Social Changes in Medieval Europe: From Slavery to Serfdom

Terrible are these things! On a melancholy shore, I am becoming soulless, a dying slave. In the universe, I am utterly alone, before my eyes, My beloved is not, only a domineering master. They forbid me to weep, even to whisper; I have lost all the rights granted by nature; I feel myself subject to barbaric laws, To the fear unknown in the forest, to contempt. Since the third century CE, new social structures began to emerge. These societies were governed during the decline of the Roman Empire by wealthy landowners. Rather than slaves, these lords employed serfs—semi-free peasants. Even as early as the third century, human traders can be found. This slave trade became more widespread in later periods. Some documents indicate that a Saxon woman was valued at the price of a horse or a sword. Within this feudal environment, both free and enslaved people gradually transitioned into serfdom. Even those who were legally free remained bound to the land; if they attempted to leave, they were captured or punished. They could not marry free persons; their children and grandchildren inherited the same status. Technically, in some cases, they appeared to possess personal freedom, yet in practice, a new class emerged—semi-enslaved individuals tied to the land. Most peasants living under this feudal system were not slaves, yet neither were they fully free. These peasants constituted one of the most homogeneous social groups. In the town of Villemeuse, between 826 and 829, 10 percent of the population of 1,639 were recorded in documents as “servi”—that is, slaves or servants. In addition, there were 82 colonies. After the year 1100, peasants in Villemeuse were sold to monasteries as “servi.” There is a historical continuity between slavery and serfdom. From the ninth to the early thirteenth century, both roles were assumed by the same social category. During the time of Charlemagne and Philip Augustus, both could be said to have lived within the spiritual fabric of France. It may also be said that both arose from a single concept: freedom. Since ancient times, a decision dating to 484 CE permitted slaves to enter monasteries—though this was preferable only if done with the consent or knowledge of their masters. When abandoned, slaves reverted to their former status as servants. A slave could become a monk only after a three-year trial period and upon the master’s request, and could never return. Thus, everything remained dependent on the master’s will. Even as a monk, the former slave was required by his vow to leave the monastery. Popes, bishops, churches, and monasteries have always owned their own slaves. Even in earlier periods (590–604), the papal estates were permitted to use countless slaves. Later, laws were enacted to curb slavery, primarily by encouraging the marriage of slaves to Christians. Around the eighth century, near Paris, some owned 8,000 slaves, while St. Martin of Tours possessed 20,000. French kings frequently sent large numbers of slaves to the Church. During Charlemagne’s reign, clergy were granted the right to own two slaves—one male and one female. In some regions, churches attempted to demonstrate their wealth not by money but by the number of slaves they held. The Church’s political structure inherently supported feudalism, as ecclesiastical administrators could exert greater influence over the populace and secular authorities. Indeed, the Church itself possessed a vast feudal structure within the boundaries of Europe. Its most important revenues came from the products of its lands and from donations. These lands were cultivated until the twelfth century through the semi-free system of serfdom. A law enacted during this century declared: “The people who work the Church’s lands shall not pay taxes to the Church.” This contributed to the enrichment of the Church and the further impoverishment of the people. Church officials, aware of the conditions of slaves and freed persons, sought in early medieval church councils to prevent abuses against slaves and serfs; however, they were largely unsuccessful. An example is the cruelty inflicted by Duke Rauching, a Frankish noble. One of the most important sources on slavery in medieval European social life is Rauching’s own treatment of his slaves. Early chronicles, particularly from early medieval France, provide information on the rights lords held over their slaves: “Rauching, living in Godvin, inflicted unspeakable harm upon his slaves. He even killed one of them with a sword blow for shouting at him. One of his slaves had a female and a male slave whom he loved; they died for love. These slaves wished to be happy, but their master forbade them to marry. This situation lasted two years. Unable to endure it, the slaves fled and took refuge in a church. But Rauching captured the priest and demanded the return of his slaves, promising to forgive them. The priest replied: ‘You have great devotion and respect for God’s Church. I will not return them to you unless you swear to allow them to remain together permanently and cease all physical punishment.’ To this, Rauching responded: ‘They will never again be separated from me.’ Believing him, the priest returned the two slaves, ostensibly pardoned. But Rauching’s true intent soon became clear: he had a tree trunk carved so that human arms and heads could be squeezed into it. He placed this contraption into a pit three to four feet deep. He then shackled the female slave to the tree trunk. Unable to bear the sight, the male slave tried to rescue his beloved; Ra