Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T17:24:45.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neo-Serfdom: Its Origin and Nature in East Central Europe

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

László Makkai
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 freeing of the serfs occurred in Eastern Europe in the nineteenth century. Although it ended the personal subjection of the peasantry and abolished the feudal obligations of deliveries in kind and services, bringing to a close the feudal and clearing the way for the capitalist form of landholding, this transformation allowed the ex-feudal lords to retain those lands that they had administered themselves in the past by converting into peasant holdings only the so-called rustical lands that had previously been cultivated on their own account by the serfs. The demesne lands, which the feudal owners had managed themselves, were for the greater part cultivated by robot (corvée) labor, and to a lesser extent by those who worked for wages, although some parts were worked by landless peasants to whom they were rented out in exchange for a great variety of obligations. These people received no land when the serfs were freed. The most serious socioeconomic problem of the capitalist century in Eastern Europe was the misery of the masses of landless .peasants as well as of the small and dwarf holders who lived in the shadow of the large estates whose origin was feudal and on which they worked as wage laborers. For this reason it is quite understandable that the origin of the land-tenure system that followed the freeing of the serfs had to become, sooner or later, one of the focal points of historical research.

Type
Symposium
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 1975 , pp. 225 - 238
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1974

References

1. Emil, Niederhauser, A jobbágyjelszabaditás Kelet-Europaban [The Freeing of the Serfs in Eastern Europe] (Budapest, 1962), pp. 272–316 Google Scholar.

2. Knapp, G. F., Die Bauern-Bejrehmg und der Ursprung der Landarbeiter in den älteren Teilen Preussens (Leipzig, 1887)Google Scholar.

3. Gerhard, Heitz, Agrarischer Dualismus, Eigentumverhältnisse, Preussischer Weg (Rostock, 1970), pp. 2–3 Google Scholar, makes this assertion in connection with Germany, but his remarks are also valid for all other lands that are included in the examination of the problem.

4. Varga, János, Jobbágyrcndsser a magyarorssági feudalicmus kései szásadaiban, 1556-1767 [The Serf System in the Late Centuries of Hungarian Feudalism, 1556-1767] (Budapest, 1969), pp. 541–44 Google Scholar, established robot obligations (based on the available literature) of more than one day per week in the following lands during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: Mecklenburg, Brandenburg, Rügen, Poland, Hungary, Moravia; and in the seventeenth century only in the Czech Kingdom. A robot obligation of less than one day per week existed in Bavaria, Saxony, Anhalt, Upper and Lower Austria, and Styria.

5. Anton Špiesz, “Czechoslovakia's Place in the Agrarian Development of Middle and East Europe of Modern Times,” Studia Historica Slovaca, 6 (1969): 22-25, quotes the relevant literature and estimates that in the German lands beyond the Elbe 20 to 50 percent of the land was demesne. Laszio, Makkai, Rákocai György birtokamak gazdasági iratai, 1632-1648 [Economic Documents of the Estates of György Rákoczi, 1632-1648] (Budapest, 1954), estimates (pp. 69-70)Google Scholar that the arable demesne land amounted to 15 to 30 percent of the rustical land on the estates located in various parts of Hungary. Leonid Żytkowicz, “The Peasant's Land and the Landlord's Farm in Poland from the 16th to the Middle of the 18th Century,” Journal of European Economic History (Rome), 1972, p. 145, handles the question with caution, given the nature of Polish sources and the relevant literature, and states that the land of the lords did not produce as much as those of the peasantry (meaning that the former amounted to less than 50 percent of the total arable land).

6. von Brönneck, Wilhelm, “Die Leibeigenschaft in Pommern,” Zcitschrijt dcr Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgcschkhte, 9 (1888): 104–52Google Scholar. Fuchs, C. J., Der Untcrgang des Banernstandes und das Aufkommen der Gutsherrschaftcn: Nach archivalischcn Quellen aits Neu-Vorpommern und Riigcn (Strassburg, 1888)Google Scholar. Friedrich Grossmann, ‘ “Ober die gutsherrlich-bauerlichen Rechtsverhältnisse in der Mark Brandenburg vom 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert,” Staats- und sosiahvisscnschaftlichc Forschungen, vol. 9 (Leipzig, 1890). Transehe-Roseneck, Astaf, Gutsherr und Bauer in Livland im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Strassburg, 1890)Google Scholar. Grünberg, Karl, Die Baücrnbcjrciung und die Auflösung des gutsherrlich- bauerlichen Verhältnisses in B'dhmen, Mädhrcn und Schlesien, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1893-94), vol. 2Google Scholar. Wilhelm von Briinneck, “Die Leibeigenschaft in Ostpreussen,” Zcitschrijt dcr Savigny-Stiftung fur Rechtsgcschkhte, 8 (1887): 38-66. K., Rakowski, Entstehung des Grossgrundbesitses im XV. und XVI. Jahrhundert in Polen (Posen, 1899)Google Scholar. Giinter, Dessmann, Gcschichte dcr schlesischcn Agrarverfassung (Strassburg, 1904)Google Scholar. H. Plehn, “Zur Geschichte der Agrarverfassung von Ost- und Westpreussen,” Forschungen zur brandenburgischcn und preussischen Gcschichte, vol. 18 (1905). G., Aubin, Zur Geschichte des gutsherrlich-bä0uerlichen Verhältnisses in Ostpreussen von der Gründung des Ordcnsstaates bis sur Steinischen Reform (Leipzig, 1910)Google Scholar. J., Zierkusch, Hundert Jahre schlcsischer Agrargeschichte: Vom Hubertsburger Friedcn bis sum Abschluss der Bauernbcfreiung (Breslau, 1915)Google Scholar. J. Jessen, “Die Entstehung und Entwicklung der Gutswirtschaft in Schleswig-Holstein bis zum Beginn der Agrarreform,” Zcitschrift der Gesellschaft für schlesmg-holstcinische Geschichte, vol. 51 (1922). Heinz, Maybaum, Die Entstehung dcr Gutsherrschaft im nordwestlichen Mecklenburg (Stuttgart, 1926)Google Scholar. W. Stark, Ursprung und Aufsticg des landwirtschaftlichen Grossbetricbs in den bühmischen Ländern (Brünn, 1934).

7. Regarding Hungary see [Sándor] Domanovszky, Alexander, “Zur Geschichte der Gutsherrschaft in Ungarn,” Wirtschaft und Kultur: Festschrift sum 70. Geburtstag von Alfons Dopsch (Baden bei Wien and Leipzig, 1938), pp. 441–69 Google Scholar, and Étienne [Istvan] Szabó, “Les grands domaines en Hongrie au début des temps modernes,” Revue d'histoire comparée, n.s., 5, no. 2 (1947): 167-92. And regarding Austria see Walther, Fresacher, Der Bauer in Kämtcn, 3 vols. (Klagenfurt, 1952-55)Google Scholar, and Helmuth, Feigl, Die niederosterreichische Grundherrschaft vom ausgehenden Mittelalter bis su den theresianischjosephinischen Reformen (Vienna, 1964)Google Scholar.

8. Jan Rutkowski, “La genese du regime de la corvée dans l'Europe Centrale depuis la fin du Moyen Age,” in La Pologne au VI” Congrés International des Sciences His toriqiies (Oslo, 1928). Since this article was published Polish historians have done more than anyone else in applying the comparative method to our problem. See, among others, Wfadystaw Rusiriski, “Hauptprobleme der Fronwirtschaft vom 16. bis” 18. Jahrhundert in Polen und den Nachbarländern,” in Papers of the First International Conference of Economic History … Stockholm (The Hague, 1960). See also Leonid Źytkowicz, “Rozvoj zemědelstvi v českych zemich a v Polsku v XVI. a na počátku XVII. stoleti,” Ccskoslovensky casopis historicky, 14 (1966): 589-607. In this connection the beginning of Soviet interest in the subject is also important. See S. D. Skazkin, “Osnovnye problemy tak nazyvaemogo ‘vtorogo izdaniia krepostnichestva’ v Srednei i Vostochnoi Evrope,” Voprosy istorii, 1958, no. 2, pp. 96-119. The extensive Soviet literature dealing with the transition from feudalism to capitalism is ably surveyed by Skazkin, S. D. et al., eds., Teorcticheskie i istoriograficheskie problemy genczisa kapitalizma (Moscow, 1969)Google Scholar.

9. Friedrich, Liitge, Die mitteldeutsche Grundhcrrschaft (Jena, 1934)Google Scholar. Georg Grüll, Die Robot in Oberostcrreich (Linz, 1952). Alfred, Hoffmann, Wirtschaftsgeschichte des Landes Oberösterreich (Salzburg, 1952)Google Scholar.

10. Alois Mika, “Problém počátků nevolnictvi v Čechách,” Československý casopis historicky, 5 (1957): 226-48; and Poddaný lid v Cechach v prvni polovine 16. stoleti (Prague, 1960). Frantisek, Matejek, Feuddlni vclkostatek a poddaný na Moravě s pfihlednutim k pfilehlemu liccmi Slezska a Polska (Prague, 1959)Google Scholar. Josef, Valka, Hospodářská politika feudálniho velkostatku na předbelohorské Moravé (Prague, 1962)Google Scholar. Josef, Petrafi, Poddany lid v Cechach na prahu tficetilete války (Prague, 1964)Google Scholar. J. Jirásek, “Moravský venkov před Bilou Horou,” Časopis Moravskeho musea, 1964.

11. Spiesz, “Czechoslovakia's Place,” p. 61.

12. See the special issue of Historické štúdie, vol. 17 (1972), entitled Material z vedeckcho symposia o charaktere jeudalizmu na Slovensku v 16.-18. storoci, especially the contributions by Peter Ratkoš, Pavel Horvath, Josef Koči, Laszló Makkai, and Ivan Erceg.

13. Among others, Fuchs takes this position.

14. Spiesz, “Czechoslovakia's Place,” p. 45.

15. Varga, , Jobbagyrendszer, p. 551 Google Scholar.

16. Ibid., pp. 561-66, and Čpiesz, “Czechoslovakia's Place,” pp. 22-25.

17. After the debate this view was adopted by most of the Soviet and Rumanian historians also. See, for example, L. V. Danilova, “K itogam izucheniia osnovnykh problem rannego i razvitogo feodalizma v Rossii,” in Druzhinin, N. M. et al., eds., Sovetskaia istoricheskaia nauka ot XX k XXI s “ezdu KPSS: Sbornik statei (Moscow, 1962)Google Scholar ; V. I., Koretsky, “K istorii formirovaniia krepostnogo prava v Rossii,” Voprosy istorii, 1964, no. 6, pp. 77–95Google Scholar; A. G. Maňkov, “K otázke ‘druhého vydania’ nevol'nictva v Rusku v 16.-17. storoči,” in Materiál z vedeckého symposia (Historicke štúdie, vol. 17), p. 103; Florin Constantiniu, Relafiile agrare din Tora Româneasca m secolul al XVIII-lea (Bucharest, 1972).

18. Varga, , Jobbágyrendsser, p. 557 Google Scholar.

19. Ibid., p. 174.

20. Spiesz, “Czechoslovakia's Place,” p. 14; Varga, , Jobbágyrcndsscr, pp. 528, 536-38Google Scholar. For the special features of the “first serfdom” in Eastern Europe see László Makkai, “Les caracteres originaux de l'histoire économique et sociale de l'Europe orientale pendant le Moyen Age,” Acta Historka (Budapest), 16 (1970): 261-87.

21. Zsigmond Pá Pach, “Das Entwicklungsniveau der feudalen Agrarverhältnisse in Ungarn in der zweiten Hälfte des XV. Jahrhunderts,” in Studes historiques, 2 vols. (Budapest, 1960), 1: 387-435; this work is also vol. 46 of Studio, Historka (1960). Zsigmond Pál Pach, Die ungarische Agrarentwicklung im 16-17. Jahrhundert: Abbiegung vom westeuropäischen Entwicklungsgang, vol. 54 of Studia Historica (Budapest, 1964).-

22. The investigation into the structure of the robot economy and its theoretical analysis was carried out mainly by Polish historians. Some of the more important titles included in this extensive literature are Wladysław Rusiński, “Drogi rozwojowe folwarku pańszczyznianego,” Przegląd Historycsny, 47 (1956): 617-55; Antoni Mączak, “Folwark panszczyzniany a wies w Prusach Krélewskich w XVI-XVII wieku,” Przegląd Historycsny, 47 (1956): 353-92; Wyczański, Andrzej, Studia nod folwarkiem szlacheckim w Polsce w latach 1500-1580 (Warsaw, 1960)Google Scholar ; Witold, Kula, Théorie économique du système féodal: Pour tin modèle de I'économie polonaise, 16e-18e sticles (Paris, 1970)Google Scholar. Also the already cited Żytkowicz, “Peasant's Land,” with its rich bibliography deserves men tion. Concerning Hungary see Laszlo, Makkai, Parassti es majorsdgi mesogasdasagi termeles a XVII. siasadban [Peasant and Seigneurial Agrarian Production in the Seventeenth Century] (Budapest, 1957)Google Scholar, which stresses the strong interrelationship between the demesne and rustical economies.

22. The investigation into the structure of the robot economy and its theoretical analysis was carried out mainly by Polish historians. Some of the more important titles included in this extensive literature are Wladysław Rusiński, “Drogi rozwojowe folwarku pańszczyznianego,” Przegląd Historycsny, 47 (1956): 617-55; Antoni Mączak, “Folwark panszczyzniany a wies w Prusach Krélewskich w XVI-XVII wieku,” Przegląd Historycsny, 47 (1956): 353-92; Andrzej Wyczański, Studia nod folwarkiem szlacheckim w Polsce w latach 1500-1580 (Warsaw, 1960) ; Witold, Kula, Théorie economique du systeme feodal: Pour tin modele de I'economie polonaise, 16e-18e sticles (Paris, 1970)Google Scholar. Also the already cited 2ytkowicz, “Peasant's Land,” with its rich bibliography deserves men tion. Concerning Hungary see Makkai, László, Parassti és majorsdgi mesőgasdasági termelés a XVII. siasadban [Peasant and Seigneurial Agrarian Production in the Seventeenth Century] (Budapest, 1957)Google Scholar, which stresses the strong interrelationship between the demesne and rustical economies.

23. Leonid Żytkowicz, “Grain Yields in Poland, Bohemia, Hungary and Slovakia in the 16th to 18th Centuries,” Acta Poloniae Historica, 24 (1971): 51-72.

24. Two studies are devoted to the comparative study of two similar economic-socialpolitical systems: Marian Malowist, “Die Problematik der sozialwirtschaftlichen Geschichte Polens vom 15. bis zum 17. Jahrhundert,” Studio, Historica, vol. 53 (1963) ; and László Makkai, “Die Hauptziige der wirtschaftlich-sozialen Entwicklung Ungarns im 15-17. Jahrhundert,” in the same issue.

25. Antoni Maczak, “Agricultural and Livestock Production in Poland: Internal and Foreign Markets,” Journal of European Economic History, 1972, includes a bibliography on the problem. See Laszlo, Makkai, “Der ungarische Viehhandel, 1550-1650,” in Der Ausscnhandet Ostmitteleuropas, 1450-1650 (Cologne and Vienna, 1971)Google Scholar, and also the other articles in this volume.

26. The latest summary for Eastern Europe of the extensive literature dealing with the history of price movements is Vera Zimanyi, “Mouvements des prix hongrois et 1'évolution européenne (XVIe-XVIIIe s.),” Acta Historica, 19 (1973): 305-33.

27. The relevance of our problem for the Baltic states is to be studied in the pioneering works of Małowist and his school. See Marian Małowist, “Le commerce de’ la Baltique et le probleme des luttes sociales en Pologne aux XVe et XVIe siècles,” La Pologne mi X” Congrès International des Sciences Historiques à Rome (Warsaw, 19SS) ; “The Economic and Social Development of the Baltic Countries from the Fifteenth to the Seventeenth Centuries,” Economic History Rcvieiv, 2nd ser., 12, no. 2 (December 1959): 177-89; and Croissance et regression en Europe, XIVe-XVIIc siecles (Paris, 1972). The latter work is a collection of the relevant studies by the author. See also Benedykt Zientara, “Z zagadnien spornych tzw. ‘wtornego poddanstwa’ w Europie Srodkowej, “ Prseglqd Historycsny, 47 (1956): 3—47. Concerning the expanding activities of South German merchants see Laszlo Makkai, “Die Entstehung der gesellschaftlichen Basis des Absolutismus in den Landern der osterreichischen Habsburger,” Studcs historiques, vol. 1 (Budapest, 1960), pp. 627-68; this work is also vol. 43 of Studia Historica (1960).

28. Zsigmond Pal Pach, “The Shifting of International Trade Routes in the 15th-17th Centuries,” Acta Historica, 14 (1968): 287-321.