The medieval view of commoners

[Longmane]

We're more interested in serfdom--that post is about slavery.

No, it's loosely more about not only how slavery as such was replaced by serfdom, but also how no matter what they were called, the commoners remained being looked upon by the nobility as still little less then belongings.

[Longmane]

Perhaps this might be a bit closer to parts of the subject were discusing.

http://library.thinkquest.org/10949/fief/lofeudal.html


The Feudal Structure of the Medieval World

The Peasants or Serfs:

Life on a manor was extremely hard for a peasant. It consisted of work and family life. Approximately ninety percent of the people in the middle ages were considered to be peasants. There was a division of the peasants into free and a type of indentured servants. The free peasants worked in their own independent businesses, usually as carpenters, blacksmiths, weavers, or bakers. They paid the lord a type of rent for using their small plots of land. The other, unfree peasants lived on the land without paying any money, but worked for the lord, earning their stay.
The large amount of land surrounding the castle provided a means for peasants to acquire enough money and food to live by farming. In fact, this is another extension of the fief idea. The average farmer was given a plot of land on which he could farm. He also got a sense of security by living near a castle and potential protection from danger. They also had the privilege of passing their land on through inheritance after their deaths. They had grazing and field rights around their village. They also had right to building materials in the area. They did not have right to hunt most wild game, however. The peasants also had some local political rights. They often formed their own manorial courts, called halimotes. There, they made the bylaws that governed the villagers' actions. For example, one such bylaw was "Noone shall enter the fields to carry grain after sunset" This law was made to prevent grain from being stolen surreptitiously. The peasants also enforced these laws. Claims against one another were settled by a village court, usually of twelve village representatives. The court was overseen by a representative of the lord, usually his steward. However, he was an equal member of the court, not its head. In return for these rights, the peasant had to fulfill his end of the bargain. He was required to work a certain number of days a week on the lord's land. The lord also had a great deal of control over his peasants, known as serfs. In fact, the serfs were almost like slaves to the feudal lord. He had the right to grant marriages, tax anytime or anything, and to force them to use mills or ovens that he owned. He most often made his serfs work his own land. He could charge them for his mill services, make them use his mill, and thus create a monopoly. He also could force everyone to attend court when in session. He held absolute power in establishing punishments for various offenses such as thievery or murder, matters not appropriate for a village court. The people were bound to their land plots and when the land was sold, they were sold along with it. If the land they lived on changed ownership, then they came under a new lord's jurisdiction.

[Alpha]

Perhaps this might be a bit closer to parts of the subject were discusing.

http://library.thinkquest.org/10949/fief/lofeudal.html


The Feudal Structure of the Medieval World

The Peasants or Serfs:

Life on a manor was extremely hard for a peasant. It consisted of work and family life. Approximately ninety percent of the people in the middle ages were considered to be peasants. There was a division of the peasants into free and a type of indentured servants. The free peasants worked in their own independent businesses, usually as carpenters, blacksmiths, weavers, or bakers. They paid the lord a type of rent for using their small plots of land. The other, unfree peasants lived on the land without paying any money, but worked for the lord, earning their stay.
The large amount of land surrounding the castle provided a means for peasants to acquire enough money and food to live by farming. In fact, this is another extension of the fief idea. The average farmer was given a plot of land on which he could farm. He also got a sense of security by living near a castle and potential protection from danger. They also had the privilege of passing their land on through inheritance after their deaths. They had grazing and field rights around their village. They also had right to building materials in the area. They did not have right to hunt most wild game, however. The peasants also had some local political rights. They often formed their own manorial courts, called halimotes. There, they made the bylaws that governed the villagers' actions. For example, one such bylaw was "Noone shall enter the fields to carry grain after sunset" This law was made to prevent grain from being stolen surreptitiously. The peasants also enforced these laws. Claims against one another were settled by a village court, usually of twelve village representatives. The court was overseen by a representative of the lord, usually his steward. However, he was an equal member of the court, not its head. In return for these rights, the peasant had to fulfill his end of the bargain. He was required to work a certain number of days a week on the lord's land. The lord also had a great deal of control over his peasants, known as serfs. In fact, the serfs were almost like slaves to the feudal lord. He had the right to grant marriages, tax anytime or anything, and to force them to use mills or ovens that he owned. He most often made his serfs work his own land. He could charge them for his mill services, make them use his mill, and thus create a monopoly. He also could force everyone to attend court when in session. He held absolute power in establishing punishments for various offenses such as thievery or murder, matters not appropriate for a village court. The people were bound to their land plots and when the land was sold, they were sold along with it. If the land they lived on changed ownership, then they came under a new lord's jurisdiction.

Excellent post.

[Vellos]

It's an okay article, but has:
1. Extremely non-neutral language
2. Numerous obvious historical flaws

One that immediately stuck out was the mischaracterization of divine right. Medieval Kings did not rule by divine right. That is a concept primarily propagated by absolutist monarchs of a later period.

Slavery was in evidence in medieval Europe around to the 11th century, mostly in the mediterraneum and east from Germany. There are stories where German noble ladies would be captured in raids by Magyar's and sold as slaves, eventually finding their way back to be sold in Germany.

This is true. Then again, Magyars are "fringe," and not exactly mainline feudalism. When I talk about feudalism, I am generally speaking of  England, France, and the Holy Roman Empire before 1400 at the latest. The Mediterranean basin also had slaves, in no small part due to ongoing trade contacts with chattel markets in Muslim Africa and the middle east, as well as due to piracy (and the stronger legacy of the latifundia).

Now then, a source:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1171latrsale.html

Council of Koblenz, 922.

7. Also the question was put what should be done concerning him who led away a Christian man and then sold him; and the reply of all was that he should be guilty of homicide.

Council of London, 1102.

27. Let no one presume for the future to enter into that nefarious business by which they were accustomed hitherto to sell men like brute animals in England.

Council held at Armagh in Ireland, 1171.

When these things were done the clergy of all Ireland were called to Armagh, and upon the arrival of foreigners in the island after more negotiation and deliberation the opinion of all was as follows:

On account of the sins of the people, especially because at one time they were accustomed to buy Englishmen both from merchants, thieves, and pirates, here and there, and to reduce them to servitude, this trouble had come upon them by the severity of divine vengeance, so that they themselves were in turn reduced by the same people to servitude. For the English people hitherto throughout the whole of their kingdom to the common injury of their people, had become accustomed to selling their sons and relatives in Ireland, to expose their children for sale as slaves, rather than suffer any need or want. Wherefore, it may be believed, just as they were sellers and buyers once, so now they deserve the yoke of servitude for such an enormity. And so it is decreed in the said council, and declared with the public consent of all, that wherever the English are throughout the island they shall be freed from the bond of slavery, and shall receive the liberty they formerly had.

Now, the fact that they had to prohibit it certainly indicates it still went on. But it probably was not the norm.  I hope that puts the slavery argument to rest. It could happen still, sure, and with some RP justification fits well: but when you say "serf" it does not mean slave and it also is explicitly not comparable to an animal, such as a prized hunting dog.


I don't have time to offer in depth discussion, but some other relevant sources:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/990serfcrafts.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/800Asnapium.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/codexVIl-24-i.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/codexXl-48-xxi.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/803carol-coloni.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/817coloni.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1059serfs2.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1198burystedmunds.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/704landsale.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1080england-slaves.html

Medieval sourcebook. Learn it. Use it. Love it.

[Longmane]

In fact, I think we do have too many peasant uprisings, but I don't have the time to fix it right now. My current vision is that they should be rare events, but when they happen, they require considerable resources to put down, not the "ok, hold court twice and send in a bureaucrat" approach of today.

I'm just floating an idea, but after reading my earlier posting again I'm wondering if it's possible to code letting a region lord have the people hold court somehow, albeit with a very limited effect and only in certain circumstances, ie the region loyalty must be high, in order represent their devotion to him/her, and likewise only a max set amount of times month etc, as could be used to try prevent revolts if the lords called away.

[egamma]

Thanks Vellos. I think the most pertinent link is this one: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/803carol-coloni.html

That fiscalini or coloni or serfs dwelling on the domain of another, on being required by their former lord, shall not be given to him except for the former place; where it was first seen that they had lived, thither they shall be returned, and diligent inquiry shall be made concerning their status and the status of their relations.

Basically, you can't force serfs to move, and the only way to sell them is to sell the land underneath them.

[egamma]

I like this article, where the peasants say their work is hard, and they are loyal to their lord:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1000workers.html

This article says that the peasants belong to the land, it's actually the clearest one I've found so far:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/codexXl-51-i.html
It also says that a peasant that tries to run away has to be returned--so for practial purposes they are slaves. It also says that freemen cannot be made a slave again.

[Corwyn]

Very interesting stuff, thanks Vellos!

[Longmane]

I'd just been trawling through the Archives for something concerning my home town in the Doomsday book, (yep it is indeed that old  :-[ ) and though this didn't involve that because of being over a hundred years later, I nevertheless still found it interesting, as brings a grin thinking of them getting so uppity over being classed as serfs when their actually freemen/women.  ;D

Description

Petitioners: Free tenants of the vills of Elm, Upwell, Leverington, Newton and Tydd St Giles.

Addressees: King and council

Nature of request: The free tenants request remedy as they have been grievously distrained to make a recognizance as serfs of the church of Ely by the keepers of the bishopric though their ancestors never did so in time of vacancies.

Nature of endorsement: [The petition is answered on the dorse of SC 8/314/E150 in the following manner:

They should sue to the Exchequer for these three petitions, and let the rolls and memoranda of the Exchequer be scrutinised for the times of vacancy of the bishopric of the aids that are paid and from which vills and hundreds. And the king should be certified of this in the next parliament at Westminster at Michaelmas.]

Date derivation: The petition is dated to 1302 as the petition belongs to an original file of petitions returned to the Exchequer from the summer parliament of 1302.

Series Special Collections: Ancient Petitions
Petitions returned to the Exchequer for action by the Parliament which met at Westminster in the octave of St John Baptist 30 Edw I.

The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 4DU.

[Vellos]

It also says that a peasant that tries to run away has to be returned--so for practial purposes they are slaves. It also says that freemen cannot be made a slave again.

Your second sentence is probably more relevant. That is an increase in rights over earlier Roman law, whereby re-enslavement could happen again due to debt with relative ease.

However, note that this is the Codex Justinianus: an early and, crucially, Byzantine law code. It is to be expected to have less legal protections of serfs given that. "Villeins" are mostly English, French, and German. Eastern Europe and the Byzantine Empire preserved a "less liberalized" form of serfdom, and Eastern Europe got more and more un-free until the 1700's or early 1800's, until really Czar Alexander II.