franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/31/85)
In article <5438@cca.UUCP> g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >In article <> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >>In article <28200419@inmet.UUCP> janw@inmet.UUCP writes: >>>No, this is not true of feudalism at all. Through the Middle Ages, >>>the amount a serf or a vassal owed his liege was supposed to be >>>*fixed* once and for all, from times immemorial. In practice, hu- >>>man memory being short, it changed quite a lot, but it changed by >>>*precedent*, not through arbitrary imposition. ... >> >>This was the theory. The practice was that the amount a serf owed his >>liege was so large that the relationship (maximum harvest) - (your tax) < >>(the minimum you need to live on) held. The serf would (illegally) withhold >>part of the harvest, to give his family enough to live on. In general, >>there was no effective way to withhold more than this amount, because the >>serf could not sell the excess. >> >This was more or less the case in earlier feudal times when liege lords >collected their due in kind. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries there >was a major shift. Towns had become more common and the cash market for >agricultural products had revived. There were mass freeings of serfs. >The obligations in kind were replaced by cash obligations which were >definite and fixed. "Heavy as these obligations might be, he was no >longer subject to the aribtrary will of his lord." The replacement of >obligations in kind by fixed cash rents had important consequences; >over time prices rose steadily (particularly after the black death in >the fourteenth century) to the profit of the peasants and the loss of >the lords. > >Reference: A History of the Middle Ages, Sidney Painter, 1958, Knopf, >pp 240-242. I would describe these changes as the end of pure feudalism, and the beginning of a mixed feudal/capitalist system, which evolved into the modern capitalist system. I would say the mass freeings of serfs are a strong argument for this point of view. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) (01/05/86)
In article <> franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) writes: >In article <5438@cca.UUCP> g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes: >>This was more or less the case in earlier feudal times when liege lords >>collected their due in kind. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries there >>was a major shift. Towns had become more common and the cash market for >>agricultural products had revived. There were mass freeings of serfs. >>The obligations in kind were replaced by cash obligations which were >>definite and fixed. "Heavy as these obligations might be, he was no >>longer subject to the aribtrary will of his lord." The replacement of >>obligations in kind by fixed cash rents had important consequences; >>over time prices rose steadily (particularly after the black death in >>the fourteenth century) to the profit of the peasants and the loss of >>the lords. >> >>Reference: A History of the Middle Ages, Sidney Painter, 1958, Knopf, >>pp 240-242. > >I would describe these changes as the end of pure feudalism, and the >beginning of a mixed feudal/capitalist system, which evolved into the >modern capitalist system. I would say the mass freeings of serfs are >a strong argument for this point of view. > At first sight this seems reasonable, but, upon reflection, I can't agree. It is certainly true that there was a major change in the high middle ages, but I wouldn't associatiate the term 'capitalism' with it. A better term might be mercantilism. The key factor in capitalism is the importance of capital as a factor of production. This did not occur until the industrial revolution. The money economy (such as it was) was a trading economy which is a precondition for capitalism. Richard Harter, SMDS.