Serfdom: Life Under the Lord of the Manor

“The Haywain Triptych” by Hieronymus Bosch (1516)

The Serf and the Feudal Hierarchy

The “lowest” level of the feudal hierarchy during the period of Kingship (around 700-1300 A.D.) is a serf living in a manor directly under his lord, embodying the system of serfdom. He has the most obligations and restrictions of any category of people during this period. But he was not alone in the manor. Free peasants willingly took oaths to the lord of their choosing, an agreement benefiting both the lord and the peasant. Despite modern misconceptions, moderns work more hours and at far more oppressive conditions than did a 13th-century serf!

Mutual Benefits of the Manor System

Generally, men would swear an oath to the lord, who would give the vassals protection and land to work and farm. In return, the vassal would provide a percentage of their product or a specified number of days of military service to the lord. Thus, it was a mutually beneficial situation where the vassal put the lord’s previously unused land to use. As a result, the landless tenant or peasant now had protection and land to work. Other times, harsh conditions drove peasants to manors. For example, many peasants across England fled to manors for protection after massive Viking raids during the 9th and 10th centuries; some even willingly took on serf status. Likewise, increased taxation during wartime drove others to manors who could not survive independently.

Manor Lords and Their Responsibilities

The manor lord desired to protect his people and his realm; he wanted happy, safe, content, and productive people to give himself a good name, encouraging others to join. Further, he was regulated by his faith and did not look down upon his serfs. One indicator that people preferred manors over towns is the overwhelming population living in rural settings. The “freedom” towns offered, devoid of manor obligations, were rarely taken advantage of. Only in the transformative 14th century did they flood the towns, indicating less contentment with lords during this period.

Competition Among Lords

Since each lord competed with many other local lords, he was forced to give the peasants a better deal. Due to the intense competition and desire for more tenants to cultivate unused land, lords offered full autonomy and set unchanging rates. In addition, this arrangement encouraged lords to serve their people well, as they would have more loyal men to willingly fight under their banner or work their land. Once a peasant took an oath and an arrangement was reached (for example, twenty per cent of the peasant’s produce to the lord), the lord could never raise it again, and the peasant was free from his obligations if the lord failed to fulfil his end of the bargain.

Rights and Resistance of Peasants and Serfs

Peasants and serfs were not powerless to resist their lord if he overstepped his bounds. Vassals were allowed to leave their lord and retain their property for multiple reasons. In 1020, Bishop Fulbert of Chartres wrote to the Duke of Aquitaine “The lord also ought to act toward his faithful vassal in the same manner in all these things. And if he fails to do this, he will be rightfully regarded as guilty of bad faith.” As part of the agreement, serfs often maintained the right to purchase their freedom if they so chose down the line. They could also go on strike or bring their lord to court to be judged by a jury of peasants. Also, peasants had the right to be judged by a jury of their peers, and a lord could not sell a vassal’s land or replace him without the approval of the lower members of the hierarchy. If a lord violated the contract, anyone could appeal to a higher court, even to the king, because “Every man has the right to be tried before the king.” If a serf were forced to work on a Sunday, he was freed from his lord.

The manor lord was only one person surrounded by his vassals, the serfs, and peasants on his land, who had access to his family. His domain was local; they were in contact with him and knew him. The numerical superiority and the weaponry of the day allowed a peasantry to kill an elite warrior. Many serfs even took advantage of their lord by claiming to be free, and when the lord lacked sufficient proof of obligations owed, they secured their freedom in this manner. Likely due to personal relationships, other lords freed their serfs. If a serf left his lord, migrated to a town, and stayed one year and one day, he was declared “free” of all obligations. Further, if a lord decided to go into town to bring back his man, he was prevented from doing so by the townsfolk.

Rebellion as a Response to Tyranny

Rebellion against tyrants being seen as obedience to God added another layer of protection for him. For example, say an overlord attempted to infringe on one of his vassals beyond the obligations owed; it could/would incite all the vassals under him to unite in rebellion. Professor Alfred Andrea wrote, “A lord’s failure to live up to such commitments could justify a vassal’s defiance of and even rebellion against his lord.” So while the feudal pyramid points “up” to higher levels of lords, in practice, across the board at every level, this pyramid helped the lower levels. This does not describe every instance of serfdom.

Flexibility in the Manorial System

Not all serfs were equally unrestricted; there was a wide variety in their conditions depending on place and time. However, unlike the modern state, the lord could not raise taxes and thus punish a productive peasant. If the peasant owes 20% of his produce to the lord, the more he produces, the more the lord benefits; he does not want any barriers to his vassals’ success. Further, if I am going to worry about raiders on the road to town, I might not invest in a new field of grain to sell and trade. But if I know I am protected by my lord, I will invest. If I am secure in knowing what my future payments/ and expectations are, I can better save and plan for the future. This encouraged serfs to start their businesses.

Freedom Within the Feudal Framework

A lord only cared for loyalty, not controlling the mind of his tenant. A medieval person was free to think as he wished; he was free in all things outside the honouring of his obligation. Thus, lords allowed maximum liberty since they only cared about the arrangement and oaths taken. The tenant serf’s family was self-regulated; he enjoyed more freedom than we do today. Hilaire Belloc wrote that a serf was “a free man for all the ordinary purposes of society. He bought and sold. He saved as he willed, he invested, he built, he drained at his discretion, and if he improved the land it was to his profit.“

Marc Morris wrote, “For centuries, the rural economy had remained essentially unchanged. Great lords— kings, ealdormen, bishops and abbots—held vast estates, extending over dozens or even hundreds of square miles. Within these wide areas, people lived in settlements that were spread out and scattered—isolated hamlets, or clusters consisting of a few adjacent farmsteads. The farmers owed renders of produce to their overlord, or sometimes rent, but beyond that, their existence was essentially free and independent.

The Cultural Richness of Serf Life

Due to the constant storytelling of the period, wonder-filled the medieval peasant’s existence. Medieval society viewed nature as a gift from God; the creation was the Creator’s artwork. He was mystified and mesmerised by it. Nature and the mighty forces of nature provided all kinds of amazement and unexplained beings beyond his understanding. The map was full of unexplored grey areas, perhaps even with dragons and sea serpents. He heard tales of great saintly miracles and the demonic activity of witches. He knew of heroic deeds by chivalric knights, betrayals, self-sacrificial loyalty, and beautiful princesses worthy of all admiration. He knew of pious monks and superstitious pagans, perhaps in league with the devil. He knew of great kings and queens and of ruthless tyrants, of people alienated from God living on the fringes of society and faithful followers of Christ who died to restore the Holy Lands. He knew good, evil, eternity, hell, wonders, festivals, life, plagues, and droughts; and he knew death. His life was anything but dull. Historian Régine Pernoud summarised the mindset of the Middle Ages as “a period when men knew better than at any other time how to appreciate simple, wholesome, joyous things—bread, wine, and gaiety,“

Freedom is essential to happiness, and serfs living in a manor were the most restricted, least free, and lowest rung of the feudal hierarchy. Yet, in many ways, they had more freedom than we have today. The typical capitalist slave owner, renamed a boss, interferes with his employees far more than the standard manor lord. They never worried about being fired, payments, money, retirement, government rules, laws, regulations, economics, what their children were being taught, or how they were negatively influenced. The manorial system we are led to associate with vicious tyranny was very often a libertarian society. And it was the most “oppressive” of the societal forms during the Middle Ages.

However, many serfs needed their lord’s permission to marry because marriage could pull the serf off the lord’s land, abolishing the serf’s side of the arrangement. So often, compensation was needed before such marriages could proceed. It was not because the lord had authoritarian control over the serf or cared who he married (as some have suggested) it was due to his not wanting to lose his possessions.

Serfs also had to pay a fee for the use of a lord’s equipment, but gained access to his farm animals, mill, ploughs, lands, woods, hunting and fishing rights, and so on. Many manor lords held a monopoly on specific industries among the serf population. For example, serfs generally had to use the lord’s mill, which amounted to a similar monopoly the Post Office enjoyed with mail, but it applied only to serfs, not free peasants. Yes, they had to pay to use the manor lord’s mill or his oven, but this was because the lord was “looked upon as performing public services,” and to keep the system going needed input from those who used it, similar to bridge and road tolls. Other events negatively affecting the lord (such as the serf’s house burning down) also brought payments in kind. And while serfs were bound to their lord by obligations and other restrictions, they were free in everything else and with anyone else. They were free from kings, other lords, governmental officials, federal officers, teachers, bosses, tax collectors, etc.

The Rights and Property of Serfs

French Court Art: The Limbourg Brothers

Both peasants and serfs owned “free” and “shared” land within the manor system, and even serfs passed their lands on to their children. In England, the average 12th-century peasant in the manor system owned around 30 acres, while serfs owned around five; yet it was not rare for a serf to own 30 acres. As land owners, some peasants and serfs rented out their land to others; some took multiple lords and only rented from one while owning the land of another. Thus, statistics can show a lower percentage of private landowners within the manorial system than there was. Feudalism spread land ownership to a great extent. Central powers parcelled out land to their vassals, who did so with their vassals, just as manor lords did with peasants and serfs. It was not a purely distributist society, but it was much closer than modern society.

A serf’s property, while technically the lord’s, was effectively treated as his. He could do with his property as he pleased. No government agencies or regulations existed to tell you what farm animals you were allowed to raise, what buildings you could construct, and so forth. A man’s home was his castle. On his property, the peasants had the same rights as the nobility on theirs. The tenant had full hunting rights on his lands. Of course, there was shared grazing, farming, and forest land on a typical manorial system, usually to a minor extent regulated by the landowner—the local lord. Still, here in Vermont, many animals have more rights on my property than I do. I cannot kill certain animals on my property, even if they endanger my chickens. The regulations on private property in America are more stringent than those on a manor. When the French revolutionaries rid the nation of any leftover vestiges of feudalism and declared all land “free,” it meant the state would now control, tax, and regulate it all.

Manor Obligations

Instead of agricultural produce, or in addition to it, a tenant often owed his lord a certain number of work days (not time but amount), but if he desired, he could send a son or relative to do the work or hire someone instead. The fields were divided into what was expected for a day’s work, so there was no need for an overseer or boss to ensure peasants worked efficiently. Instead, the workers would complete the work as quickly or slowly as they decided. The lord often provided their meals during work days, and the amount of work owed varied widely at various times of the year. Thus, the lord had a full calendar filled with a rotation of workers.

Some tenants might provide him with meat, vegetables, cheese, or beer. The obligations might be connected to the land where the tenant works. If your plot has a forested area, you will likely provide the lord with wood and mushrooms. Various tenants would provide their trade services to the community as their obligation. For instance, some might like working with and protecting grazing animals, acting as herdsmen on the shared grazing land. Another serf might work in his lord’s field, clearing swamps or forested areas for new plots for future tenants. On the other hand, others might wish to be a baker, a beekeeper, a fisherman, a hunter, a blacksmith, a wheelwright, a soapmaker, a carpenter, a butcher, etc. They then provide this service for the lord’s community and are free of other obligations.

Seasonal Labour and Workload of Serfs

Labour requirements for more extensive holdings could be as heavy as four “days” a week (seasonal) minus festivals and holidays. We look back and wonder how tenants could still provide for the family. They must have been worked to death!!! Life as a peasant or serf must have consisted of intense manual labour, many historians will tell us. But remember, most dues were far less. The serfs’ obligations could be very light, as low as a few days a year devoted to the lord’s land during the 13th century. However, it rose steadily over the next four centuries as Roman law returned and men became viewed more in slave terms. By the 18th century, a serf’s family could owe up to six work days a week.

Variation in Obligations Across Regions and Time

Depending on time and place, obligations could vary drastically; there was no unified serf/lord contract. According to Professor Daileader, the most common obligation serfs owed their lord in the year 1000 was three “days” of work per week. However, he says by 1300, the most common obligations were only three to five days per year, “an almost nominal labour obligation.”

Flexibility in Managing Obligations

Using the most “oppressive” obligations of four “days” a week placed on a serf’s family, we discover it was not as oppressive as believed. Since these families carry a large requirement, they are also parcelled out a large section of the lord’s land. Let’s say they have a more extensive section, a 50-acre plot. The father might have one of his sons work the four required days a week (with his food provided by the lord) while the father and the other two sons work full time on their production. Or, they might lend out 10 acres of their land to another tenant, and in return, he works some of the days owed to the lord. Remember, many of the heavier requirements were seasonal. They might require four workdays during harvest, but only a few dozen eggs in winter.

Leisure and Work Balance

Further, historians have discovered that a day’s work was considered what could be finished by the midday heat, not our modern industrial 9-to-5. When everything is calculated out, we discover the medieval peasant worked fewer hours than his modern counterpart and at a much more leisurely rate. Serfs had more days off than we do, and more breaks during the day, including an afternoon nap. They had fewer chores, less travel and fewer responsibilities.

Community Celebrations and Symbolic Obligations

Other obligations could be a certain amount of produce around significant feasts. However, it was the lord holding these great feasts and putting on celebrations for the people, similar to a Potluck dinner. So, in a way, the tenant received his payment back in one form or another. He might provide the beer or chickens, but others provided the venison, berries, and desserts he consumed at the festival. These obligations around festivals also built a close-knit community, and at times, this was the only obligation demanded of the tenants. Historian Jeffrey Singman describes the “tax” a serf paid his lord in Cuxham, England, as “a couple of loaves of bread and a few hens to the manor lord at Christmas, a tax so trifling that it can best be understood as a symbol of their relationship rather than as a serious economic transaction.” Other times, it was the lord who paid the tenant.

Misconceptions About Oppression

Many historians dismiss the manorial system as oppressive because the lord exploited the labour of the serfs and peasants for his advantage, eerily similar to slavery. We assume manor lords must have been like our leaders today, but feudalism was built around personal relationships. Lords were generally devout Christian men who believed staying true to their word and oaths were more vital than manipulating others for their advantage. While the lord benefited from the situation (as did the serfs and peasants), I wonder how it differs from capitalist bosses or the government exploiting our labour (on a much grander scale) today. By admitting this is evil, the critics also condemn modern states, capitalism, and democracy as more oppressive than feudalism. When it comes to the sins of our fathers, we exaggerate them, and when it comes to our sins, we look the other way.

The Surprising Autonomy of Serfs

Serfdom

Further, I see a significant difference. The serf retained more of his production than we do. Also, the manor lord provided protection, equipment, land, animals, housing, etc., to the serf, who in return paid somewhat of some rent. Whenever trade happens, each side “exploits” (and benefits, or they would not make the trade) the labour of the other. A farmer puts his effort into producing wheat and trades with another at the market for crafted shoes; both are exploited, yet both benefit so long as their own free will, rather than coercion, initiates the trade.
The serf we mourn over had in almost every area of his life a freedom we could not imagine. He had a smaller amount of his production taken through taxation than the typical American. He was given protection, housing, land, and a close-knit, like-minded community. He had more holidays than we do, worked in a more leisurely manner, and was better connected to God, his family, his community, and nature; you cannot purchase happiness. Serfs were often grateful for what they had. They thought the only reason they had safety, stability, and protection was due to their lord.

The name lord originated from a word meaning “bread-keeper”; they viewed him as a source of stable food provision. In certain tribal customs, being tied to the land was not a degradation but an increase in gaining tribal rights.

Hyperbolic Claims of Serfdom’s Hardships

There have been many false and hyperbolic claims about the conditions serfs faced, including keeping frogs quiet by smacking them so their master could sleep. An often-cited quote is from an English “serf” who declared, “Oh, oh, the work is hard. Yes, the work is hard because I am not free“, is used to justify the claim that life was nothing but hard work for serfs. The problem is that this quote is derived from a slave. England maintained slavery longer than continental Christendom. Hundreds of quotes can be provided from southern slaves on cotton plantations in America declaring slavery a blessing, fun, work easy, the food abundant and overall a good time. No historian would then declare southern slavery an improvement over freedom. One isolated incident rarely provides an accurate understanding.

Serfdom vs. Slavery

A land-bound serf on a Manor was indeed the least free category of people during the period and the lowest rung of the hierarchy, but he was not a slave; the Lord did not “own” him. No lord held absolute power, and would usually have fewer than bosses in modern times do. Under certain customs, such as in England, a lord owned the right to some of his labour as part of a contract. In some extreme cases, a serf could be sold, but again it was not the person but his obligations being sold; the land was transferred from one lord to another, and the serf’s laws and customs remained the same. Further, the serf could refuse to be transferred to a new lord. Similar transactions occur today when a company might purchase a business along with existing employee contracts, and an apartment complex owner can buy or sell his properties, but can then transform the business, negatively affecting the tenants.

While “unfree” serfs were “tied to the land,” they could not have their customs, property, and situation taken from them. It would be similar to a modern tenant who cannot be evicted without his consent. Further, a serf could, if he wished, purchase his freedom. Serfs owned businesses and property. It was not unprecedented for free persons to choose to become serfs. During Scandinavia’s 11th and 12th centuries, numerous free peasants gave up their lands to become vassals of local lords. It happened in England in large numbers as well. The manor system helped eradicate slavery because every poor, landless tenant now had the protection of a lord and could not be subjugated by a master.

One objection to the manorial system is that most people were peasants and serfs, not lords. But we must ask why there were so many serfs to begin with?

Feudalism as a System of Mutual Benefit

The failures of centralised Rome and the excessive slavery of its empire created a desperate situation. So please don’t blame the Middle Ages for freeing slaves and elevating them to serf status or offering the desperate masses an improved life. Feudalism and the manorial system helped spread land ownership to a much more significant percentage of the population—many who had lived in cities now owned enough land to provide for their family.

Versions of the manorial system arose across cultures throughout tribal history—a natural aristocracy formed around more intelligent, harder-working, or better warriors. Also, many tribes congregated in extended families around the head patriarchs who acted as tribal leaders or lords. While very individualistic and libertarian, they were also family- and community-conscious, working together for the benefit of all by utilising shared land and equipment.

The Legacy of Feudalism

A “shell” of the medieval manorial system existed even under the Roman Empire. Slaves laboured on Roman senators,’ generals,’ and aristocrats’ large estates. Further, to ensure loyalty and military support Romans rewarded Frankish tribal generals for their military service by giving them their property or welcoming them onto a Roman-run estate. After Christianity and Frankish customs began to dominate, they freed the slaves who were transformed into serfs or peasants and welcomed as full members of the community, protected by customs.

Other former Roman and Frankish generals who owned large sections of land had peasants migrate to them for protection or due to a plague or poor harvest in search of a lord with land to work. As Rome decayed, it further raised heavy taxes, forcing many to flee from their land (and the tax), and unable to care for themselves, they became attached to an aristocrat who could pay the tax, and they worked a section of his land. Some joined a manor because of what it offered: protection, land, and security. Further, they would have no taxes they had to pay to a distant lord or king; they were now the men of the manor lord of their choice. After Rome fell, these estates became autonomously governed by the aristocrats.