June 1788
France: 3 November 1789
Switzerland: 4 May 1798
Schleswig-Holstein: 19 December 1804
Grand Duchy of Warsaw (Poland): 22 July 1807
Prussia: 9 October 1807 (effectively 1811-1823)
Mecklenberg: October 1807 (effectively 1820)
Bavaria: 31 August 1808
Nassau: 1 September 1812
Estonia(Russian Empire): 23 March 1816
Courland(Russian Empire): 25 August 1817
Württemberg: 18 November 1817
Livonia(Russian Empire): 26 March 1819
Hannover: 1831
Saxony: 17 March 1832
Austria: 7 September 1848
Hungary: 2 March 1853
Bulgaria: 1858 (when feudalism was definitely abolished in the Ottoman Empire; practically in 1880)
Russia: 19 February 1861
Danubian Principalities (Romania): 14 August 1864
Bosnia and Herzegovina: 1918

[edit]

Return of Serfdom

Critics of planned economies, especially those based on Soviet-style Communist economics, have argued that centrally-planned economies, such as the Soviet collective farm system, amount to a return to government-owned serfdom. This view was put most powerfully by Friedrich Hayek in the classic Road to Serfdom as early as 1944 and has since been adopted by others including Mikhael Gorbachev. In all Communist countries, farmers were tied to their farms, either kolkhoz which were theoretically collectives, or sovkhoz which were state-owned, through a system of internal passports and household registration (such as China's hukou system). They had to plant crops according to instructions from the central authorities, especially if they were on state-run farms. These authorities would then "buy" their agricultural produce at vastly reduced prices and use the surplus to invest in heavy industry.