In Ebon, the common people live on land allotted to them by the chief

who can take it from them at his pleasure. Every week they have, each

of them, to provide the chief with a fixed quantity of food.

In Mortlock, according to Kubary, social ranks do not exist.

On the isle of Kusaie the chiefs have unlimited power. The common

people are obliged to build houses and canoes for them and till their

lands; the chiefs may always seize the goods and command the services

of the people; the cocoanuts, which are rare, are for the chiefs alone;

they receive a certain proportion of all the fish that is caught

[1376].

In Yap, the lowest class (whom Gräffe wrongly calls slaves) are obliged

daily to provide the upper classes with agricultural produce, and

whenever the chiefs require it to aid in constructing houses and

canoes. Whatever they possess, even to their wives and daughters, may

at any time be required by the upper classes. Yet all labour is not

exclusively incumbent on them. They are only bound to definite taxes,

viz. to a tribute of victuals, and of mats and other materials for

housebuilding; and their “slave-state” consists rather in a low and

dependent condition than in being taxed with labour.

On the Marianne Islands there were three classes: nobles, semi-nobles,

and common people. The common people were strictly separated from the

nobles and entirely subjected to them. They were not allowed to

navigate or fish or take part in any other pursuit followed by the

nobles. Their principal occupations were tilling the soil, constructing

roads, building canoe-houses, making nets, carrying ammunition in war,

cooking rice, roots, etc. As they were forbidden to use canoes and

fishing implements, the only fish they could procure were eels, which

the nobles disdained; and even these they might only catch with the

hand, not by means of nets or fish-hooks [1377].

In Pelau, according to Kubary, there are no social classes; but the

wants of the chiefs are generally provided for by the work of dependent

relatives, who are treated as adopted children and may at any time

leave their employers. Semper, however, speaks of a despised working

class.

On the Kingsmill Islands, according to Parkinson, there are two

subjected classes. One is the class of the te torre, who live as

vassals on the lands of the great landholders; they get a small piece

of land for their own use; they must provide their lord with men when

at war, and bring him the number of cocoanuts he desires, and what he

needs for his household. The lowest class are the te bei or kaungo.

They have no property, no land to live upon; they live with the great

landholders by whom they are maintained; they on their part must work

for their lords, i.e. fish, prepare food, etc. The lord, by giving them

a piece of land, can raise them to the class of the te torre. These two

classes have no voice in government matters; they follow their lord

without grumbling; his will is their will; an offence against the lord

is regarded by them as a personal offence, and avenged as such.

Generally no one marries outside his class. In ordinary life there is

no difference between master and vassal; they drink, dance, and play

together; they wear the same kind of dress.

We shall inquire now what is the condition of the lower classes in

Melanesia.

Rochas states that in New Caledonia the common people enjoy a rather

independent position; they have to perform some services for the

chiefs, which chiefly consist in cultivating their lands; but they

always own a piece of land themselves. They are, however, sometimes

killed by the upper chiefs for cannibal purposes. Glaumont enumerates

the following classes: sorcerers, warriors, common people, slaves. But

he adds that the chief himself, however powerful, would not dare to

take away the field of taros or ignames belonging to the least of his

subjects. According to Brainne, there are two classes: numerous chiefs

of various kinds, and serfs, over whom the former, especially the

superior chiefs, have the right of life and death. Lambert, a good

authority, remarks that the only division of the people is that between

the chiefs and their relatives and the rest of the population, and

observes that those writers are wrong who speak of a class of nobles.

The chief is not allowed to dispose of the property of his subjects

[1378]. So it seems that the natives here are rather democratically

organized.

In Fiji, according to Williams, the lower classes were formerly heavily

oppressed. The chiefs looked upon them as their property, and took away

their goods and often even their lives; this was considered

“chief-like.” “Subjects” says Williams “do not pay rent for their land,

but a kind of tax on all their produce, beside giving their labour

occasionally in peace, and their service, when needed, in war, for the

benefit of the king or their own chief.” Waterhouse states that many

poor men could not procure a wife; they then borrowed one from a chief,

and so became his retainers. Fison, speaking of the inhabitants of

certain villages, says: “These are of the lowest rank, or rather of no

rank at all. They are kaisi, the descendants of “children without a

father.” They are vakatau ni were (husbandmen), but they are not yeomen

like the taukei. Neither the lands they cultivate, nor the town lots on

which they dwell are their own. They are not even tenants. They are

hereditary bondsmen, adscripti glebae, whose business it is to raise

food for their masters. Their lords may oppress them, and they have no

redress. In times of peace they must work for them and in war time they

must fight for them to the death”. According to Wilkes, “in each tribe

great and marked distinctions of rank exist. The classes which are

readily distinguished are as follows: 1. kings; 2. chiefs; 3. warriors;

4. landholders (matanivanua); 5. slaves (kai-si).” In another passage

he speaks of “the kai-si or common people”. In Jackson’s narrative,

quoted above, mention is also made of these kai-si or inhabitants of

“slave lands” [1379].

Codrington remarks: “In the native view of mankind, almost everywhere

in the islands which are here under consideration [Solomon Islands,

Santa Cruz Group, Banks’ Islands, and New Hebrides], nothing seems more

fundamental than the division of the people into two or more classes,

which are exogamous, and in which descent is counted through the

mother.... Generally speaking, it may be said that to a Melanesian man

all women, of his own generation at least, are either sisters or wives,

to the Melanesian woman all men are either brothers or husbands”

[1380]. This seems to be sufficient proof that a subjected and despised

lowest class does not exist; else the natives would not all be

“brothers” and “sisters”.

This conclusion is strengthened by consulting some other writers.

Guppy, describing the Solomon Islands, makes no mention of social

ranks. Elton states that the chiefs have little power [1381]. Nor have

we found in any of the other writers anything tending to prove that the

common people are oppressed.

Regarding the New Hebrides, Hagen and Pineau, after speaking of the

chiefs, state that the next class are the warriors, which rank can be

obtained by a payment of pigs. They make no mention of a despised or

oppressed working class. Inglis, as we have seen above, states that in

the isle of Aneityum “there is no large proprietor, no powerful or

wealthy chief; every man sits proprietor of his own cottage, his own

garden, and his own cultivated patches.” Turner, speaking of the isle

of Tana, says: “The affairs of this little community are regulated by

the chiefs and the heads of families”; and in Eromanga, according to

the same writer, the chiefs “were numerous, but not powerful”.

According to Ribbe, in the Shortland Islands (near Bougainville), the

chiefs have little power [1382]. From all this we may safely conclude

that social life in the New Hebrides is democratically organized.

In the Gazelle Peninsula of Neu Pommern wealth gives power; but there

is no social or political difference between the rich and the poor

[1383].

In the Nissan Islands poverty is unknown, as there is an abundance of

free land fit for cultivation. Social classes do not exist. There is no

nobility, unless the chief and his relatives be regarded as such

[1384].

Parkinson states that among the Moanus of the Admiralty Islands the

power of the chiefs is considerable [1385]. We do not, however, hear of

a subjection of the common people by the upper classes.

Haddon, speaking of the Western Tribes of Torres Straits, says: “Each

household is practically self-sufficient. So far as I could gather

there was no division of labour as between man and man, every man made

his garden, fished and fought” [1386].

Hunt, in his description of the Murray Islands, makes no mention of

social ranks.

Generally speaking, we may conclude that in Polynesia and Micronesia

there are lower classes destitute of land and entirely at the mercy of

the landholders, whereas in Melanesia such classes do not exist. This

agrees with our former conclusion, that in the two first-named

geographical districts all land has, or had been appropriated, which is

not the case in Melanesia. And if we consider the single groups of

islands, we find that wherever in Polynesia there is still free land

(Samoa, New Zealand), a more or less democratic régime prevails, and

where in Melanesia all land has been appropriated (Fiji) there is a

subjected lower class. In the same sense, Moerenhout, speaking of

Polynesia, remarks that, in the sparsely populated islands the chiefs

had little power, but wherever there was a dense population, wars were

frequent and the chiefs reigned despotically [1387]. There are, as we

have already remarked, a few exceptions to this general rule (Rotuma,

Pelau); but in these cases it is quite possible that a subjected class

formerly existed. For a great depopulation has taken place in Oceania,

especially in Polynesia and Micronesia [1388]; and the value of land

must have decreased together with the population. We have seen that in

Rotuma all land is still held as property, but large tracts are out of

tillage, though there are everywhere traces of former cultivation. In

Pelau too, as has been said in § 6, the rights of property are still

recognized, though there is but little land actually in cultivation.

That the class of people destitute of land tends to disappear when the

population decreases, is strikingly shown by the following statement of

Ellis’s regarding Tahiti: “Although the manahune [lowest class] have

always included a large number of the inhabitants, they have not in

modern times been so numerous as some other ranks. Since the population

has been so greatly diminished, the means of subsistence so abundant,

and such vast portions of the country uncultivated, an industrious

individual has seldom experienced much difficulty in securing at least

the occupancy of a piece of land” [1389].

This depopulation may perhaps also account for the discrepancy between

Semper’s and Kubary’s accounts of Pelau. Semper spoke of a despised

working class; but Kubary, who wrote several years after, stated that

there were no social ranks. It is quite possible that in the meantime

the population had been so greatly diminished, that every one could

obtain possession of a piece of land.

Ellis’s above-quoted statement also shows that there is a fundamental

difference between such lower classes as were found in Tahiti and

slaves. The former were not at all forbidden to provide for themselves,

and indeed, when the population had decreased, many of them began to

cultivate a piece of land for their own profit. But in former times

they were not able to do so, as all land was the property of the upper

classes. The lower classes of Oceania were proletarians who wanted

employment. The means of subsistence were the exclusive property of the

upper classes, and therefore the poor were wholly dependent on them. In

slave countries free labourers are not available, and therefore those

who want labourers have recourse to slavery; in Oceania the labour

market was overstocked, and therefore the poor eagerly asked the

landlords for employment even in the meanest work [1390].

There are some more details on record proving that labourers were not

wanted.

In Rotuma “Polynesian or Micronesian strangers, fa helav, were usually

married into different hoag, or adopted with the consent of all the

members of the hoag. A few Fijians and Melanesians have become fa asoa,

or helping men, of different chiefs; no women would have anything to do

with them, and no hoag would adopt them. They remained on the island as

long as they liked, and transferred their services as they liked; they

were treated as inferior members of the hoag, to which they gave their

services” [1391]. In a slave country these Melanesians, looked upon as

an inferior race and therefore not adopted, would have been eagerly

taken as slaves and prevented from escaping; but here it is quite the

reverse: they may stay if they like, but they may also go away if they

like; nobody wants them.

What Hale tells us of the inhabitants of Ponape is also very

remarkable. When it is feared that there will be over-population, some

of the lower orders with their wives and children voluntarily go away

in their canoes [1392]. If these lower classes were slaves, they would

not be allowed to emigrate; the masters would value them as their

property and prevent them from escaping. Such is not the case here;

they remove because there is no room for them.

We see that common labourers are little wanted in Oceania. Some kinds

of workmen, however, are much in request in some of these islands.

Mariner states that in Tonga the esteem in which the different trades

are held depends on their utility. Most people pursue the same trade as

their fathers did before them, because they have learned it in their

youth. This especially applies to those trades which are considered

most difficult and therefore highly honoured. There is no law obliging

a son to follow his father’s trade; but it is the custom; and the hope

of a high profit stimulates the energy of those who pursue a difficult

trade. The noblest trades are those of canoe-builder and undertaker of

funerals. They are followed by none but mataboles and mooas (2nd and

3rd classes), the tooas (4th class) being excluded from them. All other

trades are followed by mooas and tooas alike, except three which the

mooas consider beneath their dignity and therefore leave to the tooas:

those of barber, cook, and agriculturist. The latter two, the most

despised trades, are hereditary. Neither cooking nor cultivating

requires any particular capacities, everybody is capable of following

these pursuits, and those whose fathers were engaged in either of them

have no alternative but to continue in the same way. The esteem,

however, in which an individual is held, does not only depend on the

trade he follows, but on his ability in it. He who distinguishes

himself in a lower trade enjoys more consideration than he who

following a higher trade proves to be unqualified for it [1393].

We see that those trades which require no particular abilities are most

despised here, whereas skilled labour is highly honoured and performed

even by the higher classes.

In some more cases it is stated that skilled workmen are better paid

and more highly valued than unskilled.

In Tahiti the lowest class included those “who were destitute of any

land, and ignorant of the rude arts of carpentering, building, etc.,

which were respected among them.... The fishermen and artisans

(sometimes ranking with this class, but more frequently with that

immediately above it) may be said to have constituted the connecting

link between the two” [1394].

Wilkes states that in the Kingsmill Islands “the trade of carpenter is

held in great repute.” Professed tattooers are also highly esteemed and

well paid [1395].

In Fiji the carpenters formed a separate caste, called King’s

carpenters, having chiefs of their own, for whom and their work they

showed respect. Among the social ranks the 4th were distinguished

warriors of low birth, chiefs of the carpenters, and chiefs of the

fishers for turtle, the 5th were the common people [1396]. We see that

here too skilled workmen rank above the bulk of the people.

Skilled labour is thus highly valued in some of these islands. The

skilled workmen, so far from being slaves, are held in high esteem; but

those who have no peculiar accomplishments are obliged to perform the

rudest and most despised work. This applies especially to the

agricultural labourers. These are entirely dependent on the landowners,

and there are more of them than can be profitably employed. They much

resemble the proletarians of modern European countries.

The great significance of the appropriation of the land clearly

appears, when we consider a phenomenon frequently occurring among

savages: debt-slavery. Among some savage tribes there are rich and poor

as well as in Polynesia; the poor, however, do not apply to the rich

for employment, but are enslaved by them. Thus among the Tagals and

Visayas, in the time of the conquista, most slaves had become such by

being unable to pay debts they had contracted. If, in a time of famine,

a poor man had been fed for some days by his rich neighbour, he became

his slave. Sometimes the rich even placed a quantity of rice in some

conspicuous place and lay on the look-out; if then a poor man came and

ate of the rice, he was seized and enslaved [1397]. Such a thing would

never have happened in Polynesia, and the reason why is evident. Among

the Tagals and Visayas the poor were able, in ordinary times, to

provide for themselves they did not offer their services to the rich;

the latter had to avail themselves of such an opportunity as a famine,

to lay hands on them and compel them to work for them, not only during

the famine, but afterwards when, if free, they would have been able to

subsist independently of the rich. But in Polynesia the means of

subsistence are permanently in the hands of the rich to the exclusion

of the poor; therefore the rich need not compel the poor to work for

them, for they are always at their mercy. Among the Tagals and Visayas

the poor, though destitute of wealth, were not without resources: they

had the free land always at their disposal; and it was only in

extraordinary circumstances (e.g. when the harvest had failed) that

they were temporarily dependent on the rich. In Polynesia the poor are

destitute of land, and therefore permanently dependent on the

landlords.

Their state would even be worse than it actually is, were it not that

they are useful in another, non-economic way: they strengthen their

employers’ force in warfare.

In Tahiti “in times of war, all capable of bearing arms were called

upon to join the forces of the chieftain to whom they belonged, and the

farmers, who held their lands partly by feudal tenure, were obliged to

render military service whenever their landlord required it. There

were, besides these, a number of men celebrated for their valour,

strength, or address in war, who were called aito, fighting-men or

warriors. This title, the result of achievements in battle, was highly

respected, and proportionably sought by the daring and ambitious. It

was not, like the chieftainship and other prevailing distinctions,

confined to any class, but open to all; and many from the lower ranks

have risen, as warriors, to a high station in the community” [1398].

In Hawaii, “when war was declared, the king and warrior chiefs,

together with the priests, fixed the time and place for commencing, and

the manner of carrying it on. In the meantime, the Runapai (messengers

of war) were sent to the districts and villages under their authority,

to require the services of their tenants, in numbers proportionate to

the magnitude of the expedition” [1399].

In Samoa, as we have seen, those residing on land belonging to the

chief were obliged to stand by him in war and peace [1400].

In Tonga, according to Mariner, “the retinue of the upper chiefs

consists of mataboles or inferior chiefs (2nd class), and each of these

has under his command a number of mooas (3rd class), who constitute the

army of the upper chiefs. Some tooas (4th class) are also admitted into

this army, if they have given proofs of bravery” [1401].

In the Marquesas Islands the rank of a noble could be acquired through

acts of bravery [1402].

On the Kingsmill Islands the tenants must provide their lord with men

when at war [1403].

In Fiji, according to Williams, all men capable of bearing arms, of all

classes, took part in military operations; and Fison, as we have seen

above, states that the people of the lowest rank in war time had to

fight for their lords to the death [1404].

Concluding, we may remark that the facts observed in Oceania fully

justify our theory, that slavery is inconsistent with a state of

society in which all land is held as property.

§ 9. Transition from serfdom to freedom in Western Europe.

The conclusion we have arrived at is that the appropriation of the soil

is a factor of great importance in shaping the social life of

agricultural peoples [1405]. When all land is held as property, a class

of people destitute of the means of subsistence is likely soon to

arise; such people must seek employment and live on the wages they can

earn. But in countries where there is still free land, a class of free

agricultural labourers dependent on wages does not exist; therefore in

such countries the landowners often resort to slavery as a means of

procuring labourers. Generally speaking, slavery as an industrial

system can only exist where there is still free land.

If this theory is correct, it must hold not only with regard to the

simply organized societies of Polynesia and Micronesia, but also with

regard to civilized nations. Among such nations too slavery must

disappear as soon as all land has been appropriated. And as we know

that in Western Europe all land is now held as property and everybody

is personally free, whereas in former times, when these countries were

far less densely peopled than now, slavery and serfdom existed, it does

not seem unreasonable to suppose that the appropriation of the soil has

had much to do with the disappearance of servile labour. This opinion

is also held by Wakefield. “The serfdom of the middle-ages was for all

Europe, what it is for Poland and Russia still [1406], a kind of

slavery required by the small proportion of people to land; a

substitute for hired labour, which gradually expired with the increase

of population, as it will expire in Poland and Russia when land shall,

in those countries, become as scarce and dear as it became in England

some time after the conquest” [1407]. We think Wakefield is quite right

here, and we shall adduce some facts in corroboration of this view.

But we must first remind the reader of what we have already said in the

Introduction. We confine ourselves in this book to an investigation of

the facts of savage life. The study of these facts leads us to

conclusions, some of which (and among these the conclusion we are now

dealing with) have a wider bearing and can further our understanding of

the history of civilized nations. But the scope of the present volume

does not allow us to make any special investigation of this history and

inquire whether the same causes can be seen at work here that have been

found to shape the social life of savage tribes. Accordingly, we shall

not try to prove that the appropriation of the soil has really been the

main cause of the disappearance of slavery and serfdom in Western

Europe. We only intend to show that the matter can be viewed from this

side. We wish to claim attention for this important factor, that is

commonly overlooked, and thus clear the way for future research. This

and the next two paragraphs have to be regarded as a digression,

standing apart from the main body of our book.

The character of these paragraphs may justify us in limiting our

remarks to two countries, the economic history of which has of late

years been the subject of thorough study by eminent writers, viz.

England and Germany, and using only a small part of the literature

existing on this matter. We have, however, taken care to consult none

but first-rate authorities.

We have spoken of the disappearance of slavery and serfdom. In

connection with this two remarks have to be made.

First. Slavery in the strict sense existed for a long time in both

England and Germany. In England, shortly after the Norman Conquest,

slaves were still rather numerous. “The servi or slaves” says Ashley

“whose average percentage for the whole land is 9, and who in some of

the eastern and midland shires do not appear at all, or fall to a

percentage of 4 or 5, rise in the country on the Welsh border and in

the south-west to 17, 18, 21, and 24 per cent.” A century later,

however, absolute slavery had disappeared [1408]. And in Germany there

was also a class of servi, who had to perform whatever services the

lords might require, and even in the 11th century, though their

condition had already much improved, were sometimes sold apart from the

land [1409].

Secondly. The argument that leads us to conclude that slavery, is

inconsistent with a state of society in which all land is held as

property, equally applies to serfdom. For the serf, as well as the

slave, was compelled to work. There is a great difference between

slaves and serfs on one side, and modern labourers and tenants on the

other. The labourer has to work for his employer, and the tenant has to

pay rent; but both can always declare the contract off and so put an

end to their obligations. And even as long as the contract lasts, if

they do not discharge their duties, they can only be condemned to pay

damages; but the labourer cannot be compelled to work, nor the tenant

to remain on the farm. The slaves and serfs of early times, however,

were under personal compulsion. The slave was the property of his

master, whom he was not allowed to leave. And the serf, as we so often

read, was “bound to the soil,” “astricted to the estate”, “an die

Scholle gefesselt”, which means that he was forbidden to remove from

the spot assigned to him. Professor Cunningham states that in England,

in the 11th century “a very large proportion of the population were

serfs who could not move to other estates or to towns” [1410], and

Amira tells us that in Germany, in the Middle Ages, the villeins

(Grundhörigen) were not allowed to remove from the land which they

cultivated [1411]. Therefore our argument holds with regard to serfdom

as well as slavery. For when all land has been appropriated, a landlord

can always find free tenants who are willing to pay him a rent, and

free labourers who are willing to work for him, and so he wants neither

serfs nor slaves. We may quote here Oppenheimer’s remark that, as soon

as all land has been appropriated, “serfdom in the proper sense,

implying the astriction of the labourer to the soil, has become

superfluous. The labourer can safely be allowed personal freedom, and

it is allowed him. The produce of his labour can now be taken from him,

in the form of rent, though he may be personally free. For he is

excluded from the means of production, as far as they could be

accessible to him, and so he has to accept the terms of the proprietor

or to starve” [1412].

It is of some interest to emphasize what we have said concerning the

difference between serfs and free tenants. A free tenant, whatever be

the conditions of his tenure, can always remove from the land and

cannot be compelled to cultivate it. A serf, whatever be the extent of

his obligations, is bound to the soil; if he escapes the lord can bring

him back and set him to work again. The right of emigrating (German

“Freizügigkeit”) is the true mark of freedom. And therefore, as soon as

the obligations which were personal have become territorial, i.e. as

soon as the services and payments which formerly were exacted from

definite persons, are exacted from the cultivators of definite pieces

of land as such, nobody being any longer obliged to become or remain

the cultivator of any definite piece of land,—serfdom has ceased to

exist, even though the services and payments have remained exactly the

same.

The line of demarcation between free and unfree cultivators has not,

however, always been drawn in a strict, scientific manner. Ashley,

speaking of the 11th—14th centuries, says: “The term libere tenentes is

elastic enough to cover men in very different positions.... But the

larger number of those known by that name were, clearly,

virgate-holding villeins or the descendants of such, who had commuted

their more onerous labour services of two or three days a week for a

money or corn payment, and had been freed from what were regarded as

the more servile “incidents” of their position. What these exactly

were, or, indeed, what was understood by free tenure, it is difficult

now to determine, precisely because the lawyers and landlords of the

time did not themselves know. The most widely spread idea was that

inability to give a daughter in marriage or to sell an ox or a horse

without the lord’s consent, for which a fine had to be paid, was the

certain mark of servile tenure” [1413].

Now we cannot wonder that the lawyers and landlords of the Middle Ages

had no very clear ideas about serfdom and freedom. But modern writers

on economic history should have the true distinction always before

their minds. Some of them, however, we think fail in this respect.

In order to demonstrate this we must speak of a change which, in the

later Middle Ages, took place in the manorial economy. The land

belonging to each landlord had always been divided into two parts, viz.

“that part cultivated for the immediate benefit of the lord, the

demesne or inland, and that held of him by tenants, the land in

villenage” [1414]. These tenants were not, however, free tenants, but

villeins bound to the soil and obliged to work on the demesne. “The

whole of the land of the manor, both demesne and villenage, was

cultivated on an elaborate system of joint labour. The only permanent

labourers upon the demesne itself were a few slaves; all or almost all

the labour there necessary was furnished by the villeins and cotters,

as the condition on which they held their holdings, and under the

supervision of the lord’s bailiff”. The labour dues of the villeins

consisted of week work, i.e. a man’s labour for two or three days a

week throughout the year, precariae, i.e. additional labour at

ploughing and at harvest time, and miscellaneous services [1415].

But in the course of time money payments were largely substituted for

these labour dues. Commutation of the week work went on extensively

shortly after the Norman Conquest, and commutation of the whole of the

services occurs occasionally as early as 1240. “With the reign of

Edward II complete commutation became general” [1416]. The cultivators

had now to pay money to the lord instead of working on the demesne.

Though the change occurred at a time when personal serfdom was

gradually declining, it is easy to see that this commutation is not

identical with the transition from serfdom to freedom. A free tenant

may by contract take upon himself to perform some kind of work for the

landlord. This was the case in England where “the rendering of services

reappeared in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, not as the

incidents of villanage, but as a form of agreement which proved more or

less convenient to one party and perhaps to both” [1417]. On the other

hand, it is quite possible that a cultivator who pays money instead of

rendering services, is yet bound to the soil and devoid of personal

freedom. Ashley, speaking of the 13th century, states that most of the

cultivators “had continued to hold by servile tenure, as villeins or

customary tenants, even when they had commuted all or most of their

services.... There can be no doubt that ... they were bound to the

soil; in the sense, at any rate, that the lord would demand a heavy

fine before he would give one of them permission to leave the manor”

[1418].

Now, though none of our writers on economic history explicitly say that

these two things, the commutation of labour dues for money and the

transition from serfdom to freedom, are identical, we think some of

them do not sufficiently keep in view the difference existing between

the two. Thus only can we account for the prevalence of a theory which

seems to be the current mode of explaining the fall of serfdom and rise

of freedom.

This theory has been introduced by a German writer, Professor

Hildebrand. He distinguishes three stages of economic development:

natural economy, money economy, and credit economy.

In the system of natural economy goods are exchanged directly for

goods; when money economy prevails use is made of a means of exchange,

money; and when credit economy has been developed goods are exchanged

for a promise in the future to give back the same or a like value, i.e.

on credit. Every nation begins with natural economy, for the use of

money as a means of exchange supposes an abundance of labour or

products of labour which enables people to procure the precious metals.

As long as natural economy prevails capital does not exist: the soil

and human labour are the only productive agencies. There are,

therefore, two classes of people only; labourers and landowners.

Sometimes every landowner is at the same time a labourer; in such cases

democracy prevails. But it often occurs that labourers and landowners

form separate classes. These are then mutually dependent on each other;

for the labourer wants a landlord to give him employment and so enable

him to earn his subsistence, and the landlord wants labourers to

cultivate his lands. This interdependence effects that the relations

existing between the two classes assume a durable character. The labour

contracts are made to last for the life of the labourer or even become

hereditary. The labourer is bound to the soil and forbidden to leave

the manor.

As soon as money economy exists, capital arises and takes its place as

the third factor of production. The owning classes comprise now both

capitalists and landlords. The labourer has no longer to apply to the

landlord for employment, but can leave him and work for the capitalist;

he is therefore no longer astricted to the soil. The wages he receives

from the capitalist are paid in the form of money, and so the labourer

is much freer than before, for this money can be turned to various

purposes. Moreover, capital (as opposed to land) can be augmented to

any extent, and this enables the labourer to become a capitalist

himself.

The position of the labourers who remain on the land also undergoes a

change. The landlord who brings the agricultural produce to the market

can pay wages in money and therefore hire able and dismiss incompetent

labourers. His lands, worked with free labourers who serve for wages,

yield him a far greater income than formerly when they were cultivated

by serfs. Moreover, the fixed labour dues of the serfs do not answer

the purposes of an improved economy. It is thus the interest of the

landlord to put an end to his fixed and hereditary contracts and loosen

the ties with which natural economy had bound the agricultural

labourer. The dues in kind and services are commuted for money

payments. The labourer, who was a serf, becomes now either a free

peasant or a free servant and day-wage worker who is no longer

astricted to the soil, but can leave his employer whenever he likes and

seek such work as most agrees with his capacity and inclination.

On the other hand, the employers have become independent of the

labourers. In the system of natural economy the landlord took care not

to lose his labourers, whom he wanted to cultivate his land; but now

landlords and capitalists can always get as many labourers as they like

and dismiss them as soon as they are no longer of any use. This leads

to an oppression of the poor by the rich [1419].

This is Hildebrand’s theory, so far as the condition of the labouring

classes is concerned. Natural economy, according to him, leads to

serfdom, money economy leads to freedom.

We think this theory is erroneous.

It would perhaps be better not to speak of “natural economy” and “money

economy”; for these terms are likely to lead to misunderstanding. The

mere existence of money is of comparatively little consequence. A

circulating medium arises as soon as it is wanted; and where the

precious metals are unknown something else will do, as in Melanesia and

among many Negro tribes, where shells are used for money. The existence

of a circulating medium denotes a development of commerce; for barter

on any extensive scale is hardly possible. Therefore we had better

speak of self-sufficing and commercial communities. As long as each

village is practically self-dependent money is not wanted; but as soon

as the interchange of commodities takes any considerable dimensions the

need for a means of exchange becomes pressing. And there is, indeed, a

great difference in social structure between self-sufficing and

commercial communities [1420]; but if we ascribe this difference to the

existence of gold and silver coins we arrive at false conclusions. A

proof of this is the fact that Hildebrand thinks capital can only exist

when there is money. Yet we know that the Germans have kept cattle from

early times, long before money economy prevailed; and cattle are

decidedly to be called capital; they cannot be classified under either

of the only two means of production which, according to Hildebrand,

exist in a system of natural economy: land and human labour; and in our

chapter on pastoral tribes we have seen that cattle-keepers form

strongly marked capitalistic communities.

But even if we speak of self-dependent and commercial communities, we

cannot admit that in the former labour must necessarily be servile and

in the latter free.

First. How can natural economy, i.e. the absence of commerce, lead to

serfdom? Hildebrand says: landlords and labourers are mutually

dependent on each other, and so their relations assume a durable

character, and the labourer is astricted to the soil. We think his

meaning is the following. In self-sufficing communities the fluidity of

labour which exists in modern society, is wanting. In such countries

there can be famine in one district, whilst in a contiguous district

there is plenty of food; similarly labour can be scarce in one place

whilst it is abundant in a neighbouring place. Therefore a landlord

cannot afford to let his labourers leave the manor; for as there is

little intercourse between the different villages and districts it is

difficult for him to procure other labourers. It is thus most

convenient for him to bind his labourers to the soil and forbid them to

leave him.

This may at first sight seem a reasonable explanation of the origin of

serfdom. But on closer scrutiny it will be seen that this argument does

not hold. When there is little intercourse, each landlord is dependent

on the labourers of his own district; and there must be a great

stability in the relations of the two classes. But this need not bring

about an astriction of the labourers to the soil. The landlord cannot

easily procure labourers from other districts; but it is even more

difficult for the labourers to find employment in foreign parts; for

such intercourse as there is, is kept by the ruling, not by the

labouring classes. Therefore it is not necessary to bind the labourers

to the soil; for they are already naturally dependent on the landlords

of their own district. We think slavery and serfdom can only be

accounted for by a general scarcity of labour. When labour is

everywhere scarce a labourer who leaves his employer can everywhere

find employment, whereas an employer cannot easily procure labourers;

it is then the interest of the employer to prevent his labourers from

leaving him. But the mere lack of intercourse limits the labourer in

his choice of employment even more than it limits the employer in his

choice of labourers.

Nor do the facts agree with this theory. We have seen that among

pastoral tribes free labourers are frequently found, though labour is

by no means fluid and the labourers are paid in kind, not in money.

Among the natives of Hawaii, who lived under a system of natural

economy, labour was also free. The passage in which Ellis describes the

relation between landlords and cultivators has already been quoted by

us, but it is remarkable enough to repeat here. “Sometimes the poor

people take a piece of land, on condition of cultivating a given

portion for the chief, and the remainder for themselves, making a fresh

agreement after every crop. In addition to the above demands, the

common people are in general obliged to labour if required, part of two

days out of seven, in cultivating farms, building houses, etc. for

their landlord. A time is usually appointed for receiving the rent,

when the people repair to the governor’s with what they have to pay. If

the required amount is furnished, they return, and, as they call it

(komo hou) enter again on their land. But if unable to pay the required

sum, and their landlords are dissatisfied with the presents they have

received, or think the tenants have neglected their farm, they are

forbidden to return, and the land is offered to another. When, however,

the produce brought is nearly equal to the required rent, and the

chiefs think the occupants have exerted themselves to procure it, they

remit the deficiency, and allow them to return” [1421]. These

cultivators are by no means astricted to the soil. They make a fresh

agreement after every crop. If the produce brought is insufficient,

they are either removed or by way of favour allowed to return [1422].

Our conclusion is that, though in medieval Western Europe serfdom and

natural economy existed at the same time, the former is not a necessary

consequence of the latter.

Secondly. Does money economy, i.e. commerce, always lead to freedom? We

know now that serfdom is not invariably connected with natural economy.

Yet it might be that, wherever both natural economy and serfdom exist

(as it was the case in the early Middle Ages) the rise of money economy

always brought serfdom to a close.

The argument by which Hildebrand attempts to prove this is rather

strange. The development of town life and manufactures, according to

him, enables the labourers to find employment in manufactures; they are

now no longer dependent on the landlords. The manufacturing capitalists

pay them money-wages which they can spend in whatever way they like,

and so they become more free than they were before.

We think this argument is quite insufficient. The labourers find

employment in manufactures, says Hildebrand. But he had told us before

that they were astricted to the soil. What enables them now to leave

the landlords? Further: why do not the town labourers become slaves or

serfs? Here Hildebrand’s reasoning is very strange. They receive

money-wages which they can spend in whatever way they like. Now one who

receives money with which he can buy all kinds of commodities is in a

certain sense more free than one who, under a system of natural

economy, receives bread and meat which he cannot sell. But this has

nothing to do with the legal status of the labourer. A slave who

receives pocket-money from his master is free to buy with it what he

likes, yet he remains a slave.

But the condition of those of the labouring classes who remain on the

land also undergoes a change, according to Hildebrand. The landlord can

now sell the produce of his land for money, and this money enables him

to hire free labourers.

We cannot see why this should be so, why the mere possibility of paying

money-wages (all other circumstances having remained the same) should

lead to free labour contracts. We should rather think that the afflux

of labourers to the towns of which Hildebrand speaks would make

agricultural labour scarce, and each landlord would be most anxious to

retain those labourers that had not yet escaped to the towns; they

would now, more than ever before, be astricted to the soil.

Hildebrand, however, thinks it will be the interest of the landlord to

put an end to the hereditary tenures of his serfs and work his lands

with free labourers. And he adds that the dues in kind and services are

commuted for money payments. The cultivator who was a serf becomes now

either a free landholder or a free labourer.

Whether Hildebrand means to say that the commutation of dues in kind

and services for money payments is identical with the transition from

serfdom to freedom, does not clearly appear.

We think that the regarding of this commutation as the main fact in the

economic history of the later Middle Ages lies at the root of the evil

and has given rise to this theory. Money economy, according to

Hildebrand, leads to commutation, and commutation is the same as, or at

any rate leads to, the disappearance of serfdom.

What does this commutation mean? Formerly the peasants had to work on

the demesne which was cultivated for the immediate benefit of the lord;

in later times they paid money instead. What was the reason of this

change? It must have been that the demesne was cultivated in some other

way so that their services were no longer wanted. Sometimes free

labourers were employed. “It is evident” says Ashley “that the lord

would not have consented, first to partial and then to complete

commutation, had he not been able to hire labourers” [1423]. But the

main reason was that portions of the demesne were let for rents. “If

the lord found it his interest to let portions of the demesne instead

of cultivating it through his bailiff or reeve, his need for the

services of the villeins would be pro tanto diminished, and he would be

readier to accept commutation” [1424]. The same was the case in

Germany, where between the 10th and 13th centuries the extent of the

land which the landlords kept in their own hands was continually

diminishing, so that there was less and less use for the services of

the villeins, and commutation took place on a great scale. The

landlords, who formerly had taken the lead of agricultural operations,

became now mere receivers of rent [1425].

Now we must admit that commutation of labour dues for money payments

was not possible before money was used. Yet the fact that commutation

of services for payments in kind, which does not suppose money economy,

also occurred [1426], shows that the rise of money economy cannot have

been the sole cause of this change. We may even go farther and say: if

it has been a cause at all, it has not certainly been one of the

principal causes. The commutation of the labour dues means that the

demesne was thenceforth either worked with free labourers or let for

rent. The existence of a class of freemen dependent on wages cannot,

however, be accounted for by money economy. Nor can we see how money

economy can have led to the letting of the demesnes which the landlords

had formerly kept in their own hands. Ochenkowski supposes that in

England, after the Norman Conquest, the need of the landlords for money

led to commutation [1427]. But there is no reason why the landlords

could not, instead of receiving money payments, obtain money by selling

the produce of their lands. As long as there was no market for

agricultural products the landlord, whether he himself had the lead of

agricultural operations or let the demesne on condition of receiving a

payment in kind, could not obtain money. As soon as there was a market

he could make money in three ways: by working the demesne himself and

selling the produce, by letting it on condition of receiving part of

the produce, which he could bring to the market [1428], and by letting

it for a rent in money. Money economy seems to have had little to do

with the commutation.

Hildebrand’s theory is: money economy led to commutation and

commutation led to freedom. We have seen that the first half of this

does not hold. What about the second half? Can the commutation have

loosened the ties which bound the cultivator to the soil? We think not.

For if the landlord could not let the villein who worked on the demesne

leave the manor, because he was difficult to replace, he had exactly

the same reason for keeping the villein who paid money astricted to the

soil. The use of money and the rise of commerce had not augmented the

number of agricultural labourers; they had even decreased, as many of

them had gone to the towns. And it was even more difficult to replace

the money-paying than the labouring villein; for the former had to be a

fit person who could conduct his business well enough to be able at the

end of the year to furnish the required sum, whereas any able-bodied

man could perform agricultural labour under the supervision of the

lord’s bailiff. Our conclusion is that money economy did not lead to

commutation, and that commutation did not lead to freedom.

Yet money economy, taken in the sense of town life and commerce, did

sometimes affect the condition of the rural classes. Such was the case

in Italy where, in the 13th century, the wealthy commercial cities took

an active part in the emancipation of the serfs. Florence especially

strongly encouraged their enfranchisement. In 1257 this city even went

so far as to set free all the serfs in the surrounding country,

indemnifying the lords. The city government pretended to act from

Christian and philanthropic motives. “But” adds our informant “though

the city governments of Central Italy were the first to pronounce

themselves in favour of the personal freedom of the peasants, they by

no means countenanced the idea of leaving the land to those who had

held it for centuries. On the contrary, the citizens endeavour to

acquire landed properties, and when they have got them they put an end

to the hereditary tenures and replace them by tenancies.” Many of the

former serfs had to leave the lands of their ancestors and augmented

the number of proletarians in the towns. They were replaced by

leaseholders [1429].

The disappearance of serfdom was thus accelerated by the measures of

the Italian cities. How much of sentiment there was in these measures,

and how much of self-interest, we do not know. But at any rate serfdom

must already have been drawing to an end before the cities meddled with

it. For a firmly established system that discharges an important

economic function is not uprooted by mere sentiment. And so far as the

self-interest of the citizens induced them to replace the serfs by free

tenants, the latter system must have been economically more useful than

the former, which was probably only kept up by the landlords because

they were accustomed to it. Times had changed and the old system of

cultivation had become obsolete; and the citizens of the towns, whom no

personal relation bound to the serfs, expelled them and let the land to

free tenants. Before their intervention there must already have been at

work an internal cause, which effected that cultivation by serfs was no

longer the most profitable mode of managing landed properties.

We do not mean to say that there was no internal connection between the

transition from serfdom to freedom and the simultaneous rise of town

life, commerce and manufactures. We think there was such a connection.

But we cannot agree with the theory that the disappearance of serfdom

was a consequence of the commercial development of Western Europe. It

seems to us that the rise of commerce was not the cause of the decline

of serfdom, but that both were effects of the same principal cause, the

relative scarcity of land which made itself felt towards the end of the

Middle Ages. As soon as people had to shift on a limited area, the use

of commerce, which enables each district to produce what it is most fit

to, and so enhances the productiveness of labour, became more apparent

than it had been at a time when there was plenty of land. In the same

sense, Malthus remarks: “The great cause which fills towns and

manufactories is an insufficiency of employment, and consequently the

means of support in the country; and if each labourer, in the parish

where he was born, could command food, clothing, and lodging for ten

children, the population of the towns would soon bear but a small

proportion to the population of the country” [1430]. Lange also says

that poverty of the masses is a condition of the rise of manufactures

[1431]. Besides these economists, we may quote the eminent geographist

Ratzel, who observes, that in a country with a growing population the

soil finally cannot any longer feed the whole of the people and so an

ever increasing part of the population devote themselves to

manufactures and commerce [1432]. That this occurs even in primitive

civilization, follows from what Krieger tells us about the natives

inhabiting the small islands adjoining New Guinea, especially Berlin

Harbour and Dallmann Harbour. The goad of necessity, he remarks, has

urged them to a progress in the arts of life. The want of room rendered

extension of the plantations on their islets impossible and so they

began to manufacture carved work and pottery, which they exported to

the continent in exchange for food [1433].

As for the medieval history of Europe, Inama-Sternegg observes that the

increase of the population, requiring an extension of the means of

subsistence, led to the rise of towns and manufactures [1434].

But however this may be, we are certain that the rise of money economy

cannot have been the sole, or even the chief cause of the disappearance

of servile labour. This is sufficiently shown by the fact that before

the emancipation of the Negroes a system of servile labour on a large

scale prevailed in the United States and the West Indies, i.e. in

countries working for export.

Hildebrand’s theory has been accepted by some writers on economic

history. Ochenkowski repeatedly asserts that the change in the

condition of the rural population was the effect of money economy.

Inama-Sternegg, in one passage of his excellent book on the economic

history of Germany, expresses the opinion that in the early Middle Ages

natural economy, defined by him as the absence of regular commercial

intercourse, made astriction of the labourers to the soil necessary.

Professor Cunningham, in his book on Western Civilization, ascribes the

changes which in the history of ancient Greece and Rome took place in

the status of the labouring classes to the prevalence of natural

economy and money economy respectively [1435]. But none of these

writers give any new argument in favour of the theory.

Our conclusion is that the rise of money economy was not the cause of

the disappearance of serfdom. We shall inquire now whether Wakefield’s

theory, with which we agree, can further our understanding of the

economic history of England and Germany.

§ 10. The rural classes of medieval England.

Of land tenure in England before the 11th century we do not know very

much [1436].

The first detailed account of the economic condition of the country is

contained in Domesday Book, in which William of Normandy embodied the

results of an inquiry into the state of the kingdom he had secured.

“When Domesday Survey was compiled” says Cunningham, “every yard of

English soil was as really, if not as definitely, subject to

proprietary rights as it is now” [1437]. We do not, however, think that

much importance has to be attached to this statement; for there was

still much uncultivated land and, though the king claimed a right of

property over this land, it was not yet held as property in the strict

sense of the word, which means that all except the owner are excluded

from its use. This appears from what took place in 1305, under Edward

I. “By an adjustment of boundaries considerable portions of the Crown

forest were given over to certain barons, who gained personally; but

the position of the tenants was so much altered for the worse that

their case obtained special attention in the Ordinance of the Forest,

by which their rights of pasture and common were secured” [1438]. We

see that these Crown forests had been open to the use of the peasants,

so that practically there was still free land. And in this time of

extensive tillage the common pasture played a great part in the rural

economy [1439].

Accordingly, rent in the modern sense did not yet exist. The landlords

had abundance of land; but the land was worth little if it was not

provided with people to cultivate it. “The rent of the proprietor now

is directly connected with the physical character of his estate, its

productiveness and its situation. The income of the lord of a Domesday

Manor depended on the tolls he received, and the payments of his

dependents: and thus was based on the way in which his estates were

stocked with meat and men, rather than on the physical condition of the

land. His income was a very different thing from modern rent” [1440].

Even in later centuries “a fertile estate would have yielded but little

annual income, unless the necessary labour was attached to it” [1441].

In this time the whole of Central England was covered with manors, and

the mass of the rural population consisted of two classes: landlords

and villeins; the latter were not all of the same condition, but none

of them enjoyed entire personal freedom [1442]. Of those cultivators

who are described as freemen and socmen some could “sell their lands

without leave asked or given, but others could only do so on obtaining

licence from the lord” [1443]. Finally there were some slaves [1444].

Every freeman was a landholder, therefore there was no class of free

labourers. “The labourer, as a man who depended on some employer for

the opportunity and means of doing his work, seems to have been almost

unknown in the eleventh century” [1445].

All this agrees with our theory. All land had not yet practically been

appropriated; therefore people could not be got to cultivate the land

for the benefit of the landlords, unless they were deprived of personal

freedom.

During the two following centuries population increased and land became

more scarce. In the 13th century some lords already began to inclose

portions of the waste, which had always been used for common pasturage,

and “it was necessary to limit by the statute of Merton, in 1236, the

lord’s “right of approver” or improvement, by the condition that he

should not take away so much as not to leave enough for the purpose of

pasture” [1446]. Forests were often fenced off and the rights of common

pasture restricted [1447]. We have already mentioned an instance in

which the condition of the peasants was much altered for the worse by

such measures.

The changes which, during the same period, took place in the condition

of the rural classes, are grouped by Ashley under four heads: “1. the

growth of a large class of free tenants; 2. the commutation of the week

work for money or corn payments; 3. the commutation of the boon-days

and other special services; and 4. the appearance of a class of men

dependent wholly or in part on the wages they received for agricultural

labour” [1448].

In a passage quoted in the last paragraph Ashley states that most of

the “free tenants” were villeins who had commuted their labour services

for a money or corn payment, and had been freed from the more servile

“incidents” of their position, such as inability to sell a horse

without the lord’s consent [1449]. Hence it follows that personal

freedom, i.e. the right to leave the manor, was not regarded as

characteristic of free tenure. Yet at the end of the 13th century every

tenant was already permitted to sell his lands or parts of them [1450].

This transition from personal to territorial obligations was certainly

due to the increase of population and consequent enhanced value of

land. In early times labour was scarce and therefore the landlord could

not let a cultivator leave the manor. But now land, or at least some

pieces of land, had already acquired so much value that there were

always people to be found ready to cultivate them on condition of

paying certain dues to the lord.

The principal cause of the commutation of labour dues for money was

that the lord let portions of the demesne instead of cultivating it

through his bailiff or reeve. He had now less need for the services of

the villeins; for these services had consisted mainly in working on the

demesne [1451]. This change in the mode of cultivation was perhaps due

partly to political circumstances (absence of the lord at court or in

war), as in Germany it certainly was. But we think there were economic

causes also at work. In early times, when land was abundant, it was

necessary for the lord to keep the cultivators he wanted in personal

subjection; he therefore made them work in his presence and under the

supervision of his bailiff. But now the villeins had come to attach

value to their holdings, they were no longer inclined to run away, for

it would have been difficult for them to find land to live upon. The

villein claimed an hereditary right to the land he cultivated, and the

question as to whether he had any such right already began to be

discussed by the lawyers [1452].

At the beginning of the 14th century most of the cultivators were still

bound to the soil [1453], but the first germs of a thorough change were

already present. There were free tenants who could sell their lands;

tenancies at will already occurred, though not frequently [1454]; and a

class of free labourers arose. In Grossteste’s rules, dating from 1240

or 1241, it is said that servants and retainers “are to do what they

are bid immediately without any grumbling or contradiction; if they

show any such disloyal spirit they must be dismissed, for many can be

had to fill their places” [1455]. And there were also agricultural

labourers who, though holding small pieces of land, had not enough land

to live upon, and were partially dependent on wages. Even where the

peasants were still obliged to cultivate the demesne, they did not

usually perform such work themselves, but hired labourers to do it; the

usual phrase is that they have to “find” a man for the work [1456].

Here again our theory holds. Population had increased, land became

scarce, and the transition from serfdom to freedom commenced. If the

population of England had continued increasing, most of the villeins

would probably have become freeholders or copyholders, whereas the

lands that the lords had kept in their own hands would have been

leased. And poor people who had neither land of their own nor capital

enough to become farmers would have served for wages.

But an unexpected event entirely changed the economic condition of

England. The Black Death, which made its first appearance in 1349,

swept away a large part of the population. Whole villages were

practically annihilated and large tracts of land went out of tillage.

The economic consequences were such as we should expect. “As one

immediate result there was great difficulty in getting labourers; the

difficulty was aggravated in those cases where the tenants had died off

and the lords were left with large holdings on their hands and no means

of working them; while they lost the predial services of these deceased

tenants on the home farm. There was consequently an immensely increased

demand for hired labourers at the very time when their numbers were so

much thinned, and it seemed as if the agriculture of the country was

completely ruined” [1457]. Land was now again abundant, and so “instead

of ousting tenants, lords of land found it hard enough to retain them

even with lightened services” [1458]. And the natural consequence was

that the landlords attempted to re-attach tenants and labourers to the

soil. Whether, as Professor Thorold Rogers asserts, the customary

tenants, who had commuted their labour dues for money, were forced back

into the servile position of their ancestors, is not certain [1459]. At

any rate “we may grant that, now that labour had become so costly, the

lords would insist on the exact performance of such labour dues as had

not yet been commuted, and on the punctual payment of all money rents.

There is much reason to believe, moreover, that they abused their power

of imposing “amercements” on their tenants in the manor courts for

trivial breaches of duty” [1460]. This severe and unaccustomed pressure

on the villeins, who were becoming comfortable copyholders, resulted in

Wat Tyler’s revolt of 1381 [1461].

Nor were the labourers any longer allowed to dispose freely of their

labour power. “While the plague was actually raging parliament could

not meet, but a proclamation was at once issued by the king with the

advice of certain prelates and nobles, of which the preamble states

that, “many seeing the necessity of masters and great scarcity of

servants will not serve unless they get excessive wages”, and that

consequently the land can be scarcely tilled. Everyone, free or villan,

who can work and has no other means of livelihood, is not to refuse to

do so for anyone who offers the accustomed wages; each lord is to have

the preference in hiring the men on his own estate, but none is to have

too many men for his work; no labourer is to leave his employment

before the specified time; nor to receive more rations or wages than he

did in the twentieth year of the king and the common years before that;

none are to give or take more wages in town or country” [1462].

The depopulation of this time caused a reappearance of free land, i.e.

of land which had practically no value, and so agricultural labourers

were scarcely to be had. Therefore the lords to some extent reattached

the cultivators to the soil.

These measures, however, were of little avail. It was not easy to

prevent an employer from secretly giving more than the statutory wages.

The penalties for infraction of the regulation were rendered more

severe, the fines being replaced by imprisonment; yet the whole

legislation proved a failure [1463].

And even if the statutes of labourers had been everywhere enforced,

“many landowners would have been left in a position of great

difficulty; if there was no one to do the work it did not much matter

what they were to be paid, and in not a few villages scarcely any one

was left to carry on the ordinary agricultural operations.” Therefore

new expedients had to be devised, of which the most general appears to

have been the stock and land lease; “the new tenant took the land and

the stock off the lord’s hands and made in return a definite annual

payment.” These tenants “probably sprang from the class of free

labourers, as the surviving villains who already had their own

holdings, would not be so easily able to offer for a portion of the

domain land which the lord desired to let” [1464].

Here again we see the consequences of the abundance of land. The land

alone could not fetch a reasonable price; stock and land had to be

leased together.

As these leaseholders were taken from the labouring class, this

measure, of course, still further diminished the supply of labour.

All these palliatives could not, indeed, better the position of the

landlords to any considerable extent. They had to wait for an increase

of population which would render to the land the value that it had

before the Black Death. As, however, the plague recurred several times,

the population appears to have scarcely increased [1465].

The landlords remained in this difficult position till about 1450

[1466], when a new and very efficacious remedy was suggested to them:

they applied a new mode of working their estates, which rendered them

the practical command over the land, without need of a denser

population. The extension of the wool trade and the dearth of labour

made it far more profitable to keep large flocks of sheep than to grow

corn. Consequently much land was laid down in pasture; there was a

steady increase of sheep farming during the 15th century and a

corresponding decrease of corn growing [1467].

In our chapter on pastoral tribes it has been shown that the care of

flocks and herds does not require much labour. We can, therefore,

easily understand that after the rise of sheep farming there was far

less need for agricultural labour than before. There had been scarcity

of labour; now there was over-population and many people were thrown

out of employment; for over-population exists, not only when there are

more people than the land can support, but when there are more people

dependent on wages than can be profitably employed by the owners of

land and capital [1468].

Sheep farming was introduced in the first place on the manorial

demesnes, of which the lords had the free disposal. The demesne usually

formed from one-third to a half of the whole arable area of a manor.

Since the labour services of the villeins had been commuted, the

tillage of the demesne had furnished employment to many small tenants

and landless cottagers who, partly or entirely, depended on wages. The

substitution of pasture for tillage on the demesne, therefore, brought

many of them to ruin; for none but a few shepherds could thenceforth be

employed [1469].

But far graver evils resulted from the appropriation by the lords of

the commons and the land held by villeins or customary tenants.

The commons, i.e. the common pasture and waste, had always been used

jointly by the lord and villeins. Whether the latter had any legal

right to them is not certain; probably they had not; but they had

always been accustomed to have the free use of them. Now the lords

began to inclose large parts of these commons for the formation of

sheep runs. The consequence was that many of the customary tenants, who

had relied on the commons for pasturing their cattle, could no longer

keep the cattle necessary for the cultivation of their holding. Their

farming became unprofitable, and they had to leave their lands, which

were instantly occupied by the lords and laid down in pasture [1470].

Even when the cultivator had not left his tenement, the lord sometimes

appropriated and “inclosed” it.

The inclosures which took place, especially in the 16th century, are a

fact of foremost importance in the history of English agriculture. The

term “inclosure” has two different meanings. In medieval England the

lands of the villeins, with those of the lord interspersed between

them, lay scattered in a number of acre or half-acre strips, no two

strips held by one man being contiguous. This system, dating from a

time of extensive tillage, fell short of the exigencies of advanced

culture, and had to be removed before any improvement in the mode of

cultivation could be made. Therefore inclosures have often, especially

in the reign of Elizabeth, been made with the common consent of all the

landholders concerned, the result being that every tenant, instead of

many scattered strips, obtained one or a few fields lying together.

“But in the earlier part of the same movement, during the period which

may be roughly defined as from 1450 to 1550, inclosure meant to a large

extent the actual dispossession of the customary tenants by their

manorial lords. This took place either in the form of the violent

ousting of the sitting tenant, or of a refusal on the death of one

tenant to admit the son who in earlier centuries would have been

treated as his natural successor” [1471]. It was this latter kind of

inclosure that was condemned by several writers of the 16th century,

for instance by Hales, who by inclosure did not mean “where a man doth

enclose and hedge in his own proper grounds where no man hath commons.

For such enclosure is very beneficial to the commonwealth; it is a

cause of great encrease of wood; but it is meant thereby when any man

hath taken away and enclosed any other men’s commons, or hath pulled

down houses of husbandry and converted the lands from tillage to

pasture” [1472].

Ashley, discussing the question as to whether the lords had a right to

turn out the villeins, arrives at the conclusion that “during

historical times and until comparatively modern days, the cultivators

of the soil were always in a condition of dependence, and held their

lands at the arbitrary will of their lords. For centuries the lord knew

no other way of getting his land cultivated, and had no wish to get rid

of a tenant; whenever he did so, it was altogether exceptional. But

with the tendency to limitation and definition so characteristic of the

feudal period, custom tended to harden into law, and it would seem to

have been on the point of becoming law when a change in the economic

situation,—the increasing advantage of pasture over tillage,—prompted

the lords to fall back on their old rights. Then followed a struggle

between a legal theory becoming obsolete, but backed by the influence

of the landowners, and a custom on its way to become law, backed by

public sentiment and by the policy of the government” [1473].

This is in perfect keeping with our theory. In former times land was

abundant, and therefore the lord “had no wish to get rid of a tenant,”

for he “knew no other way of getting his land cultivated”. But now

sheep farming made appropriation of the whole of the land possible, and

so the lord was no longer in need of the villeins; he even went so far

as to evict those whom his ancestors had attached to the soil. And even

where the cultivators remained on the land, they often, and not always

voluntarily, became leaseholders instead of copyholders; and “in many

cases a lease was but a stepping-stone to tenure at will” [1474]. The

lords no longer contented themselves with the customary payments;

instead of villeins they wanted leaseholders, whose rents they could

raise at the end of each term, according as the value of the land had

increased. “Rents were raised with great rapidity as the tenant had to

pay a sum equivalent to the utility of his holding as part of a large

pasture farm.” [1475].

There was also far less need for agricultural labourers than before.

“The decay of tillage and lack of rural employment, during this

century,” says Professor Cunningham “rest on unimpeachable evidence”

[1476]. In the 14th century “the problem of the unemployed, as it now

presents itself, had not yet arisen.” But the agrarian changes

“deprived great numbers of the agricultural labouring class,—small

customary tenants and cottagers,—of the means of support in their old

places of abode, and sent them wandering over the country” [1477].

The appropriation of the whole of the land had thus given to the rural

economy of England a new and essentially modern character: there were

now leaseholders and tenants at will, labouring poor and unemployed.

And the ancient institution of serfdom could not hold its own in the

presence of such thorough changes. “The slow agricultural revolution

which rendered their services less useful to the manorial lords,

gradually set the villans free by removing the interest their masters

had in retaining a hold upon them.” “In some instances the exaction of

predial services from villans by manorial lords can be traced as late

as the time of Elizabeth; but though no change was made in the law, the

lords seem to have found that it was not worth their while to assert

their rights over the persons of their bondmen” [1478].

There were, however, many parts of England in which scarcely any

inclosures took place [1479]. Here the villeins remained on their lands

and gradually became copyholders. They were still bound to services,

which, however, were generally commuted for small money payments, so

the conditions of their tenure were annoying rather than oppressive.

Moreover, their obligations were no longer personal, but territorial;

they were not astricted to the soil. And as they had an hereditary

right to their holdings, they differed but little from freeholders. The

“innocuous curiosities of copyhold,” survivals of ancient serfdom, have

lasted up to modern times [1480].

Our theory can thus be of much use in accounting for the changes which

have taken place in the rural economy of England. As long as there was

still free land, i.e. land which, though sometimes claimed by an owner,

could not fetch any reasonable price, the cultivators were astricted to

the soil; but as soon as the proprietors had got the practical command

over the whole of the land, many of the villeins were evicted and

replaced by leaseholders or tenants at will or became such themselves;

and the remainder became copyholders, i.e. proprietors obliged to some

services or payments without being personally unfree.

We shall inquire now whether in Germany too the appropriation of the

whole of the land coincided with the transition from serfdom to

freedom.

§ 11. The rural classes of medieval Germany.

In the time of the Merovingians the greater part of the country was

covered with forests and people relied on the products of the forests

for a considerable portion of their subsistence. Land was abundant, and

even the cultivated land had hardly any exchange value [1481].

Much new land was, however, already being taken into cultivation. The

village communities, consisting of free peasants, as well as separate

members of these communities, cleared considerable portions of the

waste land lying round the villages. In the 8th century some

communities already forbade individuals to reclaim land; but this was

still of rare occurrence; generally speaking the waste could be

appropriated by whoever chose to take it into cultivation [1482].

The bulk of the population consisted of free peasants. There were two

unfree classes: slaves and lites (a kind of serfs); but these were not

numerous [1483].

The free peasant, though he had plenty of land, was rather poorly off;

he had no slaves and so could only dispose of the labour power of

himself and his family; and in this time of extensive tillage the

produce of each man’s labour was small [1484].

Great proprietors were still rare. They worked their own lands with

slaves. Sometimes, however, they gave pieces of land in use, generally

to slaves; for, says our informant, the free peasants did not like to

take the land of the nobles and so make themselves dependent on them

[1485]. And when land was given in use to free peasants (especially by

the church) this was done on very advantageous terms, often at a

nominal rent [1486].

Land was thus abundant, slavery existed, and tenant farmers and free

labourers were absent.

In the Carolingian period the clearing of forests went on continually.

Some land was still reclaimed by free peasants, but much more by the

great proprietors who controlled abundant labour forces [1487]. The

lords were already beginning to claim much uncultivated land, the

reclaiming of which they only allowed on condition of the cultivator

subjecting himself to them. There was far less unappropriated land than

in the foregoing period, and such as there was was claimed by the king

[1488]. Yet we cannot speak of an appropriation of the whole of the

land; for we know that a claim of the king to large tracts of

uninhabited land is practically of little consequence. Accordingly our

informant states that land was still abundant. The free peasants were

already in a difficult position, not, however, because land was scarce,

but because they could not provide the labour necessary to convert

woods and marshes into arable land [1489].

In this period the free peasants began to be absorbed by the great

proprietors. The latter wanted labourers and did their utmost to

astrict the common freemen to their estates. Many people placed

themselves under the protection of nobles; others, being reduced to

poverty (especially through the institution of the wergild, and the

compulsory military service which interfered with the cultivation of

the land) fell into the hands of the lords; and some were straightway

made serfs by violence. As the landlords had the right of jurisdiction

and other public rights, they could easily subject the small

landholders under some pretext or even without any. Former free

peasants, lites, and such slaves as had received a piece of land in

use, though designated by different names, came to form practically one

class, the labouring as opposed to the ruling class [1490]. A manorial

organization arose similar to that which existed in England. There were

some slaves for personal service and agricultural labour and a great

number of dependent peasants of various kinds, who had to cultivate the

demesne of the lord and yield him part of the produce of their own

holdings [1491].

Free labourers were found rarely if at all [1492].

Our informant in several passages speaks of freemen destitute of land

[1493]. But these people are not in any way to be identified with the

poor of modern times who depend on wages. They were generally

foreigners who had no rights in any village community; but the lords

were always ready to receive them and give them a piece of land in use

on condition of their rendering services and paying tributes. The

natural increase of the labouring population and immigration of foreign

labour did not yet cause any difficulty [1494].

Most of the cultivators of this time had not the right of leaving the

manors to which their holdings belonged [1495].

We see that in this period there was still much free land; slavery

existed and serfdom was on the increase; leaseholders, tenants at will

and free labourers were wanting. All this agrees with our theory.

In the next period colonization and reclaiming of waste land went on on

a large scale. But at the same time the population increased and the

value of the land increased with it. Lamprecht, speaking of the 13th

century, writes: “Colonization and reclaiming of land had entirely

changed the condition of the rural population between the 10th and the

13th century. In the time of the Carolingians wood and land had still

been regarded as inexhaustible goods of the nation, like the sun, air

and water; but now the limitations of the geographical basis of

national life appeared more and more clearly. There had been an immense

range of land to grow food upon; but now the supply of land became

limited, chiefly and first on the Rhine, in Suabia and Franconia,

afterwards in Saxony, and finally in Bavaria, the Tyrol, and Styria;

people had to shift on a limited area. The soil became, more than

before, an object of economic value; its price kept continually

increasing. In the 12th century, in some prosperous districts, land

seems to have attained twelve times the value it had in the 9th; and

even afterwards, down to the second half of the 13th century, an

increase of about 50 per cent. is to be observed. Taking into

consideration that land was still regarded, especially by the ruling

classes, as the only basis of social and political influence (though

already other sources of large incomes were gradually arising), we may

understand how intense the struggle for the possession of the soil must

have been at this period” [1496].

The right of the king to unappropriated land was now enforced more

strictly than before, and the lords began to claim a right of property

over the commons surrounding the villages, which, however, were often

still left to the use of the peasants [1497].

However, there was no over-population as yet. The proprietors did their

best to attract people to the vast newly colonized districts,

especially to the eastern parts of Germany [1498].

During the whole of this period the landlords went on subjugating the

rural population, so that at the end of it the peasant proprietors, who

had once formed the bulk of the population, had almost entirely

disappeared, and most of the land was taken up with the estates of the

great proprietors [1499].

But the increase in the value of land already made itself felt in the

way in which the lords managed their estates. They less and less

frequently worked their own lands; their chief aim was no longer the

disposal of the labour of their dependents, but the receiving of rent.

The labour dues were often commuted for money payments [1500].

Labour was not worth so much to the lords as it had been. They

sometimes emancipated their slaves, retaining the land which they had

given them in use [1501].

At the same time a class of free tenants arose. Lamprecht remarks that

while the value of land had considerably increased the tributes which

the villeins had to pay had remained unchanged for several centuries.

In an economic sense the landlords had been dispossessed of a large

proportion of their property in the land. Therefore it was not their

interest to let serfdom continue.

“At this time, especially since the middle of the 12th century, the

villeins and landlords of the most progressive districts settled their

mutual relations by free contract. Serfdom was abolished, sometimes

entirely, sometimes for the greater part, some formalities only

subsisting. The former villein acquired the right to emigrate, and

remained as a free tenant on the land he had till then occupied. Thus,

by leasing his lands for terms of years, and sometimes for life or on

hereditary tenancy, the landlord got back the full rent of his

property; and this system, especially the lease for years, enabled him

to raise the rent at the end of each term, according as the value of

the land had increased in the meantime” [1502].

Inama-Sternegg does not quite agree with this view of Lamprecht’s. Even

where the rent was higher than the former customary payment, he says,

the leaseholder was free from the labour dues and additional payments

to which the villein had been bound, so the transition from fixed

payment to rent did not always mean an enhancement of the obligation of

the peasant [1503]. Yet this writer too states that the leasing of land

became more and more frequent. There were free contracts between

proprietor and tenant, which did not interfere with the personal

liberty of the latter; even non-fulfilment of his obligations by the

tenant had only pecuniary consequences [1504].

We cannot but think that the reason given by Lamprecht for the

transition from servile to free tenure is true. For even when the

original rent was not higher than the former customary payment plus the

value of the labour dues, the possibility of raising the rent after

each term remained.

We hear of free tenants in this period, but not yet of free labourers.

This is exactly what our theory teaches us to expect. Land, in some

parts of Germany, had already acquired a high value; such land must

have been very remunerative, and so people were ready to pay a rent for

its use, even though there was still land to be had gratis or at a

nominal rent, but far from the market and therefore less profitable.

But the country was not yet so densely peopled that there were men who

could not secure the use of any piece of land; therefore a class of

people dependent on wages did not yet exist.

In the 13th century much new land was still taken into cultivation, in

Western as well as Eastern Germany; but in the following centuries very

little land was added to the arable area. The woods, which had formerly

been regarded as inexhaustible, were no longer present in great

abundance, and the rulers of the German states as well as the landlords

exerted themselves to preserve the remainder and forbade the peasants

to clear them. From the middle of the 14th century these prohibitive

measures became general [1505].

As the population continued to increase, land became scarce. In many

parts of Southern and Western Germany the lords parcelled out their

lands in small portions, and farms of the size which had been customary

for centuries became rare [1506].

The rights of the peasants to the use of the commons, on which they had

always relied for a considerable portion of their subsistence, were now

restricted, and the lords asserted their claims to the commons more

strictly than before [1507].

Another consequence of the increase of population was that

cattle-keeping was no longer possible on such a large scale as formerly

when the common pasture occupied a great part of the land. At the end

of the Middle Ages there was a scarcity of meat, and people had to

rely, more than before, on vegetable food [1508].

The need of the landlords for the services of the peasants went on

diminishing. They no longer worked their own estates; nearly the whole

of their income consisted of the payments in kind and in money which

they received from their dependents [1509].

In Lower Saxony and part of Westphalia the lords, as early as the 13th

century, emancipated considerable numbers of villeins in their own

interest. For the villeins had gradually acquired some right to their

holdings, and the landlords, by setting them free, got back the free

disposal of the land, which they thenceforth let out to free tenants

[1510].

In the 14th century the lords began to turn out peasants (Bauernlegen)

and lease the land of which they thus re-acquired the free disposal

[1511].

Free tenancies became now general, parts of the demesne, as well as

lands which had been held in servile tenure, being leased. The

increased demand for land enabled the lords to let small allotments at

extravagant prices [1512].

Even where the customary tenures remained, the obligations of the

peasants, which had been personal, in many cases became territorial,

the holder of the land as such being subject to payments. And the

conditions of this tenure were so little servile that sometimes nobles

and knights received such land in use and took the obligations on

themselves [1513].

The difference between farmers and agricultural labourers now first

came into existence. The latter most often held a small patch of land,

but this was not sufficient to live upon; they depended on wages.

Besides agricultural labourers there were male and female servants for

household labour. The regulation of wages by law, which occurred

especially after the ravages of the great plague, proves that in the

southern and western parts of Germany free labour had become general.

Such servile work as still remained was often done by labourers hired

by the peasant to whose duty the work fell, just as in the case of the

English peasant who “found” a man [1514].

All land was now held as property; consequently the land was more and

more held by free tenants and worked with free labourers dependent on

wages, whereas serfdom gradually died out.

In the 15th century, however, according to both Lamprecht and

Inama-Sternegg, serfdom and even slavery reappeared.

Lamprecht, after speaking of the raising of rents by the landlords,

adds: “But more disastrous in its consequences than all this was the

manner in which the landlords dealt with the increasing surplus

population of the farms occupied by their villeins. Formerly, younger

sons of villeins, as well as children of free parents, had removed to

the woods for the purpose of clearing them; and it was with their help

that the landlords had in the course of the 12th and 13th centuries

extended their landed properties. In later times such younger sons had

often gone to the towns or the newly colonized districts of Eastern

Germany. Now there was a stagnation among them as well as among the

small remainder of the free population. There remained no other

alternative but to divide the farms of the villeins. But the interest

of the landlord was opposed to this. He had no security of receiving

rent and services from farms parcelled out into small allotments.

Therefore he did not, as a rule, divide the farms into more than four

parts; and those of the servile population who could not secure the use

of such a small holding were regarded as slaves. This institution, the

origin of which went back to the first half of the 12th century, had

till then been almost entirely foreign to the development of Germany.

Together with a rural proletariat destitute of nearly everything, a

real slavery came now for the first time into existence on German

ground.... And this new slave class went on continually increasing; in

the first half of the 15th century they already formed a considerable

number, about whose fate patriots were very uneasy.... Nor did the evil

stop here. The term slavery, used first with regard to villeins who

occupied no farm, was soon applied to all villeins, in order to tax

them more and more heavily and dispute their right of succeeding to the

farms of their parents, which had been established at least since the

end of the 12th century. Finally the landlords came to regard even free

tenants as slaves and slavery as the only status of the rural

population” [1515].

We can easily understand that the lords designated these proletarians

by the most contemptuous name they could devise. But were they really

slaves? A slave, as opposed to a free labourer, is not allowed to leave

his master. Now it is remarkable that Inama-Sternegg, describing the

condition of the rural population in the different states of Germany,

though he states that in the newly colonized eastern parts of Germany

the peasants, who had been free, were restricted in their right of

leaving their lords, mentions no such particulars of Western Germany

[1516]. And the chief aim of the peasants, in their revolts at the end

of the 15th century, was not to acquire personal freedom, but to retain

the use of the commons, which the lords were appropriating [1517].

The peasants were, indeed, obliged to more services in the 15th than in

the 13th and 14th centuries. But we cannot regard this as a mark of

returning serfdom or slavery; for Inama-Sternegg explicitly states that

the greater oppression of the rural classes in the 15th century was

chiefly due to the increase of the services required by the rulers of

the several German states. The services exacted by the landlords had

rather diminished [1518].

The same writer, recapitulating his conclusions as to the condition of

the rural population at the end of the Middle Ages, begins by saying

that the cultivators, who formerly had had an hereditary right to the

land on condition of paying a fixed sum, were now far more heavily

taxed and had little security of remaining on the land [1519]. We think

that this is what the statements of our informants about the

reappearance of slavery mean. The cultivators were not slaves, but

impoverished and despised tenants at will and agricultural labourers.

At any rate, in the 16th century eviction of peasants, which is the

reverse of astriction to the soil, became of frequent occurrence.

Ashley, who has consulted some of the best literature, states that “the

Bavarian code of 1518 laid down that the peasant had no hereditary

right to his holding, and not even a life interest unless he could show

some documentary evidence. In Mecklenburg a decree of 1606 declared

that the peasants were not emphyteutae but coloni, whom their lords

could compel to give up the lands allotted to them, and who could claim

no right of inheritance even when their ancestors had held the land

from time immemorial. In Holstein, again, a great number of the

peasants were expelled from their holdings, and such as remained became

tenants at will” [1520].

Serfdom, in Southern and Western Germany, thus died out towards the end

of the Middle Ages, at a time when population had become numerous and

land scarce.

The eastern parts of Germany had quite another agrarian history. Here

serfdom was not common before the 16th century. From this time,

however, and especially after the Thirty Years’ War, it became more and

more general. As this is quite a separate history we shall not speak of

it any further [1521].

We think the above remarks on England and the older parts of Germany

may suffice to show that our theory can throw some light on the

agrarian history of Western Europe.

We are fully aware that the condition of the rural classes must have

been determined by many more circumstances of greater and lesser

importance. But it seems to us that the general cause of which we have

spoken in these paragraphs is second to no other in its operation

[1522].

§ 12. Open and closed resources.

We have said that among agricultural peoples slavery, as an industrial

system, only exists where there is still free land; it disappears as

soon as all land has been appropriated. We have also seen that slavery

does not prevail to any considerable extent where subsistence is

dependent on capital [1523]. We may now combine these two conclusions

into this general rule: slavery, as an industrial system, is not likely

to exist where subsistence depends on material resources which are

present in limited quantity.

A tribe or nation cannot subsist without labour (though the amount of

labour required is sometimes small); but, besides this, material

resources are always necessary. The resources which man uses to procure

his subsistence are of two kinds: gifts of nature, and products of

human labour. The latter are commonly termed capital; their supply is

always limited. Most of the former (air, water, the heat of the sun,

etc.) exist in unlimited quantity, i.e. there is so much of them that

nobody wants to appropriate them. Land is also a gift of nature, and in

some very thinly peopled countries, where there is much more fertile

ground than can be cultivated, it has not any more value than air and

water. But as all land has not the same properties, it soon comes to

pass that the most fertile and most favourably situated land is

appropriated by some men to the exclusion of others. This is the origin

of rent. Finally, when the less valuable grounds have also been

appropriated, free land no longer exists; there is no piece of land but

has its definite owner [1524]. This last state of things has social

consequences very similar to those which exist where subsistence

depends on capital. In both cases indispensable means of production are

in the hands of definite persons; therefore a man destitute either of

land or of capital (according as subsistence depends on the former or

the latter), cannot subsist independently of the owners, but has to

apply to them for employment. Moreover, in both cases more than a

limited quantity of labour cannot be profitably employed: the owner of

capital, or of a limited space of land, cannot derive any profit from

employing more than a certain number of labourers. Therefore in either

case slavery, as an industrial system, is not likely to exist.

These considerations lead us to an important conclusion. All the

peoples of the earth, whether they subsist by hunting, fishing,

cattle-breeding, agriculture, trade or manufactures, may be divided

into two categories. Among the peoples of the first category the means

of subsistence are open to all; every one who is able-bodied and not

defective in mind can provide for himself independently of any

capitalist or landlord. Among some of these peoples capital is of some

use, and some valuable lands are already held as property; but those

who are destitute of such advantages can perfectly well do without

them, for there are still abundant natural supplies open to them. Among

the peoples of the other category subsistence depends on resources of

which the supply is limited, and therefore people destitute of these

resources are dependent on the owners. It may be convenient to suggest

technical names for these two categories. We shall speak of peoples

with open resources and peoples with closed resources. We think the

meaning of these terms is clear, and they may be convenient for use.

The distinction is an important one. We suppose we have sufficiently

proved that the relations between the social classes differ largely,

according as resources are open or closed: only among peoples with open

resources can slavery and serfdom exist, whereas free labourers

dependent on wages are only found among peoples with closed resources

[1525]. Our distinction may prove valuable in other respects also, e.g.

over-population and lack of employment are unknown among peoples with

open resources; war, which, when resources are open, has sometimes

rather the character of a sport, becomes more serious when resources

have become closed, for then its object is to extend the supply of land

or capital at the cost of the enemy [1526]; pessimism is more likely to

prevail among peoples with closed than among peoples with open

resources, etc. [1527]. We shall not, however, enlarge upon these

points any further.

Most savage tribes have open resources. All hunters have (with the

exception, perhaps, of some Australians): neither the game nor the

hunting territories are held as property. Further, most fishers:

fishing is carried on in a simple manner and does not yet require

capital. And finally, most agricultural tribes; among them superest

ager, as Tacitus says of the ancient Germans [1528].

Savage tribes with closed resources are: 1º possibly some Australian

hunters, if it is true that among them every inch of ground is held as

property, 2º the Eskimos (fishers), who cannot get on without a boat,

or a sledge and dogs, 3º all pastoral tribes, 4º the agricultural

tribes inhabiting most of the Polynesian and Micronesian islands, the

Fijians and perhaps a few agricultural tribes outside Oceania.

We shall not inquire whether the civilized nations of ancient and

modern times have, or had, open or closed resources. We will only

remark that in Western Europe resources, from open, have become closed.

Yet they are not altogether closed, as long as there are still thinly

peopled countries open for emigration. Whether the white races will

still have room for expansion for a considerable time, we cannot know.

When we were preparing the first edition of this work, we thought the

distinction between countries with open and with closed resources had

not been made before. Since we read Lange’s book on the labour problem

and saw that the author speaks in the same sense of open and closed

countries or open and closed economy. We give here the passages of most

interest, bearing on the subject. “There is a great difference between

the economy of open and closed civilized countries. In the former there

is still an abundance of land fit for cultivation, of which every

labourer has the free use; in the latter all land has been taken into

cultivation and appropriated. This difference is so fundamental, that

it would be best to formulate a separate economic theory for either of

the two cases and then, in applying the theory to the facts, to examine

how far, in every instance, the characteristics of open or closed

economy are present. The latter proceeding is always necessary, for the

important distinction we have made is a relative one, no country

presenting exclusively the conditions of either open or closed

culture.” In another chapter the author dwells more at length on the

idea, laid down in the last sentence. “The earth still contains large

territories, not yet taken into cultivation, which in a certain sense

are open to every one; but there are such factors as habits,

prejudices, etc., which bind people to their own country, and there are

further material impediments to emigration from old civilized

countries, which are so great, that the economy of such countries may

practically be regarded as closed, without being such in an absolute

sense. On the other hand, even in the most open colonial country there

are always circumstances which make the occupation of uncultivated land

difficult and so the economy of such a country presents some

characteristics of a closed economy. Between these two types there are

numberless intermediate stages and therefore economic life is in

reality subject to the influences of both open and closed economy. But

in theory a sharp line of demarcation must be drawn between these two

states of society; for only so can we attain to a right understanding

of real economic life” [1529].

In the following paragraphs we shall speak of the effect of secondary

causes among agricultural tribes. We shall not, however, enter into

many details. The difficulty, in our branch of science, is always, that

we have so few works of predecessors to rely upon. For instance, we

shall speak of the influence of trade among agricultural tribes. Now,

if any accurate researches had been made into the general effects of

trade, we should be able to conclude that trade having been proved to

have such general effects, it must have such an influence on slavery.

But as such is not the case, we should be obliged, if we were

thoroughly to investigate the subject, to inquire what are the general

effects of trade. An equally close study of militarism, of the

condition of women, etc., would be required. And as in this way our

book would never come to an end, we shall content ourselves with giving

a few outlines, which we hope may turn the attention of other

ethnologists to the important problems which the ensuing paragraphs

will contain.

§ 13. Condition of women.

As we have remarked before, the position held by the women of a tribe

determines to some extent whether or not slaves are wanted. Where all

the drudgery is performed, and can be performed, by the women, and the

men do not want to relieve them of it, there is no great use for slave

labour. But where women enjoy high consideration, the men are more

likely to procure slaves who are to assist the women in their work.

We shall speak first of the latter fact, of slaves performing female

labour. It is very often stated that slaves are employed for domestic

labour. And as, in countries where slavery does not exist, domestic

labour is nearly always incumbent on the women, slaves who perform such

work alleviate the women’s task. Where slavery prevails to a great

extent it even occurs that slave-owners, female as well as male, have

scarcely anything to do, all work falling to the share of the slaves.

The slave-owners, in such case, form the aristocracy; the slaves, and

the poor freemen unable to purchase slaves, are the labouring classes.

We may remind the reader of ancient Rome, where the domestic slaves,

the familia urbana, performed all domestic services required by the

rich, and of the women of the upper classes in Mohammedan countries,

who spend their time in idleness in the harems.

We have seen that among some pastoral tribes domestic labour is the

chief occupation of the slaves. We do not recollect having found any

instance of a similar state of things among any agricultural tribe, and

cannot think that such will anywhere be the case. A rich cattle-keeper

can easily support, by the produce of his cattle, some domestic slaves

who perform no productive labour. But among agricultural tribes it is

otherwise: subsistence here depends almost entirely on labour;

therefore slaves performing unproductive labour can only be kept if

there are other slaves who till the soil and procure food for the

family. It is not probable that the master will himself undertake the

cultivation required to feed the slaves who assist his wife in her

work; nor would the wife be glad to receive slaves from her husband, if

she had to provide for them by working on the field. The Romans would

not have kept a familia urbana, if there had not also been a familia

rustica.

Hitherto we have spoken of unproductive female labour. But women, in

primitive agricultural societies, often perform productive labour also:

in many cases the tilling of the soil is incumbent on them. We may

suppose that the introduction of slaves has often served to free the

women from this task. We shall not, however, proceed to a closer

examination of this point; for this would require a digression on the

division of labour between the sexes, which falls beyond the scope of

the present volume.

On the other hand, the place of slaves is often supplied by wives. We

have seen that among the Australian hunters polygamy widely prevails

and serves economic purposes. The same is the case among some

agricultural tribes.

In § 8 the non-existence of slavery in most of the Melanesian islands

has been left unexplained. We shall see now that in several of these

islands a “slavery of women” prevails which bears much resemblance to

slavery proper. Purchase of wives is in vogue; and most of the women

are bought by the rich, many of whom possess a large number of wives.

And the women must work hard to increase the income of their owners

[1530].

Guppy, in his description of the Solomon Islands, states: “The powerful

chiefs of the islands of Bougainville Straits usually possess a large

number of wives of whom only the few that retain their youth and

comeliness enjoy much of the society of their lord. The majority,

having been supplanted in the esteem of their common husband, have sunk

into a condition of drudgery, finding their employment and their

livelihood in toiling for the master whose affections they once

possessed. I learned from Gorai, the Shortland chief, who has between

eighty and a hundred wives, that the main objection he has against

missionaries settling on his islands is, that they would insist on his

giving up nearly all his wives, thereby depriving him of those by whose

labour his plantations are cultivated and his household supplied with

food. A great chief, he remarked, required a large staff of workers to

cultivate his extensive lands, or, in other words, numerous women to

work in his plantations and to bring the produce home” [1531].

This statement is very remarkable. In the second chapter of Part I we

have seen that in these same islands of Bougainville Straits boys are

captured from the neighbouring islands. Guppy calls them slaves, but at

the same time tells us that they “enjoy most of the rights of a native

of the common class” [1532]. There is thus no difficulty in obtaining

slaves; yet slavery is little developed, for the simple reason that

polygamy perfectly serves the purposes of slavery.

Ribbe equally remarks that on Bougainville polygamy is common. The wife

is the slave of her husband: she has to till the fields, to perform

most of the domestic work and to take care of the children. In the

Shortland Islands (near Bougainville) the wife is the slave and beast

of burden of her husband, rather than his companion [1533].

In the Nissan Islands, according to Sorge, most of the work is done by

the women [1534].

In the New Hebrides polygamy also prevails. The price paid for a wife

varies from 10 to 20 pigs, “according to her capabilities as a worker

in the yam-patch.” “They [the women] learn in their girlhood all that

fits them to be man’s slave and toiler in the fields”. “Women are

degraded to the level of brute beasts, doing all the hard field work,

and being made to carry loads which appear quite disproportionate to

their ugly-shaped bodies and thin legs” [1535]. Hagen and Pineau give a

similar account of female labour, and add that a man’s wealth depends

on the number of his wives [1536].

De Vaux, speaking of the women of New Caledonia, says: “All the

drudgery is incumbent on them. They perform the clearing and digging of

the soil, carry on their backs crushing loads of ignames and taros to

the village, and, if a chief has promised you assistance in some

fatiguing work that you want to have quickly done, he will send you a

gang of these miserable beings who may scarcely be called women.”

Turner remarks: “Chiefs had ten, twenty, and thirty wives. The more

wives the better plantations and the more food.” “If a wife misbehaved,

the chief did not divorce her, but made her work all the harder”. And

Rochas tells us that the New Caledonians keep no servants, but have

many wives instead; rich men have as many wives as they want for the

cultivation of their fields [1537].

In Neu Pommern, according to Parkinson, “every man who can afford it

buys many wives. For a wife is a capital that yields a fair interest;

she works from an early age till her strength is spent; and when, from

age or by being overtaxed with labour, she grows sickly and decrepit,

she perishes unheeded by anybody. The wife is nothing but the beast of

burden of her husband; she performs all labour, tills the soil, cleans

the dwelling, prepares the food, and carries the reaped produce in

heavy baskets far away to the market. The husband therefore regards his

wife as a valuable property.” “The husband continually urges his wives

to work, that they may earn much dewarra [shell-money] for him; for the

more dewarra he owns the greater is the consideration and influence he

enjoys. But the lot of the wives is not bettered by an increase in the

wealth of the husband. The wives of a man who owns thousands of coils

of dewarra have no better life and are no less overworked than the wife

of a very poor man who has no property except his only wife.” And Danks

states that “a man may have as many wives as he can afford to purchase.

If he cannot afford to purchase one, and his credit is low, he may have

to remain single. The headmen are generally rich men, hence they

invariably have a number of wives, ranging from three to six”. “Married

life in New Britain is a hard one for the women. They are beaten and

ill-treated by their husbands as occasion may arise” [1538].

In New Mecklenburg the condition of the women is equally bad [1539].

In Fiji, according to Williams, “polygamy is looked upon as a principal

source of a chiefs power and wealth.” And Pritchard says: “The greater

the number of wives a man had, the better his social position....

Besides the acknowledged wives, there were attached to the household of

the chiefs slave-women, who, though performing the most menial

services, were at the same time nothing else than what the odalisques

are in the Turkish harem” [1540].

We see that these Melanesian wives supply the place of slaves. They are

bought like slaves; they have to work for their owners like slaves; and

their labour, like that of slaves, increases the wealth of their lords.

Another point of resemblance is this. In slave countries it is

generally the rich only who are able to procure slaves; poor freemen

have to work for themselves. Here it is the rich who appropriate the

women; and many of the poor have to remain single. Here, as in all

countries where polygamy is practised, it is only the minority of the

men who can live in polygamy; for everywhere the number of women is

nearly equal to that of men. And as in Melanesia the rich, who

otherwise would want slaves, have many wives to work for them, slaves

are not required.

We cannot explain here why in Melanesia womankind is so much at a

discount, whereas among some other savage tribes (e.g. on the North

Pacific Coast of North America) the sex commands such respect [1541].

But we clearly see what is the effect of this state of things. Much

labour is wanted; otherwise the women would not have to work so hard,

and the rich would not keep so many female labourers. Yet slaves are

not kept in any considerable number, because the women supply the place

of slaves.

One might object, that possibly the women are held in such a slavelike

state because male slaves are impossible or very difficult to procure,

or because the coercive power of these tribes is not strong enough to

admit of the keeping of slaves, or because male captives, where they

are introduced into the tribe (as in the islands Bougainville Straits),

are wanted for warriors. Shortly expressed the objection is, that

slavery is not wanting because there exists a “slavery of women,” but

“slavery of women” exists because slavery proper is wanting. We must

own that this is quite possible. But, whatever be the cause of this

“slavery of women,” as soon as it exists it renders slavery less

necessary than it would otherwise be. War is frequent in Melanesia

[1542], so there is no physical impossibility of procuring captives.

And though it may be difficult to keep male slaves subjected,—if the

men were unable to impose all work on the women and obliged to perform

their due share of it themselves, they would decidedly take more pains

to procure slaves and set them to work. A low condition of women,

though only a secondary factor, certainly is a factor which tends to

make slavery proper superfluous.

§ 14. Commerce.

In § 1 of this chapter we have found the following numbers of positive

and negative cases among commercial agricultural tribes:

Positive. Negative.

a1 + t 8 3

a2 + t 26

a2 + c + t 7

a3 + t 6

a3 + c + t 1

-- --

Total 48 3

We use the term “commercial tribes” in a wide sense, as including not

only those tribes among which many people subsist by trading, but those

that exchange a considerable part of their produce for foreign

merchandise. For instance, a tribe that grows corn for export is a

commercial tribe in the sense we attach to the word.

We see that, with very few exceptions, all commercial agricultural

tribes keep slaves. This proves that among agricultural tribes the

development of trade greatly furthers the growth of slavery.

We have not much to say in explanation of this fact. When speaking of

the slave-keeping tribes of the Pacific Coast of North America, we have

already remarked that the development of trade tends to further slavery

in various ways. Commercial tribes are likely to carry on a trade in

slaves, and this makes the keeping of slaves very easy. Where the

freemen take to commercial pursuits, they want others to perform the

common drudgery for every-day subsistence. The trade itself may also

require menial work: the articles of commerce have to be prepared and

transported, trading vessels have to be rowed, etc. And finally,

commerce often leads to a development of wealth and luxury; a man can

now, by the labour of his slaves, acquire not only the necessaries, but

the refinements of life [1543].

The last point is an important one. In self-dependent agricultural

countries the main use of slave labour consists in providing the master

with food. If, then, a man keeps a large number of slaves who work for

him, he is able to entertain his friends, or to keep a retinue of

unproductive slaves or servants, whose wants are provided for by the

work of the soil-tilling slaves. But where this is the sole profit one

can derive from one’s slaves, an owner who keeps a considerable number

of them does not want to make them work very hard; he often contents

himself with receiving a tribute, and so the slaves become serfs. In

this way the slave-owner gets less out of his slaves than would

otherwise be the case; but he does not want more, and he need not now

continually supervise their work. Slavery is not likely to exist on a

large scale.

Where commercial relations with foreign parts are maintained, it is

otherwise. A slave-owner who receives large quantities of agricultural

produce from his slaves can now exchange them for foreign merchandise.

Retaining for himself as much food as he wants, he exchanges the rest

for such objects as are either useful and agreeable in themselves, or

give him distinction among his countrymen. The use of slave labour

becomes thus practically unlimited. Kohler rightly remarks that only

where the economic instinct is awake, can slavery attain to a full

development, and Schmoller observes that, when the patriarchal family

began to produce for the market, covetousness and pursuit of gain arose

and the treatment of slaves became worse [1544].

We must further take into consideration that slavery on a very large

scale is only possible, where industrial crops are raised. “Tobacco and

cotton” says Cairnes, “fulfil that condition which we saw was essential

to the economical employment of slaves—the possibility of working large

numbers within a limited space; while wheat and Indian corn, in the

cultivation of which the labourers are dispersed over a wide surface,

fail in this respect” [1545]. And cotton and similar crops are only

cultivated in large quantity where they are exported.

Of such “wholesale slavery”, as Bagehot terms it, we find a few

instances among savage tribes.

Köler tells us that in Bonny the great majority of the inhabitants are

slaves. The keeping of slaves is very expensive, as agriculture and

industry scarcely exist; all food has to be imported. The freemen are

traders in palm-oil, and want large numbers of slaves to row the canoes

in which this oil is transported [1546].

Among the Ewe of the Slave Coast slavery is practised on a very large

scale. Some men keep 200–300 slaves, who form their capital. The slaves

are generally employed in carrying oil from the inland to the coast for

sale to Europeans. The maintaining of order among such great numbers of

slaves requires great severity. Slavery marks all their institutions.

It is a common saying with them that “the large water-tub does not go

to the spring”, whereby they mean that freemen must not do such work as

is only fit for slaves and boys [1547].

Miss Kingsley, speaking of the social classes among the tribes,

inhabiting the territory of the Oil Rivers on the Western Coast of

Africa, says: “The third and fourth classes are true slave classes, the

higher one in rank being what is called the Winnaboes or Trade boys,

the lower the pull-away boys and the plantation hands. The best point

in it, as a system, is that it gives to the poorest boy who paddles an

oil canoe a chance of becoming a king” [1548].

Among the Garos, where cotton is the principal culture, two-fifths of

the population are slaves. “The distinction [between freemen and

slaves] is jealously preserved.... It is from the possession of a large

number of them [slaves] that a man obtains influence amongst his tribe”

[1549].

It is clear that among these tribes slavery would not prevail to such a

great extent, if the preparing and transporting of the articles of

export did not require so much labour.

In these cases trade is the cause of “wholesale slavery”, not

necessarily of slavery in general. “Retail slavery” may have existed

among these tribes before they became so largely commercial. But,

seeing that among them the extension of commercial relations has so

greatly increased the use of slave labour, we may safely suppose that

in several cases the development of trade has given rise to slavery

among tribes which did not practise it before. This is also made

probable by the list given at the beginning of this paragraph.

We shall not proceed to a closer investigation of this subject. We have

already remarked that as yet we know very little about the general

effects of trade and the place it occupies in social life among

savages. And we must know more of this, before we can arrive at any

accurate conclusion with regard to the influence of trade on the rise

and growth of slavery.

When speaking of hunters and fishers, we have found that the influence

of trade is more considerable where manufactured goods, than where raw

products are exported. This will probably also apply to agricultural

tribes, viz. if we take the term “manufactured goods” in a wide sense,

as including agricultural produce. Raw products in our sense means

articles which can be exported without any labour being previously

applied to them, e.g. the various kinds of stone and earth exchanged by

Eskimos and Australians. The articles exported by commercial

agricultural tribes are nearly always manufactured goods in this wider

sense.

It might be interesting to divide the commercial tribes (in the wider

sense) into three categories, according as they export agricultural

produce, manufactured goods in the common, restricted sense, or

articles purchased abroad (articles of transit trade), the last

category comprising the commercial tribes in the restricted sense, and

inquire what are the social effects of commerce in each case. But such

a subject wants separate treatment; we cannot deal with it here. We

will only express our opinion, that the significance of trade and

industry among savages is commonly underrated. Whether we are right

here will appear when these points have been more closely studied than

they are now.

In another paragraph we shall have to speak of a peculiar branch of

trade, the trade in slaves.

§ 15. Slaves employed in warfare.

In several cases it is stated that slaves are employed in warfare.

Leaving out of regard the cattle-breeding agricultural tribes, of which

we have already spoken in chapter III, we find the following instances.

Thomson tells us that in New Zealand slaves accompanied their masters

on fishing and fighting expeditions; and in another place he states

that women and slaves accompanied the warriors to carry burdens [1550].

Polack says: “Slaves are permitted to take part in a war”, and Brown,

speaking of slaves in New Zealand, remarks: “If any of them show

superior talents for war, they are duly appreciated, and many slaves by

this means raise themselves to the chieftainship of the tribe” [1551].

Dalton, speaking of the slaves kept by the Garos, says: “It is from the

possession of a large number of them that a man obtains influence

amongst his tribe. Each great chief can go to war with a body-guard of

60 such followers entirely devoted to him” [1552].

Among the Lawas too, according to Colquhoun, slaves are employed as

warriors [1553].

In Nias slaves are often compelled to go to war with their masters,

except when war is made upon the native village of the slaves. The

slaves fight bravely, and in war bear arms like the freemen, but are

never set at liberty for their bravery [1554].

Among the Kayans slaves serve as warriors and can even become

war-chiefs [1555].

Among the natives of Central Celebes, slaves who excel in those

qualities which are highly valued in freemen, i.e. bravery or

oratorical power, are practically no longer regarded as slaves [1556].

Among the Tagals and Visayas, in the time of the conquista, generally

freemen and vassals only took part in military operations; but

sometimes slaves too, especially in naval wars: the slaves were then

employed for rowing the boats [1557].

The forces sent out by Lunda chiefs on marauding expeditions consist of

freemen and slaves [1558].

Among the Angoni the domestic slaves join their masters in the

slave-raids [1559].

Bérenger-Féraud tells us that among the Wolofs the slaves of the king

are soldiers and form his body-guard; they also collect taxes for him

[1560].

Among the Barea and Kunama the spoils taken in war by a native-born

slave belong to his master [1561]. Hence it appears that these slaves

are employed in warfare.

In the French Soudan the master provides his domestic slaves with arms

and takes them with him to the battle-field [1562].

Among the Soninkays and Malinkays of French Guinea, one class of

warriors is composed of the slaves of the chiefs. At the close of a war

they return to their agricultural pursuits; but they are always ready

to take arms again [1563].

These are the only instances we have noticed, of purely agricultural

tribes among which slaves perform a military function. There may be

some more cases. Our informants do not always enter into many details;

therefore, when they are silent on the subject, this does not always

prove that slaves are not allowed to fight. Yet, considering the small

number of instances we have been able to collect, we may safely

conclude that among most agricultural tribes slaves do not share in

military operations.

This is what we expected. Slaves are not allowed to follow the noble

military art, which is the privilege of freemen [1564]. A slave is not

a warrior for the same reason that he is not a hunter. Moreover, it

were too dangerous to trust him with weapons; he might be inclined to

rise against his oppressors. And finally, when slaves are procured by

capture in war or kidnapping, they would often have to fight against

their own tribe, and would be very likely to go over to the enemies of

their masters.

It is further remarkable that the tribes we have enumerated in this

paragraph are all in the higher stages of agriculture, as may be seen

from chapter I. We have not found a single instance of hunting

agriculturists employing their slaves in warfare. There are even

hunting agriculturists of the lowest type, of whom it is explicitly

stated that they do not allow their slaves to fight. Martius tells us

that several wild tribes of Brazil keep slaves. The slaves are

differently treated by the different tribes; but it is a general

characteristic of slavery, that slaves are not allowed to bear arms

[1565]. And Azara states that in his time the Mbayas subsisted on

hunting and fishing, and on the produce of the soil that was tilled to

a small extent by their slaves and by a neighbouring tribe, the Guanas.

Here too, warfare was the business of the freemen to the exclusion of

the slaves [1566].

This may, at first sight, seem strange. If it is true, as Powell

asserts, (and it does not seem to us improbable) that slavery

originated from the adoption of captives [1567], we should expect to

find an intermediate stage, in which the captives, though already

enslaved instead of adopted, still shared in military operations, the

differentiation of the “regulative part of society” from the “operative

part” (to borrow Spencer’s words) not yet being complete. The existence

of slavery, mainly for military purposes, among the hunting Abipones

and some pastoral tribes, seems to indicate such a stage. But among

agricultural tribes we find no trace of it. Some agricultural tribes

(of which the Iroquois are the classical instance) adopt their

captives; then there are many which keep slaves who are not allowed to

fight; and, finally, in the higher stages of agriculture, we find a few

tribes among which slaves share in military operations.

Yet the cause of this seeming incongruity is not difficult to detect.

Pastoral tribes are always stronger, from a military point of view,

than primitive agricultural tribes. In chapter III we have seen that

the former often keep their agricultural neighbours in a state of

subjection. Therefore it is much easier for them to employ their slaves

in warfare than for hunting agriculturists; the latter, if they are to

keep slaves at all, must take care to disarm them and so prevent them

from doing harm.

Among agriculturists in the higher stages it is otherwise. There is

often an elaborate division of labour; the governing classes are

differentiated from the labouring classes, and the army is regularly

constituted. Now it is not at all dangerous to enlist the slaves into

the inferior ranks of the army, under the lead of the governing

classes. The slaves, generally brought by traders from a far distance,

have no longer to fight against their native tribe, but against

strangers. And where slavery prevails to a great extent, the owners of

numerous slaves, who form the aristocracy, will often be inclined to

rely on their slaves for the maintenance of their power over the common

freemen; whereas the slaves, who are no longer on the same footing of

familiarity with the freemen as in primitive slavery, but despised and

hated for being the tools of the aristocracy, regard their master as

their natural protector and are willing to stand by him [1568].

Such was the course of evolution in ancient Rome. In the old times the

slaves were not allowed to fight. “For entering the military service or

taking on him any state office, a slave was punished with death”

[1569]. But later on a change took place. Speaking of the last days of

the republic, Ingram remarks: “In the subsequent civil conflicts the

aid of slaves was sought by both parties, even by Marius himself, and

afterwards by Catiline, though he finally rejected their services.

Clodius and Milo employed bands of gladiators in their city riots, and

this action on the part of the latter was approved by Cicero. In the

First Civil War they were to be found in both camps, and the murderers

of Caesar, those soi-disant vindicators of liberty, were escorted to

the Capitol by gladiators. Antony, Octavius, and Sextus Pompeius

employed them in the Second Civil War” [1570]. But the slaves soon

began to take arms against those who had taught them to fight. “It is

recorded by Augustus on the Monumentum Ancyranum that he gave back to

their masters for punishment about 30,000 slaves who had absconded and

borne arms against the state. Under Tiberius, at the death of Caligula,

and in the reign of Nero, there were threatening movements of the

slaves. Nor did the danger of servile insurrection disappear in the

later stages of the Empire. The armies of the invading Goths were

swelled by their countrymen who had been captured or bought by Romans.

The slaves of Gaul almost en masse took part in the revolt of the

Bagaudae, and forty thousand slaves joined Alaric at the siege of Rome”

[1571].

The last passage shows that even in a state where the power of the

government and the military art are highly developed it is not safe to

employ slaves in warfare. They may actually be the ready tools of the

aristocracy; but in the long run they will come to form a dangerous

element in the state. Yet, as it may be momentarily convenient to an

ambitious statesman to employ them, it will sometimes be done; whereas

among hunting agriculturists the danger is so obvious that it is not

even attempted.

As it is only among a few agricultural tribes, and these in the higher

stages, that slaves perform a military function, we cannot think that

this has been an important factor in the rise of slavery; and it has

probably been nowhere the only motive for making slaves.

Something analogous to the employment of slaves in warfare is their

holding high offices of state. This occurs in some despotically

governed African countries. Goldstein remarks that in the Soudan states

the numerous court and state offices are generally held by slaves. The

king prefers them as public officers to royal princes, who might be

inclined to rise against him [1572]. Among the Bayanzi, according to

Torday and Joyce, “the great chief usually has a confidential adviser,

who, in all cases observed, was a slave; such slaves have great

influence, and receive numerous presents from their masters; they often

impersonate the chief before strangers, while their master keeps in the

background” [1573]. In imperial Rome freedmen were appointed to high

offices [1574].

§ 16. Slaves kept as a luxury.

Sometimes we are told that it is considered an honour to possess many

slaves. We shall give a few instances.

Among the Lampongs the keeping of slaves is indicative of wealth and

power [1575].

Among the Tagals and Visayas, in the time of the conquista, a man’s

influence, power and reputation depended on the number of his slaves

[1576].

Among the Ininga and Galloa it is the ambition of a freeman to have as

many slaves as possible [1577].

Compiègne states that a Mpongwe asked him to give him a portion of his

wages in advance, in order to buy a slave. “He will work for me and my

wife” said the man, “and I shall be a person of rank” [1578].

Among the Bambala, “when a man buys a new slave, he ornaments him on

the first day with his best clothes and ornaments, and walks round the

village with him to show him to his friends” [1579].

We have only taken a few instances at random. It cannot be interesting

to the reader to know how often the same fact has been noticed by

ethnographers. For we may suppose that wherever slavery exists, the

possession of a great number of slaves is a mark of distinction. The

possession of slaves, like other property, is indicative of wealth; and

where slaves are acquired by capture in war it shows the bravery of the

captor. Moreover, among agricultural tribes the labour of the slaves

augments the revenue of their owner, and so the keeping of slaves is

not only a sign but a source of wealth; therefore the slave-owner is

looked upon as one who has at his disposal a means of acquiring wealth.

Martius, speaking of the wild tribes of Brazil, remarks that a chief

who keeps many slaves can take more land into cultivation than other

people. He has therefore always an abundant supply of food, which tends

to increase the esteem in which he is held [1580].

Where industry and art are little developed, slaves, besides wives and

domestic animals, are almost the only luxury that is to be had. The

reader will remember Levchine’s statement about a rich Kazak Kirghiz,

whose numerous horses gave him no profit, but great renown [1581]. In

the lower stages of culture a rich man cannot build a palace, or keep a

motor-car, or buy pictures; he can only show his wealth to the public

by keeping a large number of men or domestic animals continually

running about him. Leroy-Beaulieu justly remarks: “The luxury of

primitive times is very simple; it consists mainly in the grouping

about the rich man (who most often is at the same time a man of high

birth) of a large body of servants maintained by him, and in practising

hospitality on a large scale. Among patriarchal peoples there is almost

perfect equality of material life between men of different stations.

Food, clothing, furniture even, differs but little” [1582].

But, though a rich man may display his wealth by keeping a great number

of slaves, we do not mean to say that among any agricultural tribe all

slaves are kept as a mere luxury. This seems improbable. Among pastoral

tribes, as we have seen before, it sometimes occurs. The owner of

numerous herds may support a large body of slaves, who have scarcely

anything to do. But among agricultural tribes it is quite otherwise.

Subsistence here is largely dependent on labour; much labour is

required to provide for the slaves, and the master will not choose to

work for them himself. The slaves, therefore, must perform at least as

much productive labour as is required to provide for their own wants;

and there is no reason why the master should not make them work

somewhat more, to receive a surplus; the more so, as he is thus enabled

to display his wealth in the other manner mentioned by Leroy-Beaulieu,

viz. by practising hospitality on a large scale.

It is, of course, perfectly possible, and indeed it often occurs, that

some slaves are kept as a mere luxury, either doing nothing at all, or

performing personal services. But then there must be other slaves who,

by performing productive labour, provide for their master, their

fellow-slaves, and themselves. There cannot be a class of unproductive

labourers, without there being a class of productive labourers too. We

can only imagine one case, in which all slaves might be kept as a mere

luxury. It might be, that there were a class of productive labourers

consisting of freemen, who provided for the slave-owners and their

unproductive slaves. There might, for instance, be an aristocracy,

levying taxes on the common people and keeping slaves as a luxury. Such

is indeed the case among the pastoral Beni Amer. It might also occur

among agricultural tribes; but we have not found any instance of it.

Only in two cases have we found it stated that slaves are not

productive.