The system of serfdom in Medieval England.

        The obligations a serf had to the lord of the manor without gaining personal benefit, was a clear disadvantage of serfdom. Traditionally, in other systems such as capitalism people are sufficiently rewarded for the amount of work completed, yet this was rarely the case in the system of serfdom. This usually meant extended work hours to maintain the demesne land while trying to adhere to his own land obligations which allowed him and his family to survive. The amount of work the serf had to perform for the lord’s demesne land is staggering in proportions. Many of the operations that were continuous throughout the year such as haymaking, reaping, taking down and putting up fences, erecting and maintaining walls and dykes, seasonal carriage and cartage, were all performed in some effort, by the serfs. In addition, ploughing and harrowing were services owed to the lord and assessed separately from their regular ‘work week’. Lords also had servants living at the manor all year round, specifically to help out with the daily chores. But the amount of strain put on the serf physically during times of extended work hours was in all probability, overbearing at the best of times. This is especially true during times of hay and corn harvests in certain areas of England, where serfs were commonly working from sunrise to sunset. Once the serf had completed his ‘week-works’ obligations to the lord, he also demanded a ‘boon’ service. This service demanded by the lord consisted of any excess work he needed done, regardless of the serfs obligations to his own dwelling and most notably, this was required during the busiest of times, harvest. It should not be surprising then that manorial documents have serfs portrayed as lazy workers like in the statement “Sometimes, not one, but a whole group of men failed to appear and so left the lord’s crop ungarnered”.

        The amount of freedom a serf had was considerably low. In the system of serfdom, the lowest of the serf was close to a slave in comparison of their freedom. Postnan suggests the difference of status between them was “slight” until the twelfth-century. The Domesday scribes prove that their economic function was the same with minor differences in personal status. Essentially, the serfs replaced the slaves regarding their work duties on the manor and their personal status, which was considerably low in the hierarchy of social class. Beyond the accounts of the Domesday scribes, the serf had significantly more opportunities in leading a better quality of life and the possibility of gaining their freedom. But the serfs still were left with little freedom of choice, even with the most personal of issues. The serf was unable to brew or bake where he wanted, grind his own corn, sell his own animals, give his own daughter in marriage, and countless other decisions, all of which had to be given the lord’s permission in order to proceed. The nature of the lord’s control over the serf persisted in a succession of money payments. Rent for his stretch of land was mandatory but so was additional payments known as “Tallage at will”. This payment was decided by the lord and could be required of the serf on more than one occasion throughout the year.  Further oppression upon the serf was administered by claiming his property after his death, known as a heriot. This action given by “the power of the lord” directly effected the family of the serf who were clearly disadvantaged to begin with yet, now had to deal with the loss of their provider. These oppressive demands of the lord caused the serf much hardship and severely deprived him in relation to the other social classes in Medieval England.

        The economic disadvantages of serfdom as a system in medieval England usually depended on the available resources of the manor. The lord had his demesne land and the peasants, who were either free or bound to the land (serf), shared the rest of the land between them. The serf was usually left with less than five acres and many times it was insufficient to feed him and his family. This resulted in having to extra work on the lord’s demesne land for a minimal wage. The lord would attempt to gain as many servile peasants as was customary in order to maximize his profits from their ‘free’ work. This was put to use most notably in the thirteenth century, when serfdom was thriving from new lands being colonized and land value had risen along with the population. This left the serf with smaller land holding’s and consequently less of a chance to survive in the system. Economically he could barely feed his family let alone try and earn enough cash so he could earn his freedom.

        Other disadvantages of serfdom arose within the class system that feudalism was based on. The peasantry was obviously a group oppressed by a higher nobility class, and this was the major motivation behind emancipation. Oppressing a class of citizens with a significant population traditionally leads to a rebellion, as was the case here with the peasant revolt of 1381. The alarming rate at which the peasantry was exploited, bears the reason of extreme unrest among their class. Once the revolt had taken place the system of serfdom in England began to dwindle, and by the fifteenth century, was virtually wiped out.

        The advantages of the serfdom system in Medieval England are obscure. Economically there was a clear advantage among the ruling class regarding land rights and income. The populace of the nobility thrived and they were the leaders of England which meant the wealth was allocated appropriately in terms of the country operating properly. Serfdom also gave economic structure to a society that had little before the eleventh century. Socially, the system demanded that citizens of all classes interact whether it was on the demesne land, manorial court, or in the towns. Fundamentally, the ruling class gained an advantage based on status which was used to administer the system of serfdom fittingly.

        Serfdom gave the lords an abundance of freedom in administering rates of pay, legislation within the manor, amount of peasants occupying the land, working hours, and other factors that effected the operation of the manor. If problems arose which disrupted the productivity of the manor, the lord was in a position to make corrections. This gave the manor a sense of stability and allowed it to be run efficiently. The advantage gained here is akin to the modern-day business example of a single boss in charge of the entire operation. The workers below him help to operate the business with their labour resources, but the boss manages the decisions based on effectiveness. Serfdom then, was an example of medieval society progressing as an economical entity furthering the evolution of a cash society. The lord’s became increasingly careful with the use of their resources in order to maximize productivity. 

The amount of available land during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was to a great extent a clear advantage in the system of serfdom. Many lords were colonizing new land which was used effectively to gain more revenue from production. The population was increasing considerably which meant more peasants and a surplus of labour. Many manors across England were yielding a large surplus in goods from their holdings which stimulated the growth of markets in the towns. The value of servile work was another advantage of serfdom. Little was spent on wages which in turn increased the profit margin of the yields. The lord’s were now interested in gaining the highest production possible from their tenants.

Serfdom gave many peasants an opportunity to survive in the harsh conditions of Medieval England. When the country was engaged in war, serfs were rarely called upon. The King was not satisfied with the fighting skills of the untrained peasant and felt their obligations to the lord’s land would be more profitable. This was an advantage gained by the serf because his chances of surviving war were little, thus he was granted a stay of execution. Many serfs were unskilled labourers and the probability of surviving in a town was slight. But if they proved they could survive in the town for one year and a day, the serf earned his freedom. Other peasants could pay a fixed amount to the lord which gave them the opportunity of freedom, so while the peasants were bound or free, their prospects of gaining a better life was achievable. But to many unskilled serfs, the proposition of farming a small land holding was more desirable then an attempt to survive on casual labour in the towns. This was evident during the thirteenth and early fourteenth century when paid labour was scarce in rural England as well as in the towns. Serfdom provided a steady flow of goods, although not much, for the peasant who would of unlikely succeeded in a paid labour situation. Manorial custom helped solidify the serf’s land holding and labour services so he was never in jeopardy of being left without land or work.

The disadvantages of serfdom overshadow the advantages, and evidence of this arrives from the system’s inability to thrive during the evolution of Medieval English society. These disadvantages laid the groundwork for the peasant revolt of 1381 and essentially caused the demise of serfdom in England. Very little has been written on the advantages of serfdom which serves as a reminder of its many weaknesses as a social and economic institution.

 

         

        

        

        

---