Villagers and Lords in Eastern Europe, 1300–1800

Pańszczyzna i przemoc. Historie literackie i wspomnieniowe z XIX wieku

“…W ostatnim czasie nowe badania nad pańszczyzną wskazały, że przyczyną powstania folwarku mógł być także wewnętrzny kryzys, a nie wyłącznie bałtycka koniunktura (Kowalewski,. Inni autorzy podważają natomiast oczywistość granicy na Łabie jako linii oddzielającej rozwinięte i zacofane rejony Europy (Cerman 2012) oraz zmierzają w stronę koncepcji nowego modelu pracy pańszczyźnianej, w którym chłopom przypisywano aktywną rolę. Prace te sygnalizują potrzebę mikrohistorycznych badań nad pańszczyzną -w miejsce badań długofalowych, w których znikają historyczne i lokalne różnice.…”

Rural Economies and Transitions to Capitalism:Germany andEngland Compared (c.1200–c.1800)

“…In Germany, the system of customary feudal dues remained in place, and in the wake of demographic decline, there were some efforts on the part of landlords to increase the burdens on their peasants and add more arbitrary labour services to natural and money rents. While these efforts did have some success in the east‐Elbian regions, this was generally the case only from the second half of the sixteenth century, until which point the status, property rights and living standards of peasants were normally still relatively good in comparison to regions further west (Wunder , ; Hagen , 89–116; Melton , 321–22, 326–7; Hoffmann , 353–69; Čechura , 109–29; Enders , 190–7, 318–45, 373–85, 392–416; Scott , 182–97; Enders , 147–56, 171–200; Cerman , 22–38). In southern Germany, by the late sixteenth century peasants tended to have factually secure and heritable tenure, few or no regular labour services ( corvée ) were owed, and despite a greater constriction of movement than was the case in England because of personal bondage, most rural people may have been less economically oppressed by specifically feudal burdens than they had been in the fourteenth century (Sabean , 19–35, 45–99; Rebel , 21–42; Rösener ; Wunder , ; Robisheaux , 28–36, 186–90; Scott , 153–82; Sreenivasan ; Blickle , 40–89, 111–31; Sreenivasan , 9–50; Scott ; Warde , 101, 105, 212).…”

“…Nevertheless, there remained a good deal of social differentiation and significant numbers of smallholders or landless even in the east. While in the years between 1550 and 1630 the lords' exploitation of the peasants by means of forced labour services increased, landlords also employed growing numbers of wage labourers, peasants remained (often quite extensively) involved in the market and a thriving rural industry expanded; although this was also largely under landlords' control, and producers' independent access to markets could be somewhat restricted, landlord‐controlled rural industry in regions such as Bohemia was dependent on a commercialized peasantry and sub‐peasantry as its market (Harnisch , 27–55, 127–41, 157–89; Hagen , 107–12; Melton , 322–3; Melton , 304–5, 317–18; Enders , 340–1, 389–92, 429–38, 442–3; Hagen , 60–2; Enders , 243, 246–7; Enders , 176–9, 216–20; Cerman , 87–8, 91). While labour services were reintroduced, and efforts were made to extract arbitrary fines, these were not always very successful, and increased labour services were often coupled with a reduction in rents (Hagen , 104–8; Enders , 396–400; Cerman , 248; Cerman , 70–3).…”

“…While in the years between 1550 and 1630 the lords' exploitation of the peasants by means of forced labour services increased, landlords also employed growing numbers of wage labourers, peasants remained (often quite extensively) involved in the market and a thriving rural industry expanded; although this was also largely under landlords' control, and producers' independent access to markets could be somewhat restricted, landlord‐controlled rural industry in regions such as Bohemia was dependent on a commercialized peasantry and sub‐peasantry as its market (Harnisch , 27–55, 127–41, 157–89; Hagen , 107–12; Melton , 322–3; Melton , 304–5, 317–18; Enders , 340–1, 389–92, 429–38, 442–3; Hagen , 60–2; Enders , 243, 246–7; Enders , 176–9, 216–20; Cerman , 87–8, 91). While labour services were reintroduced, and efforts were made to extract arbitrary fines, these were not always very successful, and increased labour services were often coupled with a reduction in rents (Hagen , 104–8; Enders , 396–400; Cerman , 248; Cerman , 70–3). Even in the early seventeenth century, while peasants were certainly oppressed and forced to perform labour services, their lands generally were not expropriated, the greater part of the land still remained in peasant hands, peasant holdings remained quite large and the peasants were able to obtain a surplus from their land beyond what was needed for payment of dues – and they used this surplus, often in the face of fines imposed by lords, in order to involve themselves in market relations, as both producers and consumers (Harnisch , 127–41, 157–89; Hagen , 113; Enders , 389–91; Ogilvie ; Cerman , 244–5, 252; Cerman , 58–61, 109–11).…”

“…While labour services were reintroduced, and efforts were made to extract arbitrary fines, these were not always very successful, and increased labour services were often coupled with a reduction in rents (Hagen , 104–8; Enders , 396–400; Cerman , 248; Cerman , 70–3). Even in the early seventeenth century, while peasants were certainly oppressed and forced to perform labour services, their lands generally were not expropriated, the greater part of the land still remained in peasant hands, peasant holdings remained quite large and the peasants were able to obtain a surplus from their land beyond what was needed for payment of dues – and they used this surplus, often in the face of fines imposed by lords, in order to involve themselves in market relations, as both producers and consumers (Harnisch , 127–41, 157–89; Hagen , 113; Enders , 389–91; Ogilvie ; Cerman , 244–5, 252; Cerman , 58–61, 109–11).…”