How exploitative was serfdom in Medieval England?

Medieval illustration of serfs harvesting wheat

Serfdom, a medieval term, is commonly described as the condition in which a tenant farmer was bound to a hereditary plot of land and the will of his landlord.[1] They obtained their subsistence by farming a plot of land owned by these aforementioned lords, thus differing from slaves who were bought and sold without reference to this land, yet still having a lack of personal freedoms held by freemen. This study will mainly focus on the 14th and 15th centuries but will also aim to show the change from the earlier periods. On the one hand, Robert Brenner argues that serfdom was exploitative in a position of human rights, but economically advantageous both for the peasants and the lords, which is agreed by M.M Postan who states the negative effects of serfdom have been exaggerated and asserted that many peasants were more interested in land acquisition than manumission, a release from slavery. [2],[3]  John Hatcher agrees, arguing changes to serfdom arose due to economic issues and demographic changes, rather than challenges against it.[4] On the other hand, Zvi Razi rejects Postan’s and Hatcher’s interpretation due to only considering economic motives and underestimating the size of the servile population, stating rather they had a determination to become free, seen significantly in the Peasant Revolt of 1381, planning to become equals to their lords.[5],[6]

Hatcher claims that in the earlier period of medieval serfdom, around the 12th and 13th centuries, the decision of many serfs under the control of lords to stay unfree was due to advantages to serfdom, arguing it was not as exploitative as others have proposed. Despite admitting to it being a restrictive system, Hatcher states the security of tenure meant that the financial difficulties of serfdom were not as oppressive as they appear. Hatcher adds the majority of the unfree were typically paying less for their land, as compared to that if had been negotiated freely. A recent study from Junichi Kanzaka verifies this view, showing within the hundred rolls that serfs paid significantly less than the going market rate for land.[7] Hatcher furthers this argument by stating that many free men were willing to give up this freedom for land and on the other side, wealthy serfs were unwilling to buy their freedom, thus believing there were more advantages in having this land over being free. This can be seen within court rolls from 1281, to which it shows only 14 from over 500 customary tenants in Halesowen paid for their manumission, despite only a small fee being charged.[8] Therefore, it can be argued that the early period of serfdom was not oppressive, with many peasants financially benefitting from the system.

A stronger argument from Razi suggests this decision was made purely for survival. Once serfs became free men, landlords were unwilling to sell land during this period, which would lead one to be unable to earn a living. Essentially, serfs were given an illusion of choice to become a free man. Furthermore, Razi claims that this period still contained examples of strong resistance to serfdom, with rejection and resentment towards landlords whenever rent prices were increased even moderately. His argument is considerably strengthened by the agreement from R.H. Hilton that peasant revolts started long before the one in 1381.[9] Hilton states that between 1279 and 1311 there were twenty-one sessions of courts held, in which cases concerning manorial labour discipline were dealt with, showing the extent of this discontent within the serfs. As a result, Razi’s updated view appears more convincing relating to the greater levels of exploitation within this earlier period than Hatcher, who plays down this peasant resistance.

Leading on, Brenner, who Hatcher and Postan support, claims this serfdom became greatly exploitative in the 14th and 15th centuries due to demographic changes, most significantly because of famine and plague, a view in which Razi states partly led to the dissolution of serfdom. Brenner states that throughout the 14th and 15th centuries, there was a scarcity of peasants due to famine and the Black Death that preceded this period. Due to a decline in the value of land, this system began to appear exploitative to the peasants throughout this latter medieval period, as Brenner adds lords continued to charge rent above the value of the land. As a result, the peasants moved to more preferable land, leading Brenner to conclude the lords were unable to retain this system of serfdom due to demographic changes leading to more exploitative measures. This is furthered by Postan, who concludes this demographic catastrophe determined the fall of serfdom. Alike to Brenner, he states the reduction of rent taken in by lords and the lack of labour services came due to more freedom within a smaller peasant population, who strived to find new opportunities. Razi agrees with this view to some extent, stating that the migration of serfs was a key reason for the end of serfdom. He states the analysis of Postan is far too restrictive, only focussing on the economic and demographic reasons, yet still agrees with the view on demographic reasons contributing to this exploitation, backing the consistency behind the demographic argument. 

The consistency of this argument is furthered by the agreement between the historians and Thomas Walsingham, an English Benedictine Monk and Chronicler, about the position of lords within this time. Brenner states lords lost their rights to control the peasantry whilst Postan adds landlords lacked the ability and the will to contend with the factors shown above that led to the opposition against serfdom. Walsingham's account notes that the Peasant Revolt of 1381 was effective initially due to no organised opposition from the landlords, which aligns with the reasons shown before, in that landlords were losing power in this later period due to demographic issues. [10] As a result, the view that serfdom was exploitative is supported by convincing evidence for the demographic changes leading to this exploitation and the eventual downfall of the system. 

Additionally, most historians agree that serfdom was exploitative to a level of freedom and personal rights but vary in views of how greatly this was challenged by the serfs. Brenner states that there was a great absence of freedom and property rights within the rural population This is convincingly concluded by Razi, who states the determination to become free was the key motive behind the exodus of serfdom within the 15th Century. Razi challenges Hatcher and Postans’ view on the end of serfdom, claiming they play down the idea of peasant resistance, with the failure to show the significance of the 1381 Peasant Revolt. The first-hand view from Walsingham shows to a great extent how the peasants wanted no longer to be bound to their masters and wanted to become equals. The scale of this view was seen in an army of one hundred thousand men that formed within Kent and Essex, demonstrating that the peasants wanted freedom from this exploitative system. Despite the apparent failure of this revolt, Razi continues to conclude this determination to become free continued until the 15th century, in which the factors of demographic change aided the peasants, giving them the possibility to migrate.

Brenner also concludes this by stating that peasant assertiveness led to the downfall of this system, However, Brenner varies this view stating most importantly this lack of freedom facilitated the onset of real economic development. This is seen in the difference between France and England within the latter part of this period – French peasants owned 45-50 percent of the land compared to 25-30 percent within England. This large rural ownership led to a self-perpetuating cycle of backwardness in France compared to this growth in England, showing this system was required to boost finances, both for lords and the peasant population, who would receive higher wages as a result, thus showing peasants to be accepting of this system, as compared to the disapproval as seen in Razi’s conclusion. This view compared to Walsingham’s account fails as despite the dissolution of the serfdom system, the English economy continued to grow leading to the beginning of the early modern economic period, showing the French system was inherently flawed. Walsingham adds that some peasants were more accepting due to a fear of the change within the kingdom, rather than an acceptance of the system itself as Brenner alludes to.

In conclusion, serfdom can be seen as largely exploitative, as seen in the arguments laid out by Razi, supported coherently by primary examples such as that from Walsingham. In the earlier period of the Middle Ages, it was argued by Hatcher that serfdom was less exploitative towards serfs due to economic reasons, such as reduced rents, which made serfdom more advantageous. However, more convincingly, Razi, supported by Hilton, arguing the serfs still strongly resented the system, as seen in smaller yet still significant opposition. All historians appear to agree primarily that the later period of serfdom was exploitative. Brenner, Postan and Hatcher attribute this to reasons of demographic change and economic frailty within England, leading to a smaller population of serfs due to deaths and migration. The exploitation is alluded to in these arguments, with these historians focussing on the other issues that led to the dissolution of serfdom. Razi concludes the attitudes of the unfree population with the determination to be free from this exploitative system was the main reason for the end, exacerbated by factors of demographic change. Strong evidence from Walsingham, who states these attitudes instigated the 1381 Peasant Revolt, shows that the later Medieval Ages was one of great exploitation for serfs.

Bibliography

Brenner, Robert ‘Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe’, Past & Present, 70 (1976)

Dobson, R.B, ‘The Outbreak of the Revolt according to Thomas Walsingham’ ed., The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 (London, 1970).

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Serfdom, Encyclopaedia Britannica, July 1998, https://www.britannica.com/topic/serfdom (accessed 24/05/21)

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Thomas Walsingham, Encyclopaedia Britannica, July 1998, https://www.britannica.com/topic/serfdom (accessed 26/05/21)

Hatcher, John, ‘English Serfdom and Villeinage: Towards a Reassessment’, Past & Present, 90:1 (1981)

Hilton, R.H, ‘Peasant Movements in England before 1381’, in id., Class Conflict and the Crisis of Feudalism (London, 1985)

Kanzaka, Junichi, ‘Villein Rents in Thirteenth-Century England: An Analysis of the Hundred Rolls of 1279–80’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 55(2002)

Postan, M,M ‘Medieval Agrarian Society in its Prime: England’, in id. (ed.), The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, vol I: The Agrarian Life of the Middle Ages, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1966), 604–17; M. M. Postan, ‘Legal Status and Economic Condition in Medieval Villages,’ in id., Essays on Medieval Agriculture and General Problems of the Medieval Economy (Cambridge, 1966)

Razi, Zvi, ‘Serfdom and Freedom in Medieval England: A Reply to the Revisionists’, Past & Present, Supplement 2, ‘Rodney Hilton’s Middle Ages: An Exploration of Historical Themes’ (2007)

Wilson, R.A. Court Rolls of the Manor of Hales, vol. III (Worcestershire Historical Society, 1933), 103.

[1] The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Serfdom, Encyclopaedia Britannica, (July 1998), https://www.britannica.com/topic/serfdom (accessed 24/05/21)

[2] Robert Brenner, ‘Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe’, Past & Present, 70 (1976), 30-75

[3] M. M. Postan, ‘Medieval Agrarian Society in its Prime: England’, in id. (ed.), The Cambridge Economic History of Europe, vol I: The Agrarian Life of the Middle Ages, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1966), 604–17; M. M. Postan, ‘Legal Status and Economic Condition in Medieval Villages,’ in id., Essays on Medieval Agriculture and General Problems of the Medieval Economy (Cambridge, 1966), 278–89.

[4] John Hatcher, ‘English Serfdom and Villeinage: Towards a Reassessment’, Past & Present, 90:1 (1981), 3-39.

[5] Zvi Razi,  ‘Serfdom and Freedom in Medieval England: A Reply to the Revisionists’, Past & Present, Supplement 2, ‘Rodney Hilton’s Middle Ages: An Exploration of Historical Themes’ (2007), 182-87.

[6] R.B Dobson, ‘The Outbreak of the Revolt according to Thomas Walsingham’ ed., The Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 (London, 1970).

[7] Junichi Kanzaka, ‘Villein Rents in Thirteenth-Century England: An Analysis of the Hundred Rolls of 1279–80’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser, 55 (2002), 599, 602–3, 610–12.

[8] R. A. Wilson, Court Rolls of the Manor of Hales, vol. III (Worcestershire Historical Society, 1933), 103.

[9] R. H. Hilton, ‘Peasant Movements in England before 1381’, in id., Class Conflict and the Crisis of Feudalism (London, 1985), 122–38

[10] The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Thomas Walsingham, Encyclopaedia Britannica, July 1998, https://www.britannica.com/topic/serfdom (accessed 26/05/21)