CHAPTER XVI: SERFDOM.

§ 801. Derived as are most men’s ideas of social institutions from the histories of past and present civilized or semi-civilized peoples, nearly all of them European, they are but partly true: they err by their narrowness. Comparative sociology, extended to many peoples living in many places in many times, would greatly modify their conceptions; showing them, among other things, that much which they regard as special is in reality general.

Current talk and popular writing have the implication that the feudal system, for instance, was a peculiar form of social organization. The tacit belief is that it belonged to a certain phase of European progress. But among unallied nations, in far-apart places, we find types of structure similar in their essential natures. Everywhere the conflicts among small societies, frequently ending in subjugation of many by one, produces some form of vassalage—minor chiefs subject to a major chief; and at later stages, when these small aggregates of tribes subjugate other such aggregates, there are formed compound aggregates with additional gradations of rulers and ruled. It was thus in ancient Mexico:—

So, too, was it in the Society Islands when first visited by Europeans. Forster tells us that the king or principal chief Edition: current; Page: [480] grants districts to inferior chiefs, who, again, have smaller chiefs holding lands under them. Similarly in Africa:—

Of course along with the generality of this political organization, with its gradations of subjection among rulers, there has gone the generality of an organization on which it rests—the organization of workers. The system of serfdom, like the other components of the feudal system, is, with various modifications, widely represented in all parts of the world.

§ 802. As sequences of an evolutionary process, the diverse kinds of subjection must of course graduate one into another. As the distinctions between different forms of slavery are indefinite, so must there be an indefinite distinction between slavery and serfdom, and between the several forms of serfdom. Much confusion has arisen in describing these respective institutions; and for the sufficient reason that the institutions themselves are confused. When, for example, we read that among the Greeks slave-artisans who worked independently, paid to their master “a definite contribution out of their earnings and retained the rest themselves,” and when we remember that before the abolition of serfdom in Russia, it was a common practice of the nobles to let their serfs carry on businesses, paying certain sums for the privilege, we see that little more than a nominal difference of status distinguished the two kinds of bond servants. Hence indefiniteness of serfdom must be expected in societies of low types.

Among Africans the Marutse yield an example. Under these, when visited by Holub, were 18 large tribes subdivided into 83 smaller ones—tribes held as vassals of the Marutse, but of which not more than a quarter paid tribute. Strongly contrasted is the condition of the Anyasa, a tribe Edition: current; Page: [481] subject to the Makololo, who “cannot begin to cultivate for themselves till they have first ‘finished the chief’s farm,’ ” who give to the chief the greater part of the game they kill, and are “governed like prisoners of war.” Then, at the other extreme, we have the almost nominal subjection in a Damara kraal; where of all the cattle the fourth, belonging to the chief, have to be looked after by the people, and where “the perquisites for taking care of the chief’s cattle consisted of the milk of the cows, and occasionally a calf or lamb.” Of the various forms of this industrial regulation among Asiatic peoples, here is one from the Kukies:—

A similar state of things existed in ancient Yucatan. The common people cultivated the estates, and erected the houses, of their lords, and gave them a part of the produce of hunting, fishing, &c. Then ancient Mexico furnished evidence showing how serfdom or slavery varies according to the natures of the rulers.

Not so was it under the white savages from Europe. After the above passage Helps quotes a letter from the Auditors of Mexico to the emperor in 1552, which says:—

As further showing variety in origin and nature, may be Edition: current; Page: [482] recalled the fact named in the last chapter concerning Madagascar, where owners of slaves sometimes assigned to them portions of land for cultivation, giving them certain shares of the produce: slaves becoming serfs.

§ 803. Leaving introductory illustrations, let us now observe more systematically the extent and quality of the institution as it has existed and still exists. We may fitly begin with societies in which it is, or has been, universal.

In Dahomey, where the king owns everything, everyone is his slave, or more properly his serf.

In Madagascar there is a kindred state of things. “The whole population is always liable to be employed on government work, without remuneration, and for any length of time.” Beyond this liability of the whole population there is the special liability of a class—State-serfs carrying on various trades.

Among the Coreans, too, State-serfdom is found. Oppert, who thinks that the institution has descended from days of constant warfare between tribes now consolidated, says:—

Of illustrations yielded by the records of ancient peoples those from Egypt may come first. While the great pyramids were being built, the Egyptians at large were manifestly State-serfs: they were in batches drafted from their homes Edition: current; Page: [483] at a merciless king’s command to do his work. If not the whole population, yet large parts of the population, were thus conditioned in Assyria. Conquered peoples, removed bodily to different parts of the empire, were forced to labour at buildings by which the monarchs thought to eternalize their glory, but have instead eternalized their shame. The Hebrews, also, in this matter did as they were done by. In I Kings ix, 20-21, we read, concerning the descendants of the conquered peoples of Palestine, that those “whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bond-service unto this day.” State-serfdom of a more normal type was, however, best exemplified in Sparta, where the conquering Dorians possessed the land and its aborigines. Says Grote:—

In Athens the possession by the State of captives did not form so large a feature in the social arrangements. But besides the classes of bondsmen performing various public services, there were classes belonging to the temples, who carried on cultivation of the attached estates; probably under conditions similar to those of the helots.

§ 804. As preliminary to the right understanding of serfdom in Rome, we must note the form into which unceasing warfare had brought Roman society. More than once I have emphasized the truth that in proportion as militancy is chronic, the organization proper to an army becomes the organization proper to the whole society: regimentation spreads throughout the entire body-politic. For efficiently bringing to bear the national power upon other nations, the actions of all parts have to be completely coordinated; and Edition: current; Page: [484] therefore not only the fighting part but the sustaining part has to be despotically controlled. After centuries of conquests the Roman Empire had developed an extreme form of this type. The conception generated by frequent wars among the Greeks, that the citizen did not belong to himself nor to his family but to his city, was, by the perpetual wars of the Romans, developed into the conception that he not only belonged to the State but was a vassal of the State, bound for life to his function and very generally to his place. There was, as Dr. Ingram writes in his History of Slavery—

So that in fact serfdom was universal. There were official serfs, fighting serfs, farming serfs.

The origin of the farming serfs was miscellaneous. In part it was a sequence of those devastations which added to Roman glory—reducing large areas to silence and barrenness. The kind of coloni called læti are described by Seebohm as—

But State-serfs on the land had various other derivations. Recognizing the fact that the universal servitude above described, formally established by Diocletian and others, had previously been growing, Dr. Ingram says:—

Thus to supply money for the armies, to supply corn for the armies, to supply soldiers for the armies, and to be under a rigorous rule like that of the armies, was the fate of Roman serfs. They existed simply for furnishing men, materials, and food, to the fighting machine.

§ 805. We cannot know to what extent the social arrangements of the Roman Empire affected the social arrangements throughout mediæval Europe. When its organized savagery lapsed into the unorganized savagery of the dark ages, the main lines of structure disappeared; but since the militant type of society in a less developed form preceded Roman domination and survived it, we may infer that the more definite system of subjection which Roman rule developed, being congruous with the type, left traces. Be this as it may, however, we have evidence that the institution of serfdom was in a sense natural to the European peoples from early times. The description Tacitus gives of the Germanic Edition: current; Page: [486] tribes shows that among them there existed bond-servants—doubtless captive enemies or their descendants. He says that the lords—the tribesmen—themselves preferred fighting and hunting to agriculture, and left the management of the latter to the women and weaker members of the family.

When the Germans over-ran Gaul, the pre-existing forms of servitude were necessarily complicated; and the perpetual over-runnings of societies one by another during early stages, repeatedly superposed additional social grades. Seebohm infers that the mediæval serf was—

But this mingling was incomplete. From the time of the conquest of Gaul by the Germans, there co-existed three kinds of subject life—slavery proper, an intermediate servitude in which certain rights of the servus were recognized, and serfdom proper. In the course of centuries the freer forms replaced the more servile forms. Among other causes to which the change is ascribed in the case of France, was the establishment of a central royal power by which the powers of feudal nobles were subordinated. It is said that this change produced the decline of serfdom by placing the subject classes in direct relation to the king instead of to their local rulers; and that it became his interest to favour them in his struggles with the local rulers. But while this was a part cause there was a deeper cause; namely, the concomitant decline of inter-feudal wars. So long as dukes, counts, Edition: current; Page: [487] and barons went on fighting one another, they had pressing need for the services of all vassals of whatever grades, and strong motives for maintaining their absolute subjection; but as fast as these nobles were subordinated to the monarch, this motive weakened. Instead of being fixed to a tract of land which he cultivated solely for his lord’s benefit, the serf became the owner of this tract, paying to his lord tribute of work and produce, or finally of money.

The case of England comes next. We may assume that the groups of invading Anglo-Saxons (or Old English as Freeman will have it) who, partly slaying and partly enslaving the Celtic inhabitants, settled themselves here and there, were severally headed by chiefs. We may assume, further, that these rude warriors, either individually or else as village-communities, continued to yield their chiefs allegiance of a kind like that above shown to be common now among uncivilized peoples. And we may conclude, as not improbable, that such headed groups, beginning as occupants of “marks,” became the germs of the manorial groups which are found to have been in existence at later periods. Be it or be it not that there persisted in England some influence of the Roman organization, there became visible, in times of consolidation under kings, a parallel set of relations. Just as the owner of a Roman estate was responsible to the government for taxes due from the attached coloni, but took from them the amounts along with other proceeds of their work; so the lord of the manor in early England was responsible to the sheriff for sums due from the manor to the king, and obtained these partly from his own demesne lands cultivated by serfs, and partly from other tenants less directly dependent on him, but nevertheless liable to the king, through their lord. As elsewhere so here, gradations of servitude co-existed. From early Anglo-Saxon times had persisted slaves—probably descendants of conquered Celts—who were chattels bought and sold, “had no wergild, no credibility, no legal rights,” though they were severally allowed to accumulate Edition: current; Page: [488] a peculium. There were the ceorls (afterwards villeins) or irremovable cultivators. And there were tenants who had considerable degrees of independence while under certain obligations. A passage from Lappenberg, referring apparently to immigrant tenants, possibly fugitives, gives some insight into the general relations before the Norman Conquest.

But while there was thus dependence and obligation on the one side, there was defence on the other. Lappenberg, says:—

And this statement supports the inference that the local manorial group with its lord, had grown out of the original military community with its chief; constituted in such way that each member, bound to the whole, was subject to its ruling authority, while the whole through its ruling authority protected each member.

How natural are such social relations in early half-militant, half-agricultural, stages, is further shown by the pre-existence of such relations among the Celts. In Wales the old patriarchal organization, growing into that of a scattered village-community, had, partly by inter-tribal wars and resulting slave-captures, partly by the subjection of evil-doers, illegitimate sons, and “kin-broken” tribesmen who had lost their rights, generated unfree classes; and there had arisen grades of ownerships, and obligations. A prince’s or lord’s territory included a manor with his residence, demesne Edition: current; Page: [489] lands and home farm, cultivated by a class of tenants like villeins. There were free tenants, some of them free tribesmen settled on the estate, who paid money-rents instead of the original food-rents and services. There were groups of serf-tenants in outlying districts, and there “were hamlets of free tenants, and other hamlets of villein tenants, all contributing rents and services, and the latter supplying provisions and day-works:” all such tributes being “attached to particular holdings or hamlets.”

Concerning serfdom among ourselves, we have only further to note that in the time of Henry III, the absolute dependence of the serf on his lord’s will, rapidly became qualified. While, as in France, the lands to which serfs were tied passed into their own possession, their slave-like services were in various ways commuted: there was “a transformation from tenants in villenage to copy-holders.” And this change, be it remarked, went on earlier here than elsewhere, because in virtue of the subordination of the local rulers to the central ruler, initiated at the conquest, local wars had earlier died away: there was less of diffused war.

§ 806. For completion of this outline must be included some accounts of serfdom in its latest stages, derived from Prussia and Russia.

Continuing chiefly on baronial estates, serfdom in Prussia, while still a form of subjection which required sworn allegiance as well as services and dues, and which tied the serf and his children to the estate, secured him the general rights of a citizen; subject in some cases to his lord’s assent, as in the case of marriage. At the same time, along with this qualified freedom and these obligations on the side of the serf, there went, on the side of the lord, certain reciprocal obligations. He was supposed to help his serf when in need and afford him means of living; to see that his children were well brought up, sent to school, and provided with businesses; he was called on to protect his serfs in their relations Edition: current; Page: [490] with outsiders. Thus, speaking generally, serfs were citizens subject to extra duties and restraints. Their legal status was one of half-freedom and half-servility.

Russia repeats with variations the lesson we have already learnt. Originally the peasants (distinguished from slaves, who had always existed) were independent proprietors grouped into village-communities. With the rise of local magnates—princes, boyars, &c.—implying turbulent times, the poor and powerless found it here as elsewhere needful to put themselves under the protection of the powerful—to accept partial subjection, with its obligatory services, for the sake of safety. Further, where they wished to take uncultivated land, of which there was plenty, they became indebted to the wealthier men for capital, and so became tied to their farms as debtors. And then, just as in Rome the perpetual wars led to the fixing of citizens in their occupations and localities, so that all might serve the State in the ways its officers directed, so was it in Russia: the whole society was regimented. The lands of petty princes and boyars were changed into fiefs held from the Tsar; and while these local rulers became vassals, the peasants on their estates became serfs: the whole process being the concomitant of the ceaseless fightings by which the empire was established.

§ 807. Throughout this brief, and therefore very inadequate, outline of an institution extremely varied and complex in origin and nature, little has been said concerning its character as a system of industrial regulation. We have seen, however, that, growing out of a primitive state in which a slave-class had to supply the warrior-class with the necessaries of life, it became, as societies evolved, a permanent commissariat—a working part which fed the fighting part.

Subordination, coordination, consolidation—these are phases of the process by which war tends to combine all social actions for offence and defence; throughout the nation as throughout the army. Be he soldier or be he civilian, the Edition: current; Page: [491] unit is more and more coerced by the aggregate. Further, we see that when peace has been followed by diminished control of a society over its members, the control increases again with the return of wars. Where the army had been recruited by voluntary enlistment, it comes to be recruited by conscription—by compulsory service. At the same time the heavier taxes and the forced loans imply that the citizen has a decreased power over his property—makes a step towards servitude to the State. And in respect of the institution of serfdom here treated of, this effect is well exemplified by what took place in Germany after the Thirty Years War.

To which special facts add the more general facts that whereas in England, the least militant of European states, serfdom had practically disappeared in the 13th century, it survived in various Continental states till quite late periods; namely in France till 1789, in Prussia till 1810, in other German States till 1812—1820; Austria 1848; Russia 1861.

Along with the negative cause for the relaxation and abolition of serfdom there is a positive cause—the unfitness of the serf for productive purposes. Most incentives which make a citizen an efficient working unit, are not operative upon him under a régime which represses all initiative and furnishes no stimulus to energy. German observers in Russia, as quoted by Prof. Jones, say that a Middlesex mower will mow in a day as much as three Russian serfs. The Prussian Councillor of State, Jacobi, is considered to have proved that in Russia, where everything is cheap, the labour of a serf was double as expensive as that of a labourer in England. In Austria the work of a serf is stated to have been equal to Edition: current; Page: [492] one-third of that of a hired man. Verifications, here lacking, will, however, scarcely be needed by one who watches the doings of men among ourselves, who are employed under vestries and kindred authorities in road-repairing and cleaning. They listlessly wield their picks and shovels for two or three minutes, and then stand up to rest and gossip for five.

What then, briefly stated, is the general conclusion? Compulsory cooperation is needful for, and proper to, a militant régime; while voluntary cooperation, naturally arising with the growth of an industrial régime is proper to it, and replaces the other in virtue of its greater efficiency.