Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Duke University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Hispanic
American Historical Review.
http://www.jstor.org
Hispanic An wrican Historical Review
64(l), 1984, 121-134
Copyright ?) 1984 by Duke University Press
American Feudalism
RUGGIERO ROMANO
Translationof this article was made possible by a grant from the Conference on Latin Ameri-
can History of the American Historical Association.
i. See Ruggiero Romano, "Vincenzo Russo e gli estremisti della republica napoletana
del 1799," in Atti dell'Academia de Scienze Morali e Politiche della societa Nazionale de Sci-
enze, Lettere edArti in Napoli (Naples), 64 (1952), 3-4; also republished in Romano, Napoli:
Dal viceregno al regno (Turin, 1976), pp. 265-317.
122 HAHR I FEBRUARY I RUGGIERO ROMANO
My work on Russo forced me into the study of feudalism. Russo had said
that while it may have been all very well to have eliminated juridical
feudalism, that did not resolve the problem of economic feudalism, which
still survived. The Neapolitan Republic of 1799-in spite of the presence
of French armed forces-was extremely short-lived, being destroyed by
Bourbon armies. The Bourbon armies, however, were nothing more than
masses of peasants, infuriated with the good bourgeois republicans who
had pretended to offer them liberty, equality, and fraternity. Polemics (or
discussions) about the fundamental reasons for the collapse of the re-
public were prolonged and resulted in the appearance of some of the most
extraordinarybooks I have ever read. One, Saggio storico sulla rivoluzi-
one napolentana del 1799,2 by Vincenzo Cuoco, contains an analysis of the
collapse-based on a distinction that certain of today's would-be revolu-
tionaries would do well to consider. Cuoco maintained that the Neapoli-
tan revolution was "passive"rather than "active."The passivity of the rev-
olution hinged not only on the fact that republicanism had been forced on
the people by a foreign army, but also on the fact that the republican rev-
olutionary program did not take into consideration the necessities of the
conquered. This lack of adaptation to local circumstances brought the
problem of feudalism to light again.
All that is by way of pointing out that by the time I was twenty years
old, I found myself face-to-face with the problem of feudalism-even
though I was studying late eighteenth-century Europe.
Subsequently I switched to Venetian history-concentrating on the
problem of naval construction. Was Venice a feudal city in the sixteenth
century? Of course not. But if we go from the lagoon to terra firma (not to
speak of Candia or Cyprus), can we really be expected to believe that
Venice's victory over the CambrianLeague was due solely to its extraordi-
nary military (and financial) efforts? No. It was something more. The no-
bles of terra firma-feudal lords-allied themselves with imperial forces
and the French. The peasants, on the other hand, fought to the cries of
"Marco!Marco!"-in the hope, which was not to be realized, of achieving
freedom. Once again, we find a series of contradictions in which feudal-
ism still appears.
Next, I studied eighteenth-century Marseilles. Certainly there was no
feudalism there. But while treating commerce and the price of wheat, I
was obliged to go into the countryside. Again I discovered feudalism.
Next I worked on Livorno, in collaboration with E Braudel. To be sure,
there was no trace of feudalism in Livorno. There was an abundance of it
in Tuscany.
2. Vincenzo Cuoco, Saggio storico sulla rivoluzione napolentana del 1799 (Milan, i8oi;
German ed., 1805; French ed., 1807).
AMERICAN FEUDALISM 123
ii. Another classic work is Jos6 Antonio Saco, Historia de la esclavitud de la raza af-
ricana en el nuevo mundo y en especial en los paises hispano amnericanos(vols. 4 and 5 of his
Historia de la esclavitud desde los tiempos mnasremotos) (Havana, 1938).
12. In Julian Guti6rrez Altamirano'senicomiendadecree dated June 3, 1566, the obliga-
tion "tener armas y caballo y servir a Su Majestad eni la guerra" is clearly stated; found in
Jos6 Toribio Medina, Colecci6n de documentos ineditos para la historia de Chile, 2d ser., 6
vols. (Santiago, Chile, 1956-63), I: 64.
13. See n. 9 supra.
14. German Colmenares, Cali: Terratenientes, mineros y comerciantes (Cali, 1975),
PP. 43-49.
15. Ricardo Donoso an-dFanor Velasco, La propiedad austral (Sanitiago,Chile, 1970).
126 HAHR I FEBRUARY I RUGGIERO ROMANO
21. Charles Gibson, The Aztecs under Spanish Rule: A History of the Inidiaons of thte
Valley of AMexico,1519-1810 (Stanford, 1964), pp. 231, 354, 384.
22. See Jose Maria Arguedas, El sueiio del pongo-Cuenta qutechua (Liimia,1965).
There is another edition of this work, published in Santiago, Chile, in 1970, with a record.
The reading is done by Jose Maria Arguedas, who had an uniforgettablevoice.
23. See the very important (and little known) anonymouislywritten, BureauiInternia-
tional du Travail, Les populations aborigenes: Conditions cle vie et de travail des poptulations
autochtones des pays independants (Geneva, 1953), esp. pp. 221-296, 329-444. Tllere is
also a Spanish-language edition.
24. Jean Meuvret, "Circulation monetaire et utilisation 6conomiquiede la moinnaiedans
la France du xvie et du xviiVsiecle," Etudes d'histoire inoderne et contemizporoiine (Paris), 1
(1947), 15-28; also republished in Jean Meuvret, Etudes d'histoire economique: Recueil
d'articles (Paris, 1971).
25. There has been little work on this topic and there is no comprehensive book about
the problem. Still, I would like to mention the importanitworks of Antonio Garcia, "El sala-
riado natural y el salariado capitalista en la historia de Am6rica,"AnutericaIndigena (Mexico
City) 8:4 (1948), 249-287; C. Garz6n-Maceda, Economiiiadel Tucundon:Ecotoimia natural y
128 HAHR I FEBRUARY I RUGGIERO ROMANO
this problem? With "currencies"of wood, leather, copper, lead, and soap,
"issued" by private individuals.26For example: if I had gone to buy a loaf
of bread worth one cuartillo in eighteenth-century Santiago de Chile, I
would have had to pay with a half-real coin, because the cuartillo was not
struck until 1792 and then in absolutely insufficient quantities. The
baker would then have given me a cuartillo's worth of bread and a token
that he had issued himself. This token, however, had no exchange value
outside the bakery. I would therefore have to use it to buy bread at that
bakery. 27
That was the least problem, however. The most important thing de-
rives from the fact that barter was the essential means of economic life in
the countryside. And let us not forget that the countryside was the es-
sence of economic life, and not only in America, at least until the nine-
teenth century.28
All this seems to me clearly confirmed for the entire colonial period:
let us say between the early sixteenth century and 1830.
What of the period after 1830? The problem becomes more interest-
ing at this point, because it offers the possibility of studying a concept
that-although it has often been touched on by historians and econo-
mists-has never been the object of precise analysis: I refer to the prob-
lem of transition.29Of course, I am acquainted with the innumerable
studies that have told us, with erudition and intelligence, about the birth
of capitalism. I refer to works from Pirenne to Braudel; from Sapori to
Luzzatto; from Tawney to Dobb; from Sombart to Strieder-not to men-
tion the new and innovative work of Wallerstein. I must confess that, with
the partial exception of Dobb, I am not overly convinced. And I am not
convinced for a very simple reason: all these authors, while writing about
capitalism, speak of a birth, but never indicate the parents of the child.
Let us leave aside the fact that the proposed chronologies (thirteenth, six-
teenth, and eighteenth centuries) are not convincing. It could be said that
the medievalists are for the thirteenth century, specialists of the sixteenth
century are for the sixteenth century, and modernists for the eighteenth
century. How long will it be before specialists of prehistory will speak to
us about the birth of capitalism in Neolithic times? For it must be recog-
nized that this capitalism that is constantly being born is not very convinc-
ing. What I find absolutely unconvincing, however, is the following fact:
the capitalism that these authors and all the others tell us about is born as
if by magic and we never find out to what degree the preceding feudal-
ism contributed-by some dialectic process to this "birth."In brief, we
do not observe the transition from one to the other. Of course, we have
recourse to something that might be understood as an indication of the
transition process: "precapitalism."I said: "something." In fact, I cannot
find a closer definition for this famous "precapitalism,"because it is nei-
ther a concept nor a category. It is only a word, "something"that does not
have great explanatoryvalue. I think it would be amusing to call this capi-
talism, whose birth everyone is so eager to locate, "postfeudalism."This
would be entertaining, but would not have any great meaning either.
With "words,"a problem may be dodged, but not resolved. And there is
something more: in the same way that specialists of European economic
history have concentrated their attention essentially on knowledge of cit-
ies, on the activities of the great ports, and on international trade, the
Americanists have overconcentrated their attention on urban history, the
history of mines, ports, and currencies (all of these seen in an extrinsic
fashion). And it is obvious that these types of studies automaticallylead to
the identification of riches and capital. But does capital imply capitalism?
The transition seems too abrupt. The feudal lords of the High Middle
Ages also had capital; the hacendados as well. The problem is that of the
nature of the capital: trade, banking, usurious, landed, or industrial. It is
only through exact definition of this renowned capital that capitalism itself
can be detected, in the sense we give the word today.
Furthermore, I am firmly convinced that it is impossible to speak
for any particular economic space of "capitalism"(or even "feudalism"),
without being precise as to what part of the economic space in question is
invested with this capitalism and/or feudalism. In other words, if in a
given economic space, (international) commercial life is designated as
mercantile capitalism and productive life is accounted feudal, why should
we define this space as a whole as "capitalist"?To proceed in this way is to
forget that the urban centers represent in demographic terms one-
or two-tenths of the whole population and that their activity represents
only a minimal part of all the transactions (of every type, from monetary
exchange to barter pure and simple) that take place at the production
level. And even more, this means forgetting that the value of great min-
ing and/or merchant transactions represent only a very small part of the
130 HAHR I FEBRUARY I RUGGIERO ROMANO
in Europe that had to come to terms with the problem of a lack of land,
which led to radical changes in its social and economic structures.
American "feudalism,"however, never experienced an unlimited sup-
ply of land.30 Its great problem was that of resolving the dilemma of there
being men without land and land without men, which was exactly the
problem posed by the end of the Roman Empire and the origins of
feudalism .31
c) This late American feudalism also had to contend with the external
"imposition" of capitalism. In other words, the development (or transi-
tion) of European feudalism was not influenced by external phenomena.
There was an endogenous development; only in the nineteenth century
was English capitalism able to influence developments in Italy, Spain,
Portugal, the Balkans, and Eastern Europe.
In brief, the two feudalisms (European and American) existed, but dif-
fered. Should this be surprising? Personally,I do not find it any more sur-
prising than the fact that a price, a salary, or a pension in London, Paris,
or Florence in the thirteenth century were not the same as a price, a sal-
ary, or a pension in these same cities in the eighteenth century or today.
One would have to be totally devoid of sociological, economic, and histor-
ical knowledge to be "surprised"by these differences. The price of wheat
in an economic space in which only io percent of the grains consumed
pass through the market is one thing, but the price in the same space, if
6o percent of the wheat consumed passes through the market, is another.
The same is true of wages. It is not the wage of a laborer or a mason
that matters, but rather the total wages paid in a given economic space. It
is obvious that if this total is less than the sum of the value obtained
through the agency of different types of forced (compulsivo)labor, the sig-
nificance of this wage is quite different from that of the wage that we may
find in an economy in which the total value of labor receives an equivalent
in cash.
To turn to another sector-consider the price of land. In the Ameri-
can context, we find land that has no price because it has no value. What
has "value" is not the land, but the building, the plants, the irrigation
works, the tools, and-especially-the mass of workers who are tied to it.32
If we do not keep these realities and differences constantly before us,
upon which flourish forms of social and economic organization that can
be defined as feudal (with the reservations and limitations that I have
brought out above).40
40. The books and articles cited in the pieceding notes do not constitute, and cannot
constitute, a complete bibliography. An entire group of names is missing (from F. Chevalier
to A. Jara, from Herbert Klein to D. A. Brading, from H. Bonilla to M. Burga, and so many
others). I would not want the reader to be left with the idea that there is nothing more to
read on this subject.