Research Foundation of SUNY

Serfs and Serfdom: Words and Things

Author(s): Jnos M. Bak
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Review (Fernand Braudel Center), Vol. 4, No. 1 (Summer, 1980), pp. 3-18
Published by: Research Foundation of SUNY for and on behalf of the Fernand Braudel Center
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40240855 .
Accessed: 22/01/2013 05:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Research Foundation of SUNY and Fernand Braudel Center are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Review (Fernand Braudel Center).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review,IV, 1, Summer1980

An Essay-Review

Serfsand Serfdom:
Wordsand Things*

JdnosM. Bak

I think that if ears, tongues and noses were removed, shapes and
members and motions would remain, but not odors or tastes and
sounds. The latter, I believe, are nothing more than names when
separated from living beings But since we have imposed . . . special
names distinctfromthose of the other and real qualities ... we wish to
believe that they really exist as actually differentfrom those.1
- Galileo

An attemptto "review"The Transition

fromFeudalismto
the
Capitalism,2 republicationof the 1950-55debate between
Most ofthequandariespresentedherewereformulatedin conversationwithHeide
Wunder(Kassel), Ferenc Feher (Canberra),and mycolleague at U.B.C., Edward
Hundert(to whom I am also indebtedforthe motto);however,all the assailable
propositionsare due to myown ignorance.
1. Galileo (1957, 275-76).
2. Hilton(1976).

1980 ResearchFoundationof SUNY

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4 JdnosM. Bak

Dobb, Sweezy,and others,augmentedwitha fewadditional

pieces of morerecentdate, would not onlybe a considerable
projectofsummarizing summaries, but,I feel,also a somewhat
bizarreenterprise insofaras thevolumeitselfstartsoutwitha
book reviewand continueswiththereplyto it,withre-replies
to that, etc., ad infinitum. Ad infinitum, indeed, since the
debate has recentlyflaredup again,just afterthisrepublica-
tion,e.g.,in theexchangesbetweenRobertBrenner3 and some
old, as well as some new,participants.Surelytheissueis not
closed,and obviouslywillnotbe forsometime,sinceittouches
on such crucialmattersas theoriginsof thecapitalistsystem
(or world-system)and also on the immediatelyrelevant
questionofongoingtransformations intheformerperipheries
and colonies of the Euro-American"world". Still,the 1976
volumeeditedbyRodneyHilton,whoalso contributed a short
but pointedintroduction, does afforda kindof"intermediate
balance sheet,"howeverephemeralsuch an account-taking,
particularly as belatedlyas thismaybe. Consideringthatthis
journalemphasizesthe"transitory (heuristic)natureoftheor-
it
ies," may not be to
inappropriate presentsome comments
on
and thoughts thesepages.
To recapitulatebriefly, the debate properopened withthe
1950critiquebyPaul SweezyofMauriceDobb's 1946Studies
in theDevelopmentof Capitalismand theauthor's"Reply"to
it.4Following"A Contributionto the Discussion" by Koha-
chiroTakahashi,5whichwidenedtheissuebeyondthewestern
Europeanfocus,thetwooriginaldebatersoncemore"tookthe
floor" in 1953,6and were followedby Rodney Hilton and
Christopher Hill withbriefcommentson feudalsocietyand the
late medieval state respectively.7 All these were printedin
VolumesXIV, XVI, and XVII oi Scienceand Society,and also

3. See Brenner(1976) and Brenner(1977).

4. See Sweezy(1950) and Dobb (1950).
5. See Takahashi (1952).
6. See Dobb (1953) and Sweezy(1953).
7. See Hilton (1953) and Hill (1953).

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Serfsand Serfdom S

publishedas a bookletby Fore Publications. To thisfirst

roundbelongalsotheinsightful critical of
"Survey theDebate"
by GiulianoProcacciand the "Observations" on it by the
FrenchhistorianGeorgesLefebvre.8 The presentvolume
containsadditionalmaterial as well.RodneyHilton's"Capi-
talism-What'sin a Name" fromPast and Present9 was
addressed aboveallto non-Marxist economichistorians, such
as M. M. Postan and others,but toucheson the issues
involved.EricHobsbawm's "FromFeudalismto Capitalism"
andMauriceDobb'scomments withthesametitleinMarxism
Today aimed at reopening questioninthelightofmore
the
recent,thoughinconclusive, debateson feudalism in Soviet
Marxismanddiscussed avenuesoffurther inquiry.Thelastin
thevolumeis a studyby JohnMerrington on "Townand
Country in the Transition toCapitalism,"1xdiscussingboththe
olderpositions ofDobb andSweezyandmorerecent detailed
researchby Marxistsand non-Marxists alike. The specific
questionofhisarticleisnowregarded bymanyas perhaps the
mostcrucialone in theentiredebateon transition.
The debate,or ratherdebates,referto a wholeseriesof
relatedproblems, amongwhichthreeseemto standout:the
date and causes of the declineof feudalismthroughits
recurrent crises;the role of internaldynamicvs. "outside
forces"(towns,commerce) in thisprocess;and the puzzle
abouttheapparently longhistorical periodbetween"feud-
alismproper"and"full-fledged" capitalism.Being,as I am,a
medievalist,I shalltrytosharemyimpressions andquandaries
about only one aspect of the firstof these issues.While
rereadingthediscussion andtheaddedtexts,I becameaware
ofa lackofclarity intheuse oftheterm"serfdom". Withdue
respectto all participants,one cannot helpbeingoccasionally
struckby therepetition ofpat phrasesaboutthe"declineof
serfdom" andsimilar formulations, inspiteofmutualcritical
8. See Procacci (1956) and Lefebvre(1956).
9. See Hilton(1952).
10. See Hobsbawm (1962) and Dobb (1962).
11. See Merrington(1975).

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6 JdnosAf.Bak

commentson theproblematic natureofthetermsinvolvedand

of the processtheyare supposedto describe.Let us look at a
fewrandomsamples.
In his firstarticle,Sweezy, affirming his loyaltyto the
classicsofMarxism,summarizes theirallegedviewthat"bythe
15thcentury thesubstancehas largelygoneoutoffeudalforms
and that serfdomceased to be the dominantrelation of
productionthroughoutEurope."12He refersto Engels, to
whomin 1882"thealmosttotaldisappearance(Zurucktreteri)
of serfdom - legallyor actually- in the 13thand 14thcentu-
ries"13seemedcruciallyimportant. AssumingthatDobb would
also agree withthisclaim,he citesHill, who statedthat"the
importantthingis not the legalformof relationship between
lord and peasant,but the economiccontentof thisrelation-
ship,"14and chargesthembothwithstretching theconceptof
feudalismso faras to depriveit "of definitiveness."Dobb, in
his reply,refersto the influenceof the marketon social and
economicchangesin medievalagricultureand speaks of the
"intensificationof serfdom" or of a "strengthening" of
serfdom.15 Takahashi drew attentionto the "variationsand
gradations"ofthemedievalpeasants'lack offreedom.16 While
highly sensitiveto the complicatedterminologyof, e.g.,
Germansocial conditions,distinguishing betweenLeibeigene,
on theone hand,and Hrige,Besitzer,and trueowners,on the
other, and between Grundherrschaft and Gutsherrschaft,
Takahashistillfeelsfreeto write:"Sweezyholdsthatserfdom
came to an end in the 14 century.This is correct,forlabour
servicesactuallyhad been replacedby moneyrentsby that
time."17On theotherhand,hepointsoutthatthisdidnotmean
the end of feudalism.18 Hill bringsone major terminological
12. Sweezy (1950) in Hilton(1976, 48).
13. Cited by Sweezy(1950) in Hilton(1976, 48).
1947,citedbySweezy(1950) in Hilton( 1976,48).
14. FromtheModernQuarterly,
15. Dobb (1950) in Hilton(1976, 61).
16. See Takahashi (1952) in Hilton(1976, 70).
17. Takahashi (1952) in Hilton(1976, 83; italicsadded).
18. See Takahashi (1952) in Hilton(1976, 81).

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Serfsand Serfdom 7

problemto theforewhenhewritesthat"thenarrowbourgeois-
academicdefinition of'feudal'as a military term,ignoringits
social basis" and "equating the feudal state witha state in
whichserfdompredominates"has been refutedby Dobb. He
underlinestheimportanceofthisby a reductioad absurdum:
"If feudalismis abolishedwithserfdom,thenFrancein 1788
was not a feudal state; and there never was a bourgeois
revolution."19(Ironically,thismaynotsoundas "absurd"now
as it probablydid some twenty-five yearsago, since recent
discussionshave seriouslyquestionedthetraditionallabels of
class characterattachedto theAncienRgimeand theFrench
Revolutionrespectively. But thatis anotherdebatewhichwe
do not wishto discuss here.) Procacci, summarizingDobb,
speaks of "the disintegration of typicallyfeudalrelations(for
example serfdom)."20Hilton, in his 1952 article, again
emphasizedthat"landlordswho continuedto take rentfrom
peasants by non-economiccompulsion,"whateverthe form
may have been, "did not yet alter the class relations."21
Hobsbawm's 1962 article called attention to regional
differences,whichpromptedDobb to pointout again that"It
has beena commonmistake... to identify thedeclineoflabour
rent (by commutationto moneyrent) with the decline of
feudalismitself."22
And last but not least, there is the splendidlylaconic
introduction byHilton.For him,the"definition ofserfdom" is
thefirstproblemto be solvedin thiscomplexdebate,and he is
readyto offerone.23The crucialsentenceofitis that"theterm
'serfdom'... is oftenunnecessarily ambiguous,an ambiguity
which seems to be derived from non-Marxisthistorical
research."24Hiltonthenproceedsto describethedevelopment

19. Hill (1953) in Hilton(1976, 121).

20. Procacci (1955) in Hilton(1976, 130; italicsadded).
21. Hilton(1952) in Hilton(1976, 151).
22. Dobb (1962) in Hilton(1976, 166,n. 1).
23. See Hilton,"Introduction"in Hilton(1976, 13-17).
24. Hilton(1976, 13).

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8 JdnosAf.Bak

of differehtformsand modesofpeasantstatus- usingBloch's

studiesas wellas hisownand thoseofBoutrucheand Duby-
fromthe early Middle Ages to the twelfthand thirteenth
centuriesand concludesthat,although"thisis not theend of
the complex historyof feudal rent. . . the term'serf was
disappearingso thatfewpeasants so called were leftby the
middleof the 12thcentury."25
A seriesof naive questionscomes to mindwhenone reads
thesepassages: What kindof notionis this"serfdom"?Is it a
"legal form",a "legalor actual"condition,something thatcan
be "strengthened" or "intensified"(or something that either
or
prevails not)? Is itone of severalfeudalrelations(sinceitcan
be referredto as an "example"), or is it an essentialclass
relation,regardlessof the actual formof the noneconomic
compulsion?Further:Did it "recede"(as I should preferto
translateZurucktreteri) or declineor end in theearlytwelfth
(Hilton), the thirteenth-fourteenth (Engels) or the fifteenth
(Marx and Engelsaccordingto Sweezy)- or whichcentury? It
may be noted thatthe timespan between thesedates, some 350
years,is longerthantheentireage ofcapitalism,commonlyso
called,up to now! Is thereanyessentialdifference betweenthe
-
wordsused here withoutnow addingthequestionof trans-
lation- e.g., betweenservi (of the Latin charters),the serfs
bound to renderchevage(Bloch, quoted by Lefebvre),the
Leibeigene,the Hrige, and the serfsad glebam adscripti?
AlthoughI pickedand chose at randomfromthearticlesand
the textstheyreferto, I do not wishto implythatall thisis
carelessnessor sloppyquotation.Quiteto thecontrary! Ifsuch
questionsemerge in the mind of any reader, while studying
textswrittenbytheleadingauthorities-one maycall someof
them"classics",- thenperhapsthe termsand theircontents
are less unequivocalthan one mightwish.
Some of the answersto thesequestionsmay indeedlie in
that"ambiguoususe" of theterm"serfdom"to whichHilton
referred.This "ambiguity"has quite a lot to do with the
developmentofscholarshipinsocialand economichistory and

25. See Hilton (1976, 17).

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Serfsand Serfdom 9

in thesocial sciencesin general.Onlyan extensivecollectionof

theevidencefroma verywiderangeoftexts,combinedwiththe
analysisofall knownusageswouldprovidea basisfora critical
Begriffsgeschichte of "serf", "serfdom",and relatedterms.
But perhapstwo significant setsof meaningand usage can be
highlighted even without such a systematic approach.Briefly,
thereis a medievalusage,referring to distinct,
particularforms
of dependenceand another,modernone, based on gener-
alized, criticalscholarship.The two should not be confused,
buttheyoftenare. The firstbelongsto thesphereofempirical
research,the second to scholarlysynthesis.Historianswere
taughtby thenineteenth-century mastersof thecraftto build
theirimageof thepast on thebasis ofcontemporary evidence
and elaborateit in thetermsofthese"primarysources",using
wordsand conceptsfromtheperiodtheystudy.This led to a
moreor less rigorousavoidance of anachronismsand "mod-
ern"terms,and somewriters attemptedto abandon altogether
all notionsthatcould notbe foundexpressisverbisinmedieval
texts,such as "state",or "nation"or,forthatmatter,"feudal-
ism"itself.Thisruleofcriticalstudyaided in theassemblyofa
great treasureof reliableevidenceon, among othertopics,
local, regional,and temporalvariantsofdifferent groupsand
estatesin medievalsociety,and on the namesgivento them,
includingthosedenotingthe"tiesof dependence"(M. Bloch)
betweenpeasantsand landlords.To be sure,thewordsservus
(serf)and Leibeigener(personallyunfree),thetermsmostfre-
quentlyused by modernsocial scientists,are to be foundin
thoseverysources.However,and thisis mostimportant, they
are onlytwoofmanyothernamesdesignating peasantssubject
to seigniorialpower.The choiceof wordsby medievalscribes
was by no meansconsistent, and it has been pointedout that
thereis no one termthatcan be regardedas thenameformedi-
eval serfspar excellence.I doubtthatit would be possibleto
stateforall partsofEuropewhether a gradualuniformization,
or rathera differentiation,can be observedoverthemedieval
centuries,and thisreflects reasonablywelltheactualdiversity
ofpeasantstatusevenwithinrelatively smallareas.In thiscon-

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10 Jnos M. Bak

text,hence,"serf and Leibeigenerretaintheirspecificquality,

based on the evidenceof the records.
But the social scientistcannot stop at this point of data
gathering.As Marx put it: "It is the task of researchto
assimilatethe materialin all details.. . . Once thishas been
accomplished,the real movementscan be presented(darges-
tellt)" And he adds: u[T]heformof presentation willhave to
from of
be different that research."26 It was in thecourse ofthis
"different form"of presentation thata secondsetofmeanings
was attachedto sometermsfoundintherecordsofthepast.It
is significantthatpoliticaleconomistsand othersocial scien-
tistslike Engels,Marx, and others,chose certaintermsfrom
thegreatnomenclatura ofmedievalnamesofstatusinorderto
denominateand characterizethe exploitedclass in the his-
torical period which theysaw as a clearlydefinedage of
seigniorialdomination,or feudalism.It would surely be
possible to establish,based on an extensivestudy of the
literatureof the eighteenthand nineteenth centuries,which
particular authors suggested thechoice of serf/Leibeigenerto
the
designate general condition of medieval peasants.It may
sufficeto statethat by the midnineteenth centurythisusage
was reasonablygeneral.As Hiltonpointsout,inregardto that
otherproblematicterm,feudalism:"Marx's contemporaries,
whilenot necessarilyagreeingwithhisanalysisof theessence
offeudalism,would haveknownwhathewastalkingabout."27
One mayassumethatthisholdstruefortheothertermsunder
reviewas well.Thus itwas in thiscontextofpoliticaleconomy
and criticalDarstellung,as opposed to detailedresearch,that
thesecondsetofideologicallysignificant meaningsdeveloped,
attached,as we saw, to onlyone or two ofthemanymedieval
terms.They were and are used to designatea "class", in
contrastto specificgroupsor strataof producerswho were
subject to distinctlegal and social conditions.This critical,
synthesizing usage became partof a vocabularyreflecting an
overallview of the historyof society.

26. Marx (1890, xvii; mytranslation).

27. Hilton (1976, 30).

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Serfsand Serfdom 11

The historyand ideologicalconnotationsof thesegeneral

terms of class analysis are certainlywell known to the
participants ofthedebate,yetthetwosetsofmeaningsare not
consistentlydistinguished.Let me add that the medieval
"imprecision" cannotbe "blamed"forall themix-up."Feudal"
and "feudalism",neologismsoftheeighteenth did not
century,
fare better. As we know, their meaning was subject to
expansion and contraction:originallypolemicalagainst the
Ancien Rgime, "feudal" became, in the age of Marx, a
"commonlyunderstood"term,only to be successivelyre-
definedand scrutinizedbyhistoricalscholarshipsincethelate
nineteenth century,down to our own times,whenno "com-
mon"understanding can be foundat all. Differentdisciplines
and different schools of thoughtwill describefairlydiverse
social realitiesby thisterm,and the confusionhas reacheda
pointwheresome historicanswishto abandon altogetherits
use in respectablescholarship.
A small, but significantsegmentof the debate around
serfdomwouldbe resolved,ifonlyto thedegreethatonecould
consistently distinguishbetweenthe two usages. This would
mean that the social relationship,which, as Hilton aptly
summarized, is "theessenceofthefeudalmodeofproduction,"
namely that one "in whichthesurplusbeyondthesubsistence
of the [peasantfamily],whetherin directlabour or in rentin
kindor in money,is transferred to the[landowners]"28 should
be termed"serfdom"in thegeneral,synthesizing senseof the
word- and onlythat.One maycapitalizeit,orglossit,inorder
to makeitclearthatitis usedas a categoryofsocial- precisely
of"class"- analysis.On theotherhand,thenumerousdiscrete
formsof peasant dependenceshould be, in compliancewith
the rules of critical historicalscholarship ("research" in
contrastto "presentation", as Marx wouldputit),based on the
details of inquiryinto the sources fromthe Middle Ages,
termedLeibeigenschaft, villainage,servilitas,serfdomin par-
ticular- or whateverthe case may be. (While writingthis,I
cameacrossa recenttextbookchapterbyZsigmondP. Pach,in

28. Hilton(1976, 30).

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
12 Jnos Af.Bak

whichhe actuallyproceedsin thismanner;true,it is easierto

be aware of the dangers inherentin inappropriate"trans-
lation"whenone writesin Hungarian!)
It is,namely,thesespecificand diverseconditionswhichare,
I suspect, subject to "strengthening", "receding",to being
different in one countryfromanother,and to beingmoreor
lessvalidforcertaingroupsindifferent periodsofthemedieval
feudalsociety.The "decline"of theseparticularformscan be
postulatedaccordingto the actual study of charters,legal
records,custumals,etc., They describestatusand legal con-
dition.Some referto personalfreedomor "unfreedom", some
to holdings,someto merejurisdictional, someto basicallyeco-
nomicdependence.The minutiaeofchangemaybe fairlywell
noticeablein thesedifferent aspects.However,if we wishto
retaina generaltermas a heuristic and criticaltool ofanalysis
(and Darstellung), we shall have to stickto theabove quoted,
apparently "wide" definition, offered byHilton.Thiscategory,
in contrastto thespecifictermsforstatus,is eithervalidforthe
basic social relations,i.e., feudalones, or not. It cannot"re-
cede" verywell;itcan onlychangeintowage-labor(capitalist)
or othersocial relations,butshouldbe clearlydefinableas pre-
vailingor not. Sweezy may, however,be rightthatwe shall
herebydescribea historically and, probably,geographically
muchmoreextendedarea thanbythespecificusage originally
borrowed from legal historians;but should this surprise?
Should we believethata termthatgraspsessentialsof one of
the major social formationsof humanhistorywould be valid
onlyfora fewcenturiesand onlyin one cornerof Eurasia?
Having said all thisin a simplifiedfashion,I admitto not
beingsatisfiedwithsucha "semantic"solution.I suspectthat
theissueat thecore ofthequestionis notonlythe"ambiguous
use" of the termby historiansand social scientists,but the
genuinelyambiguous contentof the notion. Even without
embarkingon over-abstract theoreticalexcursuses,one may
riskspeakingofthedialecticsofthegeneraland theparticular,
thatis,to positthatthetwomeaningsof"serfdom"arenotjust
two related,albeit clearlydiscerniblecategories,but rather
that the specificlegal formsof servitudeand the general

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Serfsand Serfdom 13

categoryof dependencyin thefeudalmode of productionare

historically closelyrelatedand cannotbe easilykeptapartby
disciplined discourse.
We may recallthatall theparticipants in thisdebate- and
otherswritingabout thesubjectas well- who wishedto keep
clear-cutlinesbetweenlocal, accidentalformsand theessence
of feudal societypointedto the factthatthe manytypesof
"serfdom"differed mainlyin theirlegal and politicalarrange-
ments,i.e., in theform of "extra-economiccoercion."This
extra-economiccoercion is, however,as Marx has already
pointedout,theessentialfeatureof thesocial relationsin the
feudal mode of production.Thus the law and the different
structures ofpower(lordship,kingship)are integrated intothe
fabricof feudalsocial relationsin a waydifferent fromother
social formations,in particularfromcapitalism.While it is
probablycorrectto state that different formsof capitalist
privateorcorporateownershipofthemeansofproductionand
thevariedtypesof thebourgeoisstatedo not alteressentially
the wage-laborvs. capital relations,a similarargumentfor
feudalismwould not only be faulty,but actuallydifficult to
make. It would be faulty,because, as we have seen, the
differences in the relationshipbetweensmall-plotproducers
(or the communityof these) and large estate-owning feudal
lords lie only- or at least primarily
- in the realmof "extra-
economic"arrangements. It wouldbe difficult
to makesuchan
argumentsuccinctly,because the realmsof "economy"and
"noneconomy"werenotonlynotdistinguished inthemindsof
medievalpeople,but,I suspect,cannotbe clearlyseparatedin
retrospective, criticalanalysiseither.
While in capitalismthe essentialsocial relationsbetween
ownersof the means of productionand "owners"of nothing
but labor powerare realizedin the marketplaceand are not
subjectto qualitativechangesby legal,governmental, or even
politicalvariations(eveniftradeunionsand theworkingclass
movementin generalmaybringabout considerablequantita-
tive changes), such a distinctiondoes not hold water for
feudalism.It is a commonplacethatthroughthecenturiesof
the feudalage, the basic formof organizationof production

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
14 JdnosM. Bak

remainedthefamilyfarmofdependentpeasants(moreor less
incorporatedintovillagecommunities ofone sortor another).
Similarly, the foundations for the expropriationof surplus
remainedthe"extra-economic" claimsofthelordssecularand
spiritual,expressedmostlyin custom,tradition, law,ideology,
or, occasionally,in sheer militarypower and pillage. The
changesoccurredinthedifferent emphasisplacedon one orthe
othertypeoftheseclaims,i.e.,thevariouslegalarrangements,
shiftsin the formsof feudalrentcollected,the late medieval
growthof"centralizedfeudalrent,"or theintroduction ofnew
legalobligationsby landlords pressedbydiminishing returns.29
This beingthecase, we are facedwiththedilemma,whether
it is in any way usefulforhistoricalanalysisto designatethe
forcesoflaw and military poweras "extra-economic" elements
in thefabricofmedievalsociety.The abstractionofthefactors
of lordshipas "extra-economic"fromthe landlord-peasant
relationshipleaves us witha modeloffeudalismin whichthe
actualleveroftheexpropriation ofsurplusis missing.Without
therelevantlegalarrangements (bywhichI meanthedegreesof
personal freedom or unfreedom,obligationson the land,
jurisdictionaland militarypower, etc.) the feudal social
relationshipdoes not make sense. Thereforemy semantic
argumentpresentedat some length above, proves to be
insufficient: the details of such "formalarrangements"as
Leibeigenschaft, villaintenure,censualitas,servitudo,and all
the rest belong to the very core of the feudal mode of
productionas they,and only they,defineboth formand
legitimation of expropriation.
If,therefore, we have to admitthedetailsof legal arrange-
mentsas crucialelementsof feudalsocial relations,thenthe
"ambiguities"surroundingthe use of the (legal) term"serf-
dom" cease to be a questionof properanalyticdiscourseand
becomeinsteadtheverycontentsoftheproblem.Relationsnot
foundedin thesphereofproduction,as is thecase inthefeudal
lordvs. dependentpeasantsituation,do notnecessarily haveto
be describedas "extra-economic", implying theexistence ofa

29. See Bois (1976, 351-56)forthe best recentsummary.

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Serfsand Serfdom 15

clearlydefinedsphereof social realityas "economy"thatis

distinctand relativelyindependent ofotherfunctions,e.g.,law,
politics, armed force, etc. In feudal societies no such dis-
tinctionsexist. It seems to belong to the veryessence of
capitalismto separate the relationshipsof productionand
expropriation fromthoseof"civic"(i.e., legal,constitutional,
but also ideological,ecclesiastical,etc.) relations.One may
be temptedto contrastthe medievalvillage and the urban
craftsman'sworkshop,where"living"and "producing"were
not separated in termsof locale, withthe typicalsetup of
capitalism,wherethe factoryis the place of productionof
commodities(and of surplusvalue,i.e.,exploitation),and the
rowhouseoftheindustrial citiesis notonlythelocusoflifeand
reproductionof labor power, but also of civic association,
church,and other"noneconomic"matters.I am, of course,
referring to a well knownissue thathas been adumbratedby
Marx (e.g., in his Contributionto the Critiqueof Political
Economy)and succinctly summarizedby Lukcs "The fetish-
isticcharacterof economicforms,thereification ofall human
relations[in capitalism]. . . transform thesocial phenomena
and simultaneously theirperception.'Isolated' facts,isolated
complexesof factsand autonomousspecial areas (economy,
law, etc.) emerge."30 Marx as wellas Lukcs demandfromthe
criticalpoliticaleconmistthathe overcometheseseparations
and proceedto theanalysisof the totalityof social relations
and theiressence. It may thereforebe a major misunder-
standingin Marxistscholarshipto insiston "finding"those
veryautonomousareas, whichcharacterizethe reifiedcapi-
talist relations,in othersocieties.Karl Polnyi's works on
noncapitalistsocietiesalso suggestthatforthestudyoffeudal
social relations,and otherprecapitalist modes of production,
suchdistinctions as "economic"and "extra-economic" do not
makeas muchsenseas we wereused to assume.I am awareof
thefactthatbysuggesting this,I questionthevalidityofsome
othercrucialcategories,suchas productiveand unproductive
laborand even(at leastpartially)"base" and "superstructure",

30. Lukcs (1923, 19).

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
16 Jnos M. Bak

forthefeudalmodeofproduction.At anyrate,in reference to

our topic,"extra-economic" coercionis betterplaced between
quotationmarks,as the "economic"spherecannotbe neatly
separatedfromthelegal and ideologicalone. The lord'scourt
ofjusticeand thepriest'spulpitwereintrinsically connectedto
thearrangements betweenthecrop-growing peasantcommuni-
ty and the landlordswho collectedfeudalrents.This propo-
sitionimpliesthatalthoughit may be helpfulto distinguish
betweenthe many kinds of dependenceand unfreedomto
whichmedievalpeasantswere subject,the debate cannotbe
solved merelyby concentratingon an abstract"socioeco-
nomic"relation.The fluidityof the borderbetweenwhatwe
perceiveas "economic"and "extra-economic" demandsthat
thelegalarrangements be an integralpartofthesocialanalysis,
because no valid distinction can be drawnbetweentheseand
the"socioeconomicrelationsproper."
This would mean thatthe different changesfromtheearly
medieval,personallyunfree,servilestatus- the "decline of
serfdom"of the legal-constitutional historians- modifythe
feudalsocial relationstoa considerableextent,buttheyshould
not be mistakenforthe end of "serfdom",in thesenseofthe
essentialsocial relationshipbetweendependentpeasantsand
landlords.It also means,however,thatthestudyof medieval
lordship,jurisdiction, and otherfunctions ofthe"state"cannot
be separatedat anystage from theanalysisofthefeudalmode
of production.One may note here that many studentsof
feudalismand its transformation feltthe need forintruding
"politics"into their socioeconomic analysis(morethanthey
would have done for study capitalism),e.g.,in theform
the of
of postulatinga "class-like"characterforthefeudalstate(as
Brenner),or by grantingthe changes in domination(the
"statism"of Wallerstein)a significant rolein thetransition.I
believethat a more refinedanalysisof thefunctionsof law,
government, and otherideologicalfactorsin feudal society,
based on the premisethatthedefinition of"extra-economic"
elements is at least questionable, would yield important
insightsintothe issues underdebate.
In this lightit seems,therefore, that neitherthe detailed
argumentoftheempiricalsocial historiansabout thelocal and

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Serfsand Serfdom 17

temporal ofdependency,
variants norsomeofthegeneralizing
statements ofcritical dojusticeinthemselves
socialscientists to
thedialecticsofthemanyspecific formsof oneessential
social
relationshipinfeudalsociety andto thedifferentroutesofits
transformation to capitalism.Whilea carefuldistinction
between theparticular-descriptive
and general-analytical
terms
wouldalreadyhelpto refine futurediscussions,thedebates
raisewiderissueswhichmayleadtoa better understandingof
different societies
precapitalist and their If
development. my
randomcomments, howeversuperficial and tentativethey
mightbe, shouldelicitrepliesfrom those morequalifiedto
treattheoretical
issues,theymaycontribute todiscerning"real
qualities" behindthe "specialnames" we have imposedon
them, as Galileohas put it.

References
Robert Brenner,"AgrarianClass Structureand Economic Developmentin Pre-
IndustrialEurope,"Past and Present,No. 70, Feb. 1976,30-75.
RobertBrenner, "The OriginsofCapitalistDevelopment:A Critiqueof'Neo-Smithian
Marxism,** New LeftReview.No. 104,July-Aug.1977,25-92.
Guy Bois, Crisedufodalisme(Paris: Pressesde la FondationNationaledes Sciences
Politiques,1976).
MauriceDobb, "A Reply,** Scienceand Society,XIV, 2, Spr. 1950,157-67;reprinted
in Hilton(1976), 57-67.
Maurice Dobb, "Commentson ProfessorH. K. Takahashi*sTransitionfromFeu-
Scienceand Society,XVII, 2, Spr. 1953,155-58;reprinted
dalismto Capitalism*,**
in Hilton(1976), 98-101.
Maurice Dobb, "From Feudalismto Capitalism,**
Marxism Today,VI, Sept. 1962;
reprintedin Hilton(1976), 165-69.
Galileo Galeilei, The Assayer(1623), in StillmanDrake, ed. & trans.,Discoveries
and Opinionsof Galileo (New York: Ann Arbor,1957).
ChristopherHill, "A Comment,** Science and Society,XVII, 4, Fall 1953,348-51;
reprintedin Hilton(1976), 118-21.
RodneyHilton,"Capitalism- What'sina Name?,**
Pastand Present,No. 1.Feb. 1952,
32-43;reprintedin Hilton(1976), 145-58.
Rodney Hilton,"A Comment,** Science and Society,XVII, 4, Fall 1953, 340-48;
reprintedin Hilton(1976), 109-17.
Rodney Hilton,d., The Transition
from Feudalism to Capitalism(London: New
LeftBooks, 1976),including"Introduction,**
9-30.

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
18 Jnos M. Bak

Eric HobsbaWm,"From Feudalismto Capitalism,"MarxismToday,VI, Aug. 1962;

reprintedin Hilton(1976), 159-64.
La Pense, n.s., No. 65, janv.-fvr.1956,22-25;
GeorgesLefebvre,"Observations,**
in Hilton(1976), 122-27.
reprinted
GyrgyLukcs, Geschichteund Klassenbewusstsein (Berlin,1923).
Karl Marx, "Preface,** Das Kapital (Hamburg,1890),2nd. ed.
John Merrington, "Town and Countryin the Transitionto Capitalism,** New Left
Review,No. 93, Sept.-Oct. 1975,71-92; reprinted in Hilton(1976) 170-95.
GiovanniProcacci,"Du fodalismeau capitalisme,** La Pense, n.s., No. 65, janv.-
fvr. 1956, 11-21; orig. publ. in Societ, XI, 1955, 122-38;reprintedin Hilton
(1976), 128-42.
Paul M. Sweezy,"A Critique,** Science and Society,XIV, 2, Spr. 1950, 134-57;re-
printedin Hilton (1976), 33-56.
Paul M. Sweezy,"A Rejoinder,"Science and Society,XVII, 2 Spr. 1953, 158-64;
reprintedin Hilton(1976), 102-08.
Paul M. Sweezyet al., The Transition
fromFeudalismto Capitalism(London: Fore
Publications,n.d.).
H. KohachiroTakahashi,"The TransitionfromFeudalismto Capitalism:A Contri-
butionto theSweezyControversy,** Scienceand Society,XVI, 4, Fall 1952,313-
in Hilton(1976),
45; orig.publ.in Keizaikenkyu,II, 2,Apr. 1951,128-46;reprinted
68-97.

Postscript
It was onlyafterthecompletionofthemanuscript thatI readthesplendid"seman-
tic**inquiryof Rgine Robin on the meaningof "fief*and "seigneurie,** "Feif et
seigneuriedans le droitet l'idologiejuridique la findu XVIIIe sicle**
[originally
publishedinAnnaleshistoriquesde la rvolution franaise,XLIII, 206,oct.-dc.1971,
554-602; reprintedin the fine collectionof papers Feudalismus: Materialienzur
Thorieund Geschichte,eds. L. Kuchenbuch& B. Michael (Frankfurt:Ulistein,
1977)].This articleand such enterprises as the"Lexique multilingue des principaux
termesrelatifs compiledbyJacquesGodechotand SuzanneMoncassin
la fodalit,**
in L'Abolitionde la fodalit"dans le mondeoccidental(Paris: ditionsdu Centre
Nationalde la RechercheScientifique,1971),II: 889-934,are significantstepstoward
thatclarificationwhichI have foundwanting.Actually,theeditors*commentsand
summaryin theabove mentionedreader,Feudalismus,also raisemanyof theissues
discussedin myreviewand, in manyrespects,go beyondwhat I was able to do.

This content downloaded on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 05:21:49 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions