Unlikeslaves, serfs could not be bought, sold, or traded individually, though they could, depending on the area, be sold together with land. Actual slaves, such as thekholops in Russia, could, by contrast, be traded like regular slaves, abused with no rights over their own bodies, could not leave the land they were bound to, and marry only with theirlord's permission.[a][3]
Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for thelord of the manor who owned that land. In return, they were entitled to protection, justice, and the right to cultivate certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence. Serfs were often required not only to work on the lord's fields, but in his mines and forests and to labour to maintain roads. The manor formed the basic unit of feudal society, and the lord of the manor and thevilleins, and to a certain extent the serfs, were bound legally: by taxation in the case of the former, and economically and socially in the latter.
The decline of serfdom inWestern Europe has sometimes been attributed to the widespread plague epidemic of theBlack Death, which reached Europe in 1347 and caused massive fatalities, disrupting society.[4] Conversely, serfdom grew stronger inCentral andEastern Europe, where it had been less common (this phenomenon was known as "second serfdom"). In Eastern Europe, the institution persisted until the mid-19th century.Serfdom in Russia gradually evolved from the usual European form to becomede facto slavery, though it continued to be called serfdom; one way or another, reforms were carried out to reduce powers of the landowners. In theHabsburg monarchy, serfdom was abolished by the1781 Serfdom Patent. Serfdom wasabolished in Russia in 1861.[5]Prussia declared serfdom unacceptable in itsGeneral State Laws for the Prussian States in 1792 and abolished in 1807, in the wake of thePrussian Reform Movement.[6] In Finland, Norway, and Sweden, feudalism was never fully established, and serfdom did not exist; in Denmark, serfdom-like institutions did exist in thestavnsbånd, between 1733 and 1788 and its vassal Iceland (the more restrictivevistarband, from 1490 until 1894).
Galician slaughter in 1846 was a revolt against serfdom, directed against manorial property and oppression.
Social institutions similar to serfdom were known inancient times. The status of thehelots in theancient Greekcity-state ofSparta resembled that of the medieval serfs. By the 3rd century AD, theRoman Empire faced a labour shortage. Large Roman landowners increasingly relied on Roman freemen, acting as tenant farmers, instead of slaves to provide labour.[15]
Thesetenant farmers, eventually known ascoloni, saw their condition steadily erode. Because the tax system implemented byDiocletian assessed taxes based on both land and the inhabitants of that land, it became administratively inconvenient for peasants to leave the land where they were counted in the census.[15]
Medieval serfdom really began with the breakup of theCarolingian Empire around the 10th century.[citation needed] During this period, powerfulfeudal lords encouraged the establishment of serfdom as a source of agriculturallabour. Serfdom, indeed, was an institution that reflected a fairly common practice whereby great landlords were assured that others worked to feed them and were held down, legally and economically, while doing so.
This arrangement provided most of the agricultural labour throughout theMiddle Ages.Slavery persisted right through the Middle Ages,[16] but it was rare.
In the later Middle Ages, serfdom began to disappear west of theRhine even as it spread through eastern Europe. Serfdom reached Eastern Europe centuries later than Western Europe – it became dominant around the 15th century. In many of these countries serfdom was abolished during theNapoleonic invasions of the early 19th century, though in some it persisted until mid- or late- 19th century.[citation needed]
Etymology
Costumes of slaves or serfs, from the sixth to the twelfth centuries, collected by H. de Vielcastel from original documents in European libraries
The wordserf originated from theMiddle Frenchserf and was derived from theLatinservus (slave or servant). InLate Antiquity and most of the Middle Ages, what are now called serfs were usually designated in Latin ascoloni. As slavery gradually disappeared and the legal status ofservi became nearly identical to that of thecoloni, the term changed meaning into the modern concept of "serf". The word "serf" is first recorded in English in the late 15th century, and came to its current definition in the 17th century.Serfdom was coined in 1850.[citation needed]
Dependency and the lower orders
Serfs had a specific place in feudal society, as didbarons andknights: in return for protection, a serf would reside upon and work a parcel of land within themanor of his lord. Thus, the manorial system exhibited a degree of reciprocity.
One rationale held that serfs and freemen "worked for all" while a knight or baron "fought for all" and a churchman "prayed for all"; thus everyone had a place (seeEstates of the realm). The serf was the worst fed and rewarded. However, unlike slaves, they had certain rights in land and property.
A lord of the manor could not sell his serfs as a Roman might sell his slaves. On the other hand, if he chose to dispose of a parcel of land, the serfs associated with that land stayed with it to serve their new lord; simply speaking, they were implicitly sold in mass and as a part of a lot. This unified system preserved for the lord long-acquired knowledge of practices suited to the land. Further, a serf could not abandon his lands without permission,[17] nor did he possess a saleable title in them.[18]
Initiation
Afreeman became a serf usually through force or necessity. Sometimes the greater physical and legal force of a localmagnate intimidatedfreeholders orallodial owners into dependency. Often a few years of crop failure, a war, orbrigandage might leave a person unable to make his own way. In such a case, he could strike a bargain with a lord of a manor. In exchange for gaining protection, his service was required: in labour, produce, or cash, or a combination of all. These bargains became formalised in a ceremony known as "bondage", in which a serf placed his head in the lord's hands, akin to the ceremony ofhomage where avassal placed his hands between those of hisoverlord. These oaths bound the lord and his new serf in a feudal contract and defined the terms of their agreement.[19] Often these bargains were severe.[clarification needed]
By the Lord before whom this sanctuary is holy, I will toN. be true and faithful, and love all which he loves and shun all which he shuns, according to the laws of God and the order of the world. Nor will I ever with will or action, through word or deed, do anything which is unpleasing to him, on condition that he will hold to me as I shall deserve it, and that he will perform everything as it was in our agreement when I submitted myself to him and chose his will.
To become a serf was a commitment that encompassed all aspects of the serf's life. The children born to serfs inherited their status, and were considered born into serfdom. By taking on the duties of serfdom, people bound themselves and their progeny.
Class system
The social class of thepeasantry can be differentiated into smaller categories. These distinctions were often less clear than suggested by their different names. Most often, there were two types of peasants:
freemen, workers whose tenure within the manor wasfreehold
Lower classes of peasants, known ascottars orbordars, generally comprising the younger sons of villeins;[20][21] vagabonds; and slaves, made up the lower class of workers.
Coloni
Thecolonus system of the late Roman Empire can be considered the predecessor of Western Europeanfeudal serfdom.[22][23]
Freemen
Freemen, orfree tenants, held their land by one of a variety of contracts offeudal land-tenure and were essentially rent-paying tenant farmers who owed little or no service to the lord, and had a good degree of security of tenure and independence. In parts of 11th-century England freemen made up only 10% of the peasant population, and in most of the rest of Europe their numbers were also small.
Ministeriales
Ministeriales were hereditary unfree knights tied to their lord, that formed the lowest rung of nobility in theHoly Roman Empire.
In England, after the Norman conquest of 1066, an unfree tenant who held their land subject to providing agricultural and other services to their lord, was described as a villein. Villeins had limited rights and were tied to their lord. However they did havemore rights and were of a higher status than the lowest serf. They had to work on the demensne (their lords farm) in return for receiving small plots of land, to support their family.[24]
Villeins were not freemen, for example they and their daughters were not allowed to marry without their lords permission.They could not move away without their lord's consent and the acceptance of the lord to whose manor they proposed to migrate to. Villeins were generally able to hold their own property, unlike slaves (serfs).[24]Villeinage, as opposed to other forms of serfdom, was most common in Continental European feudalism, where land ownership had developed from roots inRoman law.[citation needed]
A variety of kinds of villeinage existed in Europe in the Middle Ages. Half-villeins received only half as many strips of land for their own use and owed a full complement of labour to the lord, often forcing them to rent out their services to other serfs to make up for this hardship. Villeinage was not a purely uni-directional exploitative relationship. In the Middle Ages, land within a lord's manor providedsustenance and survival, and being a villein guaranteed access to land, and crops secure from theft by marauding robbers. Landlords, even where they were legally entitled to do so, rarely evicted villeins because of the value of their labour. Villeinage was much preferable to being a vagabond, a slave, or an unlanded labourer.[citation needed]
In many medieval countries, a villein could gain freedom by escaping from amanor to a city orborough and living there for more than a year; but this action involved the loss of land rights and agricultural livelihood, a prohibitive price unless the landlord was especially tyrannical or conditions in the village were unusually difficult.[citation needed]
In medieval England, two types of villeins existed –villeins regardant that were tied to land andvilleins in gross that could be traded separately from land.[22]
Bordars and cottagers
In England, theDomesday Book, of 1086, usesbordarii (bordar) andcottarii (cottar) as interchangeable terms,cottar deriving from the native Anglo-Saxon tongue whereasbordar derived from the French.[25]
Status-wise, the bordar or cottar ranked below a villein in the social hierarchy of a manor, holding acottage, garden and just enough land to feed a family. In England, at the time of the Domesday Survey, this would have comprised between about 1 and 5 acres (0.4 and 2.0 hectares).[27] Under anElizabethanstatute, theErection of Cottages Act 1588, the cottage had to be built with at least 4 acres (0.02 km2; 0.01 sq mi) of land.[28] The laterinclosure acts (1604 onwards) removed the cottars' right to any land: "before the Enclosures Act the cottager was a farm labourer with land and after the Enclosures Act the cottager was a farm labourer without land".[29][better source needed]
The bordars and cottars did not own their draught oxen or horses. The Domesday Book showed that England comprised 12% freeholders, 35% serfs or villeins, 30% cotters and bordars, and 9% slaves.[27]
Kholops were the lowest class of serfs in the medieval and early modern Russia. They had status similar to slaves, and could be freely traded.
Slaves
The last type of serf was the slave.[30] Slaves had the fewest rights and benefits from the manor. They owned no tenancy in land, worked for the lord exclusively and survived on donations from the landlord. It was always in the interest of the lord to prove that a servile arrangement existed, as this provided him with greater rights to fees and taxes. The status of a man was a primary issue in determining a person's rights and obligations in many of themanorial court-cases of the period. Also, runaway slaves could be beaten if caught.
The usual serf (not including slaves or cottars) paid hisfees andtaxes in the form of seasonally appropriate labour. Usually, a portion of the week was devoted to ploughing his lord's fields held indemesne, harvesting crops, digging ditches, repairing fences, and often working in themanor house. The remainder of the serf's time was spent tending his own fields, crops and animals in order to provide for his family. Most manorial work was segregated bygender during the regular times of the year. During theharvest, the whole family was expected to work the fields.
A major difficulty of a serf's life was that his work for his lord coincided with, 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. On the other hand, the serf of a benign lord could look forward to being well fed during his service; it was a lord without foresight who did not provide a substantial meal for his serfs during the harvest and planting times.[citation needed] In exchange for this work on the lord's demesne, the serfs had certain privileges and rights, including for example the right to gather deadwood – an essential source of fuel – from their lord's forests.
In addition to service, a serf was required to pay certaintaxes and fees. Taxes were based on the assessed value of his lands and holdings. Fees were usually paid in the form of agricultural produce rather than cash. The best ration of wheat from the serf's harvest often went to the landlord. Generally hunting and trapping of wild game by the serfs on the lord's property was prohibited. OnEaster Sunday the peasant family perhaps might owe an extra dozen eggs, and at Christmas, a goose was perhaps required, too. When a family member died, extra taxes were paid to the lord as a form offeudal relief to enable the heir to keep the right to till what land he had. Any young woman who wished to marry a serf outside of her manor was forced to pay a fee for the right to leave her lord, and in compensation for her lost labour.
Often there were arbitrary tests to judge the worthiness of their tax payments. A chicken, for example, might be 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. The restraints of serfdom on personal and economic choice were enforced through various forms of manorial customary law and the manorial administration andcourt baron.
It was also a matter of discussion whether serfs could be required by law in times of war or conflict to fight for their lord's land and property. In the case of their lord's defeat, their own fate might be uncertain, so the serf certainly had an interest in supporting his lord.
Rights
Villeins had more rights and status than those held as slaves, but were under a number of legal restrictions that differentiated them from the freeman. Within his constraints, a serf had some freedoms. Though the common wisdom is that a serf owned "only his belly" – even his clothes were the property, in law, of his lord – a serf might still accumulate personal property and wealth, and some serfs became wealthier than their free neighbours, although this happened rarely.[31] A well-to-do serf might even be able to buy his freedom.[32][33]
A serf could grow what crop he saw fit on his lands, although a serf's taxes often had to be paid in wheat. The surplus he would sell atmarket.
The landlord could not dispossess his serfs without legal cause and was supposed to protect them from the depredations of robbers or other lords, and he was expected to support them by charity in times offamine. Many such rights were enforceable by the serf in the manorial court.[citation needed]
Variations
Forms of serfdom varied greatly through time and regions. In some places, serfdom was merged with or exchanged for various forms of taxation.
The amount of labour required varied. In Poland, for example, it was commonly a few days per year per household in the 13th century, one day per week per household in the 14th century, four days per week per household in the 17th century, and six days per week per household in the 18th century. Early serfdom in Poland was mostly limited to the royal territories (królewszczyzny).
"Per household" means that every dwelling had to give a worker for the required number of days.[34] For example, in the 18th century, six people: a peasant, his wife, three children and a hired worker might be required to work for their lord one day a week, which would be counted as six days of labour.
Serfs served on occasion as soldiers in the event of conflict and could earn freedom or evenennoblement for valour in combat.[clarification needed] Serfs could purchase their freedom, bemanumitted by generous owners, or flee to towns or to 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 (i.e. a borough) and evaded recapture for a year and a day obtained his freedom and became aburgher of the town.
Serfdom by country and location
Serfdom in Europe, 1750
Americas
Aztec Empire
In the Aztec Empire, theTlacotin class held similarities to serfdom. Even at its height, slaves only ever made up 2% of the population.[35]
Serfdom in France started to diminish after theBlack Death in France, when the lack of work force mademanumission more common from that point onward, and by the 18th-century, serfdom had become relatively rare in most of France.
In 1779, the reforms ofJacques Necker abolished serfdom in all Crown lands in France. On the outbreak of theFrench Revolution of 1789, between 140,000[37] and 1,500,000[38] serfs remained in France, most of them on clerical lands[39] inFranche-Comté, Berry,Burgundy and Marche.[40][41]However, although formal serfdom no longer existed in most of France, the feudal seigneurial laws still granted noble landlords many of the rights previously exercised over serfs, and the peasants of Auvergne, Nivernais and Champagne, though formally not serfs, could still not move freely.[42][43]
Serfdom was formally abolished in France on 4 August 1789,[44] and the remaining feudal rights that gave landlords control rights over peasants were abolished in 1789-93.[45]
The Serfdom Patent diminished the long-established mastery of the landlords; thus allowing the serfs to independently choose marriage partners, pursue career choices, and move between estates.[46] The document allowed the serfs legal rights in the Habsburg monarchy, but it did not affect the financial dues and the physicalcorvée (unpaid labor) that the serfs legally owed to their landlords. It continued to exist and was only abolished during therevolutions of 1848.
InGaelic Ireland, a political and social system existing inIreland from the prehistoric period (500 BC or earlier) up until theNorman conquest (12th century AD), thebothach ("hut-dweller"),fuidir (perhaps linked tofot, "soil")[47] andsencléithe ("old dwelling-house")[48] were low-ranked semi-free servile tenants similar to serfs.[49][50] According toLaurence Ginnell, thesencléithe andbothach "were not free to leave the territory except with permission, and in practice they usually served theflaith [prince]. They had no political orclan rights, could neither sue nor appear as witnesses, and were not free in the matter of entering intocontracts. They could appear in a court of justice only in the name of theflaith or other person to whom they belonged, or whom they served, or by obtaining from an aire of thetuath to which they belonged permission to sue in his name."[51][52] Afuidir was defined byD. A. Binchy as "a 'tenant at will,' settled by the lord (flaith) on a portion of the latter's land; his services to the lord are always undefined. Although his condition is servile, he retains the right to abandon his holding on giving due notice to the lord and surrendering to him two thirds of the products of his husbandry."[53][54]
Serfdom in Poland became the dominant form of relationship between peasants and nobility in the 17th century, and was a major feature of the economy of thePolish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, although its origins can be traced back to the 12th century.
The first steps towards abolition of serfdom were enacted in theConstitution of 3 May 1791, and it was essentially eliminated by thePołaniec Manifesto. However, these reforms were partly nullified by thepartition of Poland.Frederick the Great had abolished serfdom in the territories he gained from thefirst partition of Poland. Over the course of the 19th century, it was gradually abolished on Polish and Lithuanian territories under foreign control, as the region began toindustrialize.
Serfdom became the dominant form of relation between Russian peasants andnobility in the 17th century. Serfdom only existed in central and southern areas of the Russian Empire. It was never established in the North, in the Urals, or in Siberia. Theconscripted serfs dramatically increased the size of the Russian military during theNapoleonic Wars.[55] According to theEncyclopedia of Human Rights:
In 1649 up to three-quarters ofMuscovy's peasants, or 13 to 14 million people, were serfs whose material lives were barely distinguishable from slaves. Perhaps another 1.5 million were formally enslaved, with Russian slaves serving Russian masters.[56]
Russia's over 23 million (about 38% of the total population[57]) privately held serfs were freed from their lords byan edict ofAlexander II in 1861. The owners were compensated through taxes on the freed serfs.State serfs were emancipated in 1866.[58]
Emancipation dates by country
Scotland: neyfs (serfs) disappeared by the late 14th century,[59] except in the salt and coal mining industries, where a form of serfdom survived until theColliers (Scotland) Act 1799.[60][61]
^Wu, Ta-k'un (February 1952). "An Interpretation of Chinese Economic History".Past & Present (1):1–12.doi:10.1093/past/1.1.1.
^Lee, James; Campbell, Cameron (1998). "Headship succession and household division in three Chinese banner serf populations, 1789–1909".Continuity and Change.13 (1):117–141.doi:10.1017/s0268416098003063.S2CID144755944.
^abGoldstein, Melvyn C. (1986). "Re-examining Choice, Dependency and Command in the Tibetan Social System-'Tax Appendages' and Other Landless Serfs".Tibet Journal.11 (4):79–112.
^abGoldstein, Melvyn C. (1988). "On the Nature of Tibetan Peasantry".Tibet Journal.13 (1):61–65.
^abBarnett, Robert (2008) "What were the conditions regarding human rights in Tibet before democratic reform?" in:Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions, pp. 81–83. Eds. Anne-Marie Blondeau and Katia Buffetrille.University of California Press.ISBN978-0-520-24464-1 (cloth);ISBN978-0-520-24928-8 (paper)
^abBhutanStudies.org.btArchived 27 June 2008 at theWayback Machine, T WangchukChange in the land use system in Bhutan: Ecology, History, Culture, and Power Nature Conservation Section. DoF, MoA
^abFriar, Stephen (2004).The Sutton Companion to Local History. Sutton Publishing. p. 458.ISBN0-7509-2723-2.
^Hallam, H.E.; Finberg; Thirsk, Joan, eds. (1988).The Agrarian History of England and Wales: 1042–1350. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 58.ISBN0-521-20073-3.
^[1] Croatian encyclopedia, 1780 queen Maria Theresa introduced the regulations in Royal Croatia. 1785. King Joseph II introduced the Patent of freedom of movement of Serfs which gave them the right of movement, education and property, also ended their dependence to feudal lords.
Freedman, Paul, and Monique Bourin, eds.Forms of Servitude in Northern and Central Europe. Decline, Resistance and Expansion Brepols, 2005.
Frantzen, Allen J., and Douglas Moffat, eds.The World of Work: Servitude, Slavery and Labor in Medieval England. Glasgow: Cruithne P, 1994.
Gorshkov, Boris B. "Serfdom: Eastern Europe" in Peter N. Stearns, ed,Encyclopedia of European Social History: from 1352–2000 (2001) volume 2 pp. 379–388
Hoch, Steven L.Serfdom and social control in Russia: Petrovskoe, a village in Tambov (1989)
Kahan, Arcadius. "Notes on Serfdom in Western and Eastern Europe,"Journal of Economic History March 1973 33:86–99in JSTORArchived 12 May 2022 at theWayback Machine
Kolchin, Peter.Unfree labor: American slavery and Russian serfdom (2009)
Moon, David.The abolition of serfdom in Russia 1762–1907 (Longman, 2001)
Scott, Tom, ed.The Peasantries of Europe (1998)
Vadey, Liana. "Serfdom: Western Europe" in Peter N. Stearns, ed,Encyclopedia of European Social History: from 1352–2000 (2001) volume 2 pp. 369–378
White, Stephen D.Re-Thinking Kinship and Feudalism in Early Medieval Europe (2nd ed. Ashgate Variorum, 2000)
Wirtschafter, Elise Kimerling.Russia's age of serfdom 1649–1861 (2008)
Wright, William E.Serf, Seigneur, and Sovereign: Agrarian Reform in Eighteenth-century Bohemia (U of Minnesota Press, 1966).
Wunder, Heide. "Serfdom in later medieval and early modern Germany" in T. H. Aston et al.,Social Relations and Ideas: Essays in Honour of R. H. Hilton (Cambridge UP, 1983), 249–272
