Dependency and lower orders
Contenido
Los siervos ocupaban un lugar específico en la sociedad feudal, al igual que los barones y los caballeros: a cambio de protección, un siervo residía y trabajaba una parcela de tierra dentro del señorío de su señor. Así, el sistema señorial presentaba cierto grado de reciprocidad.
Un razonamiento sostenía que siervos y libres "trabajaban para todos", mientras que un caballero o barón "luchaba para todos" y un eclesiástico "rezaba para todos"; por tanto, todos tenían cabida. Sin embargo, el siervo era el peor alimentado y recompensado, aunque a diferencia de los esclavos tenía ciertos derechos sobre la tierra y la propiedad.
Un señor feudal no podía vender a sus siervos como un romano podía vender a sus esclavos. Por otra parte, si decidía enajenar una parcela de tierra, los siervos asociados a esa tierra permanecían con ella para servir a su nuevo señor; en pocas palabras, se vendían implícitamente en masa y como parte de un lote. Este sistema unificado preservaba para el señor los conocimientos adquiridos durante largo tiempo sobre las prácticas adaptadas a la tierra. Además, un siervo no podía abandonar sus tierras sin permiso,[5] ni poseía un título vendible sobre ellas.[6].
Initiation
A free man "Franklin (class)") became a serf usually by force or necessity. Sometimes the greater physical and legal strength of a local magnate intimidated freeholders or allodial landlords into dependence. Often, a few years of poor harvests, a war, or banditry could leave a person unable to make it on his or her own. In such a case, he or she might strike a deal with a feudal lord. In exchange for protection, a service was required: work, produce, money, or a combination of these. These deals were formalized in a ceremony known as "servitude", in which a servant placed his head in the hands of the lord, similar to the ceremony of homage in which a vassal placed his hands in those of his sovereign. These oaths bound the lord and his new servant in a feudal contract and defined the terms of their agreement.[7] These treatments were often harsh.
A century-old Anglo-Saxon "Oath of Allegiance" states:
Becoming a servant was a commitment that encompassed all aspects of the servant's life. Children born to serfs inherited their status and were considered born into servitude. By assuming the duties of servitude, people obligated themselves and their progeny.
class system
The social class of peasants can be differentiated into smaller categories. These distinctions were often less clear than their different names suggest. In most cases, there were two types of peasants:
-
- freemen (free men), workers whose tenure within the manor was subject to the rights of free men.
-
- villein (servant of the land).
The lower classes of peasants, known as cottars") or bordars"), generally made up of the youngest sons of the villeins;[8][9] vagabonds; and slaves constituted the lower class of workers.
The colonus&action=edit&redlink=1 "Colonus (person) (not yet drafted)") system of the late Roman Empire can be considered the predecessor of feudal serfdom in Western Europe.[10][11].
Freemen or free tenants held their lands under one of the various feudal land tenure contracts and were essentially rent-paying tenants, owing little or no service to the lord and enjoying a good degree of security of tenure and independence. In some areas of 19th-century England, free peasants represented only 10% of the population, and in most of the rest of Europe their numbers were also small.
The Ministeriales were unfree hereditary knights linked to their lord, who formed the lowest echelon of nobility in the Holy Roman Empire.
A villain, "villein" (or servant) represented the most common type of servant in the Middle Ages. Serfs had more rights and a higher status than the lowest serf, but they existed under a series of legal restrictions that differentiated them from free men. Typically, villains rented small houses, with a plot of land. As part of the contract with the owner, the lord of the manor, they had to spend part of their time working in the lord's fields. The obligation was not usually very onerous, contrary to popular belief, and was often only seasonal, for example the obligation to help at harvest time. The rest of their time was dedicated to cultivating their own lands for their own benefit. Villains were bound to their lord's lands and could not leave them without his permission. Their lord also used to decide who they could marry.[12].
Like other types of serfs, villeins had to provide other services, possibly in addition to paying rent in money or products. Villains were somehow retained on their lands and by unmentioned manners could not move without the consent of their lord and the acceptance of the lord to whose manor they proposed to emigrate. Typically, villeins could own their own property, unlike slaves. Villazgo, unlike other forms of serfdom, was most common in the feudalism of continental Europe, where land ownership had developed from roots in Roman law.
In the Middle Ages, various types of servitude existed in Europe. Half-villains received only half the strips of land for their own use and owed a full complement of labor to the lord, often forcing them to rent their services to other serfs to compensate for this hardship. Serfdom was not a one-way relationship of exploitation. In the Middle Ages, the land within the manor provided sustenance and survival, and being a villein guaranteed access to the land and crops, safe from theft by marauding robbers. Landlords, even when they had the right to do so, rarely evicted villeins because of the value of their labor. Villazgo was preferable to being a vagabond, a slave or a landless worker.
In many medieval countries, a villein could gain freedom by escaping from a manor to a town or borough 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 landowner was especially tyrannical or conditions in the town were unusually difficult.
In medieval England, there were two types of villeins: the villeins regardant, who were tied to the land, and the villeins in gross, who could trade independently of the land.[13].
In England, the Domesday Book, from 1086, uses bordarii (embroidery) and cottarii (cottar&action=edit&redlink=1 "Cotter (farmer) (not yet redacted)")) as interchangeable terms, cottar deriving from the native Anglo-Saxon language while embroider deriving from French.[14].
From the point of view of status, the embroider or cottar was located below a serf in the social hierarchy of a manor, possessing a country house, a 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 ha).[16] Under an Elizabethan statute, the Erection of Cottages Act 1588), the cottage had to be built with at least 4 acres (0.02 km²; 0.01 mi²) of land.[17] The later Enclosures Acts) (1604). onwards) eliminated the right of cottars to any land: "before the Enclosures Act the cottager was a landless farmer and after the Enclosures Act the cottager was a landless farmer".[18]
The bordars and cottars did not have their draft oxen or horses. The Domesday Book showed that England comprised 12% freeholders, 35% serfs or villeins, 30% cotters and bordars, and 9% slaves.[16]
Smerdy") were a type of serfs above the kholops in Medieval Poland") and Kievan Rus'.
Kholops were the lowest class of serfs in medieval and modern Russia. They had a status similar to that of slaves and could be traded freely.
The last type of servant was the slave.[19] Slaves were those who had the fewest rights and benefits from the lordship. They did not own land, they worked exclusively for the lord and survived on his donations. The lord was always interested in demonstrating that a system of servitude existed, since this gave him greater rights over fees and taxes. A man's status was a primary issue in determining a person's rights and obligations in many of the manorial court cases of the time. In addition, runaway slaves could be beaten if captured.
Serfdom was much more common than slavery throughout the feudal period. The villein was the most common type of serf in the Middle Ages. The villeins had more rights and status than those kept as slaves, but they were subject to a series of legal restrictions that differentiated them from free men. Within his limitations, a serf enjoyed a certain freedom. Although it is often said that a serf only owned "his belly" - even his clothing was the property, by law, of his master - he could accumulate personal property and wealth, and some serfs became richer than their free neighbors, although this was rather an exception to the general rule. A well-to-do serf could even buy his freedom.[20].
Homework
The regular serf (not including slaves and cottars) paid his fees and tax in the form of work appropriate to the season. Typically, part of the week was spent plowing his lord's fields in demesne"), harvesting crops, digging ditches, repairing fences, and often working in the manor. The rest of the serf's time was spent caring for his own fields, crops, and animals to support his family. Most of the manor's work was segregated by gender during regular times of the year. During the harvest, the entire family was required to work the fields.
One of the main difficulties in the life of a serf was that his work for his lord coincided with and took priority over the work he had to do on his own lands: when the lord's crops were ready to be harvested, so were his own. On the other hand, the servant of a benign lord could expect to be well fed during his service; It was a lord without foresight who did not provide a substantial meal to his servants during the harvest and planting seasons. In exchange for this work in the manor, the serfs enjoyed certain privileges and rights, such as the right to collect firewood - an essential source of fuel - from their lord's forests.
In addition to service, serfs had to pay certain taxes and fees. Taxes were based on the assessed value of their lands and farms. Duties were normally paid in the form of agricultural products and not in cash. The best portion of wheat from the serf's harvest usually went to the landowner. Hunting and trapping of wild animals by serfs on the lord's property was generally prohibited. On Easter Sunday the peasant family might owe a dozen extra eggs, and at Christmas, perhaps a goose was also required. When a member of the family died, additional taxes were paid to the lord as a form of feudal relief" so that the heir could retain the right to farm the lands he owned. Any young woman who wished to marry a serf outside her lordship was forced to pay a fee for the right to abandon her lord, and in compensation for her lost work.
Arbitrary tests were often applied to judge the worthiness of paying their taxes. A chicken, for example, could be required to be able to jump a fence of a certain height to be considered old or healthy enough to be valued for tax purposes. The serfdom's restrictions on personal and economic choice were enforced through various forms of manorial customary law and manorial administration and the court baron.
It was also discussed whether serfs could be forced by law, in times of war or conflict, to fight for their lord's lands and property. In the event of his master's defeat, his own fate could be uncertain, so the servant certainly had an interest in supporting his master.
Rights
Within his limitations, a servant had some freedoms. Although it was widely believed that a serf owned "only his belly" – even his clothing was the property, by law, of his master – a serf could accumulate personal property and wealth, and some serfs became richer than their free neighbors, although this rarely occurred.[21] A well-to-do serf could even purchase his freedom.[22]
A serf could grow whatever he saw fit on his land, although a serf's taxes often had to be paid in wheat. The surplus was sold in the market.
The landowner could not dispossess his serfs without legal cause and was supposed to protect them from the depredations of robbers or other lords, and was expected to support them through charity in times of famine. Many of these rights were enforceable by the servant before the manor court.
Variations
The forms of servitude varied greatly over time and between regions. In some places, serfdom was merged with or exchanged for various forms of taxation.
The amount of labor required varied. In Poland, for example, in the century it was a few days a year per household, in the century it was one day a week per household, in the century it was four days a week per household, and in the century it was six days a week per household. Primitive serfdom in Poland was mainly limited to royal territories (królewszczyzny).
"Per household" means that each household had to provide one worker for the required number of days.[23] For example, in the 19th century, six people: a peasant, his wife, three children, and a hired worker could be required to work for their master one day a week, which would be counted as six days of work.
Serfs occasionally served as soldiers in the event of conflict and could earn freedom or even ennoblement for valor in combat. Serfs could buy their freedom, be manumitted by generous owners, or flee to cities or newly settled lands where few questions were asked. The laws varied from country to country: in England, a serf who fought his way into a chartered town (i.e., a borough) and evaded recapture for a year and a day gained his freedom and became a burgess of the town.
• - Serfdom in Russia.
• - Freedman, Paul and Bourin, Monique (2009). Forms of Servitude in Northern and Central Europe. Decline, Resistance and Expansion, Ed. Brepols.
• - The Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy has a definition for servitude.