Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T12:49:06.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neo-Serfdom in Poland-Lithuania

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Andrzej Kamiński
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The purpose of the present article is neither to examine in detail the state of research regarding demesne-robot farming and the “neo-serfdom” or “second serfdom” in Poland-Lithuania nor to attempt a definitive explanation of these phenomena. Rather, the author has set out to show the inadequacy of conventional views by reiterating a series of important points already raised by various Polish historians.

Type
Symposium
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 1975 , pp. 253 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1974

References

1. It would be impossible, even in abbreviated form, to cover here the hundreds if not thousands of Polish articles and monographs concerning neo-serfdom. One might point out, however, that contemporary Polish historiography in this area is characterized by vigorous disputes, based on painstaking monographic work, over problems that survey works treat as long-solved and settled. For a review of the contemporary Polish historiography consult Antoni Maczak, “Polnische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der Agrargeschichte des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts (1945—1957),” in Acta Poloniae Historica, 1 (1958): 33-57; Ezhi Topol'sky [Jerzy Topolski], “Issledovaniia po agrarnoi istorii v narodnoi Pol'she,” in Ezhegodnik po agrarnoi istorii Vostochnoi Evropy 1959 g. (Moscow, 1961), pp. 408--38; V. V. Doroshenko, ‘ “Model” agrarnogo stroia Rechi Pospolitoi XVI-XVIII vv.,” in Ezhegodnik … 1965 g. (Moscow, 1970), pp. 114-29; Stefan Inglot, “Rozwoj badan nad historic chtopow polskich,” in Stefan, Inglot, ed., Historia chlopow polskich, vol. 1 (hereafter cited as HCP) (Czestochowa, 1970), pp. 7–33 Google Scholar.

2. Roman, Grodecki, Poczqtki gospodarki folwarcznej w Polsce: Studio z dziejow kultury Polskiej (Warsaw, 1949)Google Scholar ; Kazimierz, Tymieniecki, Historia chtopow polskich, 3 vols. (Warsaw, 1965-69), vol. 3Google Scholar: Genesa zaostrzonego poddanstwa chtopow.

3. See the following works by Rutkowski, Jan: Historia gospodarcza Polski (do 1864 r.) (Warsaw, 1953; 1st ed., 1923), pp. 85–220 Google Scholar; Poddanstwo wioscian w XVIII wieku w Polsce i niektorych innych krajach Europy (Poznan, 1921) ; “Przebudowa wsi w Polsce po wojnach z polowy XVII wieku,” Kwartalnik Historyczny (Lwow), 30 (1916): 309-42.

4. See the following works by Malowist, Marian: Studia z dziejow rzemiesla w okresie feudalismu w Zachodniej Europie w XIV i XV wieku (Warsaw, 1954)Google Scholar ; “Problem genezy podziafu gospodarczego Europy w XV-XVII w.,” in Historia Polski do polowy XV wieku, vol. 2 of VIII Powszechny Zjazd Historykow Polskich: Referaty i dyskusja (Warsaw, 1958) ; “The Economic and Social Development of the Baltic Countries from the Fifteenth to the Seventeenth Centuries,” Economic History Review (Utrecht), 2nd ser., 12, no. 2 (1959): 177-89; Wshod a Zachod Europy w XIII-XVI wieku: Konfrontacja struktur spoleczno-gospodarczych (Warsaw, 1973).

5. Czeslaw Biernat, “Statystyka obrotu zbozowego Gdanska od potowy XVII w. do 1795 r.,” Zapiski Historyczne, 23 (1957): 97-134. Maria Bogucka, “Handel niderlandzkogdariski w latach 1597-1651 w swietle amsterdamskich kontraktow frachtowych,” Zapiski Historyczne, 33 (1968): 171-92. Maria Bogucka, “Amsterdam and the Baltic in the First Half of the Seventeenth Century,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 26, no. 3 (1973): 433-47. Jozef Burszta, “Handel magnacki i kupiecki mi§dzy Sieniaw nad Sanem a Gdanskiem od konca XVII do potowy XVIII wieku,” in Roczniki Dziejow Spolecsnych .»’ Gospodarczych (Poznan), 16 (1954): 174-238. Stanislaw Hoszowski, “The Polish Baltic Trade in the 15th—18th Centuries,” in Poland at the Xlth International Congress of Historical Sciences in Stockholm (Warsaw, 1960), pp. 117-54. Stanislaw, Mielczarski, Rynek zbozowy na ziemiach polskich w drugiej polozvie XVI i picrwszcj potowic XVII wieku (Gdansk, 1962)Google Scholar. Obuchowska-Pysiowa, Honorata, Handel wislany iv picrzvszej polowie XVII wieku (Wroclaw, Warsaw, and Krakow, 1964)Google Scholar. Henryk, Samsonowicz, “Handel zagraniczny Gdanska w drugiej polowie XV wieku,” in Przeglqd Historyczny, 47, no. 2 (1956): 283–352Google Scholar. Bogdan Wachowiak, “Ze studiow nad sptawem na Wisle w XVIXVIII w.,” Przeglqd Zachodni (Poznan), 7 (1951): 122-6. Andrzej Wyczanski, “Tentative Estimate of Polish Rye Trade in the Sixteenth Century,” Acta Poloniae Historica, 4 (1961): 119-31.

6. Antoni Maczak, “Folwark panszczyzniany a wies w Prusach Krolewskich w XVI-XVII wieku,” Przeglqd Historyczny, 47, no. 2 (1956): 353-92. Wtadystaw Rusinski, “Drogi rozwojowe folwarku panszczyznianego,” Przeglqd Historyczny, 47, no. 4 (1956): 617-55. Alina, Wawrzynczyk, Studia nad wydajnosciq produkcji rolnej dobr krolewskich w drugiej polowie XVI wieku (Wroclaw, ’ Warsaw, Krakow, and Gdansk, 1974)Google Scholar. Andrzej, Wyczanski, Studia nad jolwarkiem szlacheckim zv Polsce w latach 1500-1580 (Warsaw, 1960)Google Scholar. Andrzej, Wyczanski, Studia nad gospodarkq starostzva korcsynskiego, 1500-1660 (Warsaw, 1964)Google Scholar. Andrzej, Wyczanski, Wies polskiego Odrodzenia (Warsaw, 1969)Google Scholar. Benedykt Zientara, “Z zagadnien spornych tzw. ‘wtornego poddanstwa’ w Europie Srodkowej,” Przeglqd Historyczny, 47, no. 1 (1956): 3-47. Leonid Zytkowicz, “Grain Yields in Poland, Bohemia, Hungary and Slovakia in the 16th to 18th Centuries,” Acta Poloniae Historica, 24 (1971): 51-72. Leonid Zytkowicz, “Nastgpstwa ekonomiczne i spoteczne niskich plonow zboz w Polsce od polowy XVI do potowy XVIII wieku, “ Roczniki Dziejow Spolecznych i Gospodarczych, 34 (1973): 1-34.

7. Janina Bieniarzowna, “Chlopi w rzemiosle krakowskim w XVII wieku,” Przeglqd Historycsny, 47, no. 3 (1956): 497-514. Stefan, Cackowski, Gospodarstwo iviejskie w dobrach biskupstwa i kapituly chelminskiej zv XVII-XVIII w., 2 vols. (Torun, 1961, 1963)Google Scholar. Zbigniew, Cwiek, Z dziejozv wsi koronnej XVII wieku (Warsaw, 1966)Google Scholar. Antoni, Maczak, Gospodarstwo chiopskie na Zulazvach Malborskich w poczqtkach XVII wieku (Warsaw, 1962)Google Scholar. Jozef, Polcwiartek, Polozenie hidnosci wicjskiej starostiva lezajskiego zv XVI-XVIII wieku (Warsaw and Krakow, 1972)Google Scholar. Edward, Trzyna, Polosenie hidnosci wiejskiej zv krolczvszczyznach wojewodztwa krakoivskiego w XVII ivieku (Wroclaw, 1963)Google Scholar. Alina, Wawrzynczyk, Gospodarshvo chiopskie zv dobrach krolezvskich na Mazowszu zv XVI i na pocsqtku XVII wieku (Warsaw, 1962)Google Scholar. Leonid, Zytkowicz, Studia nod gospodarstwem wiejskim w dobrach koscielnych XVI iv. (Warsaw, 1962)Google Scholar.

8. Janina, Bieniarzowna, Walka chlopozv iv kasztelanii krakoivskiej (Warsaw, 1953)Google Scholar. Bohdan Baranowski, Polozenie i zvalka klasoiva chlopozv TO krolezvszczyznach zvojewodztwa leczyckiego zv XVI-XVIII TO. (Warsaw, 1956). Maurycy, Horn, Walka chlopow cserwonoruskich s zvysyskiem feudalnym zv latach 1600-1648 (Opole, 1974)Google Scholar, . Adam, Jaszczott, Walka ludu Podhalanskiego z uciskicm feudalnym, 1625-1633 (Warsaw, 1959)Google Scholar. Stanislaw, Szczotka, Walka chlopow o wymiar sprawiedlizvosci (Warsaw, 1950)Google Scholar.

9. Anzelm, Gostomski, Gospodarstwo, ed. Stefan Inglot (Wroclaw, 1951)Google Scholar. Krzysztof Kluk, 0 rolnictwie, zbozach, Iqkach, chmielnikach, zvinnicach i roslinach gospodarskich, ed. Stefan Inglot (Wroclaw, 1954). Antoni, Podraza, Jakub Kazimiers Hour, pisarz rolniczy z XVII zvieku (Wroclaw, Warsaw, and Krakow, 1961)Google Scholar. Wtadyslaw, Ochmanski, Wiedza rotnicza zv Polsce od XVI do polozvy XVIII wieku (Wroclaw, Warsaw, and Krakow, 1965)Google Scholar.

10. Stanislaw Sreniowski, “Oznaki regresu ekonomicznego w ustroju folwarcznopanszczyznianym w Polsce od schylku XVI w.,” Kwartalnik Historyczny, 61, no. 2 (1954): 165-96; Zientara, “Z zagadnien spornych,” pp. 4-6, 20-21, 44-46; Hoszowski, “Polish Baltic Trade,” pp. 117-18, 129, 149-50; Jerzy Topolski, “La regression economique en Pologne du XVIe au XVIII” siecle,” Acta Poloniae Historica, 7 (1962): 28-49; Edward Trzyna, “Wtorne poddanstwo,” in HCP, pp. 309-19, 358-62.

11. Wyczariski, , Wie£, pp. 6–9Google Scholar. Cwiek, Z dsiejow wsi koronnej, has pointed out that although crown villages have been studied more thoroughly than those privately owned, most of these studies are limited to one complex of demesnes, so that generalizations made on this basis for the entire country should be questioned (pp. 5-9).

12. Anzelm Gostomski, ivojcivoda of Rawa, owner of twenty-eight villages and the author of a well-known book on the organization of desmesne farming (Gospodarstivo, first published in 1588; see note 9), advised landowners to take care of their peasants and to try to enrich them: “Robota kmiotkow, to dochod albo intrata nawi?tsza w Polszcze wszdy, ktor robot? gospodarz tak ma szafowac, coby kmiotkow nie zubozyl, a ku wi?tszemu pozytku co rok przywodzil; bo to moze po spohi stac u pilnego a poboznego gospodarza” (pp. 19-20).

13. Cwiek, , Z dziejow wsi koronnej, pp. 56, 49-55Google Scholar, 77.

14. Although historians are more and more aware of the importance of regional differences (e.g., Leonid 2ytkowicz, “Okres gospodarki folwarczno-panszczyznianej, XVIXVIII w.,” in HCP, pp. 286-90), only the late Cwiek dared to question the validity of vilprevailing opinions and called for research on mass statistical material. Cwiek argued that although nearly any thesis can be supported by specific examples, the antithesis can also be proved by examples.

15. For often conflicting views on this subject see Pokhylevych, D. L., Krest'iane Belorussii i Litvy v XVI-XVIII w. (Lviv, 19S7)Google Scholar ; Picheta, V. I., Agrarnaia rejorma Sigizmxmda Avgusta v Litovsko-Russkom gosudarstve (Moscow, 1958)Google Scholar: Jerzy Ochmanski, “La grande reforme agraire en Lithuanie et en Ruthenie Blanche au XVIe siecle,” Ergon (Warsaw), 2 (1960): 327-42; Karl von Loewe, “Commerce and Agriculture in Lithuania, 1400-1600,” Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 26, no. 1 (1973): 23-35.

16. Iu. M. Grossman, “Razvitie fol'varochnogo proizvodstva v Russkom i Belzskom voevodstvakh vo vtoroi polovine XVI-pervoi polovine XVII v.,” in Ezhegodnik . . . 1965 g., pp. 71-79; Maurycy, Horn, Skutki ekonomicsne najasdoiv tatarskich s lat 1605-1633 na Rus Cserwonq (Wroclaw, Warsaw, and Krakow, 1964), pp. 164–66 Google Scholar; Kryp'iakevych, Ivan, Bohdan Khmel'nyts'kyi (Kiev, 1954), pp. 13–57 Google Scholar; Wladyslaw, Serczyk, Gospodarstwo magnackie w wojewodstwie podolskim w drugiej poloivic XVIII wieku (Wroclaw, Warsaw, and Krakow, 1965), pp. 19–29 Google Scholar.

17. Rutkowski, , Historia gospodarcza Polski, pp. 275–77Google Scholar; Zientara, “Z zagadnien spornych,” pp. 20-21, 40-41, 45-46.

18. Roman, Rybarski, Handel i polityka handlowa Polski w XVI stuleciu, 2 vols. (Warsaw, 1958), 1: 315–51 Google Scholar; Witold, Kula, Teoria ekonomicsna ustroju fettdalnego: Proba modelu (Warsaw, 1962), pp. 149–50 Google Scholar; 2ytkowicz, “Okres gospodarki folwarczno-panszczyznianej, “ pp. 258-59.

19. Maczak, , Gospodarstwo chlopskie, p. 341 Google Scholar; Cwiek, , Z dsiejdw ivsi koronnej, p. 163 Google Scholar; Trzyna, “Wtorne poddaiistwo,” pp. 389-93.

20. Zientara, “Z zagadnien spornych,” pp. 11, 25, 45-46. Kazimierz Tymieniecki regarded East Central Europe as semicolonial. See his “W sprawie powstania zaostrzonego poddanstwa w Polsce i Europie Srodkowej,” Roczniki Historyczne, 24 (1958): 326-28.

21. Trzyna, “Wtorne poddanstwo,” p. 309; von Loewe, “Commerce and Agriculture, “ pp. 34-35; Rutkowski believed that market availability for agricultural products drove the nobility in the direction of a demesne-rofcoi economy, all the more so since the existing dependence of peasants facilitated this form of production ( Rutkowski, , Historia gospodarcza Polski, pp. 91–95Google Scholar).

22. Wyczanski, , Wiei, pp. 73-76, 82-83Google Scholar.

23. Wyczanski, , Studio, nad gospodarkq starostwa korczynskiego, p. 218 Google Scholar; Falniowska-Gradowska, Alicja, Swiadczenia poddanych na rsecz divoru w krdlewszczyznach ivojewodztwa krakowskicgo w drugiej poiowie XVIII wieku (Wroclaw, Warsaw, and Krakow, 1964), pp. 99–100 Google Scholar.

24. Jozef, Leszczynski, “Walka chJopow z uciskiem feudalnym,” in HCP, pp. 402–6 Google Scholar; Cackowski, , Gospodarstwo iviejskie, 1: 231-35Google Scholar; Trzyna, , Polozenie ludnosci, pp. 282–88Google Scholar; Cwiek, , Z dziejow wsi koronnej, pp. 213–55Google Scholar.

25. Historians have collected impressive data regarding the devastation of villages during wartime. I will give here only a few examples. In Gniezno county in 1658-59 there were 172 villages: 82 were privately owned, 79 were owned by the church, and 11 belonged to the crown. In these villages there were 1, 055 lans of arable land, of which only 300 lans were cultivated. In Koscian county, 50 percent of the arable land was not cultivated. In eighteen folwarks of Kalisz wojcwodztwo the grain harvest of 1661 reached only onefourth of the 1616 harvest. See Wtadyslaw Rusinski, “Straty i zniszczenia w czasie wojny szwedzkiej oraz jej skutki na obszarze Wielkopolski,” in Lepszy, Kazimierz et al., eds., Polska iv okresie drugiej Wojny Polnocnej, 1655-1660, 3 vols. (Warsaw, 1957), 2: 293, 295 Google Scholar. In Masovia in 1660 only 15 percent of the arable land in crown possessions was under cultivation (Irena Gieysztorowa, “Zniszczenia i straty wojenne oraz ich skutki na Mazowszu, “ in Polska w okresie, 2: 333). In thirty crown villages of Sandomierz ivojcivodstwo the number of peasant households decreased from 776 to 267 (Adam Kaminski, “Zniszczenia wojenne w Matopolsce i ich skutki w okresie najazdu szwedzkiego, 1655-1660,” in Polska w okresie, 2: 371).

26. Kula, , Teoria ekonomiczna ustroju feudalnego, pp. 53-70, 134-46Google Scholar; czanski, Andrzej Wy, Polska Rseczq Pospolitq szlacheckq, 1454-1764 (Warsaw, 1965), pp. 315–17 Google Scholar; Rutkowski, , Historia gospodarcza Polski, p. 189 Google Scholar; Cackowski, , Gospodarstwo wiejskie, pp. 104–5Google Scholar; Zytkowicz, “Gospodarka folwarczno-panszczyzniana,” pp. 261-62; Cwiek pointed to the fact that the general decrease of sixteen-hectare farms was accompanied not only by the increase of small holders (four to eight hectares) but also by a substantial enlargement of big peasant holdings (thirty-two to forty hectares and more) ( Cwiek, , Z dziejow wsi koronnej, pp. 173–74Google Scholar). The same facts were noted by 2, ytkowicz (Studia nod gospodarstwem wiejskim, p. 129) and especially by Mczak (Gospodarshvo cMopskie, pp. 274-85).

27. Wyczanski, , Polska Rzeczq Pospolitq szlacheckq, table on p. 209Google Scholar. For similar trends in other crown provinces see 2ytkowicz, “Gospodarka folwarczno-panszczyzniana, “ p. 256.

28. Kula, , Teoria ekonomiczna ustroju jeudalnego, pp. 155–57Google Scholar; Wyczanski, Polska Rseczq Pospolitq szlacheckq, table on p. 224; Serczyk, , Gospodarstwo magnackie, pp. 154- 56Google Scholar; Irena, Rychlikowa, Studia nad towarowq produkcjq wielkiej wlasnosci w Malopolsce w latach 1764-1805, vol. 1 (Wroclaw, Warsaw, and Krakow, 1966), pp. 202–4 Google Scholar.

29. Around 15 percent of the faculty of Jagiellonian University in the second half of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century were of peasant origin. See Waclaw Urban, “Akademia Krakowska w latach 1549-1632,” in Dcieje Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego iv dobie reformacji i wcsesnej kontrreformacji (1364-1764), vol. 1 (Krakow, 1964), p. 256. If the need arose during court proceedings on crown lands, some peasants were able to pay up to several thousand zlotys ( Cwiek, , Z dsiejow wsi koronnej, p. 189 Google Scholar). The number of poor, landless villagers who found their way to the cities to become servants and unskilled workers is not known. Town records tell us only about those well-to-do peasants or their children who became artisans or merchants. Their number in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (around 30 percent of all who became town citizens) was impressive and indicates the existence—in spite of demesne robot—of social mobility. On peasant migration to towns and cities see M. J., Mika, “Przyjgcia do prawa miejskiego w Poznaniu w latach 1576-1600,” in Kronika miasta Posnania, 11, no. 2- 3 (1933): 207–30Google Scholar; Bieniarzowna, “Chtopi w rzemiosle “; Wtodzimierz Dworzaczek, “Permeabilite des barrieres sociales dans la Pologne du XVIe siecle,” Acta Poloniae Historica, 24 (1971): 43-44.

30. Trepka, Walerian Nekanda, Liber generationis plebeanorum, ed. Wtodzimierz Dworzaczek, vol. 1 (Wroclaw, Warsaw, and Krakow, 1958), pp. 6–22 Google Scholar.

31. Cackowski, , Gospodarstwo wiejskie, 1: 103Google Scholar; Trzyna, , Poiozenie ludnoici, pp. 68–87Google Scholar; Cwiek, , Z dziejdw ivsi koronnej, p. 115 Google Scholar; Wyczanski, , Studia nod gospodarkq starostwa korczynskiego, p. 155 Google Scholar.

32. Wyczanski, , WieS, p. 101 Google Scholar.

33. The existence of a vagrant population ﹛ludsie luini) who escaped personal serfdom, during the entire period of the demesne-robot economy (suggesting direct and considerable interdependence between serfdom and the use of land), brings into focus questions concerning the reasons for the existence of unoccupied arable land, the role of hired labor on the demesne-robot farms and large peasant farms, and the existence of a sufficient number of workers for the eventual development of manufactures. The basic monographs dealing with loose people and Kula's model proposition seem to suggest the “marginality “ of this problem. The nobility, however, thought otherwise and attempted to prevent the “loose” elements from seasonal migrations. See Jozef, Gierowski, “Luzni ludzie na Mazowszu w swietle uchwal sejmikowych,” Prseglqd Historyczny, 40 (1949): 164–202Google Scholar. It is also difficult to accept the marginality of the vagrant population, since it appears that larger peasant farms throughout the country could not have maintained themselves without their labor. They were also used by demesne-robot farms.