Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:19:16.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neo-Serfdom in Bohemia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

William E. Wright
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Serfdom” is one of those conventions of historical nomenclature which, like “feudal” or “medieval,” are intended to bring together in concept a number of similar elements for common consideration. Very often we are inclined to forget that the elements composing the whole may bear many marks of dissimilarity as well as marks of likeness. We should be on guard, then, not to allow the convenience of conventional terms to blind us to the great variety of characteristics and variations in quality to be found in the thing named. “Serfdom,” just like “feudalism,” means different things at different times and places, and it is well for us from time to time to examine more closely the several manifestations of it to determine if there may be important differences distinguishing one type from the other, even though they all seem to sail under the same colors.

Type
Symposium
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 1975 , pp. 239 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See, for example, Francis, Dvornik, The Slavs in European History and Civilisation (New Brunswick, 1962), p. 1962 Google Scholar, and Heymann, Frederick G., John Zizka and the Hussite Revolution (Princeton, 1955), p. 480 Google Scholar.

2. Alois, Mika, Poddany lid v Cechach v prvni polovine 16. stoleti (Prague, 1960), chap. 5 and pp. 187 ffGoogle Scholar.

3. Heymann, , John Ziika, p. 42 Google Scholar.

4. Kamil, Krofta, Dejiny selskeho stavu, 2nd ed. (Prague, 1949), p. 431 Google Scholar.

5. Jerome, Blum, “The Rise of Serfdom in Eastern Europe,” American Historical Review, 62 (July 1957): 814–17 Google Scholar.

6. Mika, , Poddany lid, pp. I l l ffGoogle Scholar.

7. Dvornik, , The Slavs, p. 334 Google Scholar; Heymann, , John Ziska, p. 43 Google Scholar; Krofta, , Dejiny, pp. 88–92Google Scholar.

8. Howard, Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley, 1967), p. 386 Google Scholar, reports that the city of Tabor nevertheless collected its full dues from the peasants when the due-date arrived. See also Heymann, , John 2izka, p. 98 Google Scholar.

9. Heymann, , John 2iika, p. 480 Google Scholar.

10. Ibid. Dvornik, The Slavs, p. 335.

11. Mika, , Poddany lid, pp. 64–65Google Scholar.

12. Ibid., p. 71.

13. Ibid., pp. Ill ff.

14. Frantisek, Majetek, Feuddlni velkostatek a poddany (Prague, 1959), p. 308 Google Scholar.

15. Kamil, Krofta, Nesmrtelny narod od Bile Hory k Palackcmu (Prague, 1940), pp. 592–96 Google Scholar. Cf. Krofta, Dejiny, pp. 171 ffGoogle Scholar.

16. See Otto, Placht, Lidnatost a spolecenskd skladba ceskeho statu v 16.-18. stoleti (Prague, 1957), pp. 77 ffGoogle Scholar.

17. Tomas, Bilek, Dejiny konfiskaci v Cechach po r. 1618 (Prague, 1882), p. cxlviiiGoogle Scholar.

18. Josef Kalousek, ed., “Pravo selske v Obnovenem Zfizeni Zemskem,” Archiv Cesky, 23 (1906): 1-11; Ernest, Denis, La Boheme dcpuis dc la Montague Blanche, 2 vols. (Paris, 1903), 1: 335 Google Scholar; Josef, Kalousek, Ceske stdtni pravo, 2nd ed. (Prague, 1892)Google Scholar ; Otto, Peterka, Rechtsgeschichte der bohmischen Lander, 2 vols. (Reichenberg, 1923-28), 2: 138Google Scholar.

19. For a good description of seventeenth and eighteenth-century serfdom in Bohemia see Karl Griinberg, Die Bauerbefreiung und die Auflosnng des gittshcrrlich-b'dncrlichcn Verhdltnisses in Bohinen, M'ahren und Schlesien, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1893-94), and Krofta, Dejiny, passim.

20. For a brief outline of the peasant's circumstances after the White Mountain see Wright, William E., Serf, Seigneur, and Sovereign (Minneapolis, 1966), pp. 13–20 Google Scholar.

21. Dvornik, , The Slavs, p. 335 Google Scholar.

22. Josef, Koci, “Robotni povinnosti poddanych v ceskych zemich po tficetilete valce” Ceskoslovensky casofiis historicky, 11 (1963): 331–40Google Scholar. Cf. Pfehled Ceskoslovenskych dejin, 2 vols. (Prague, 1958-60), 1: 429-30.

23. Mika, , Poddany lid, pp. 134 ffGoogle Scholar., describes social differentiation of Bohemian peasant society.

24. Wright, , Serf, Seigneur, and Sovereign, pp. 41–43Google Scholar; Josef, Kalousek, “Nejvyssi rozhodnuti o titiscich na Dobfissku, 1770,” Archiv Cesky, 24 (1908): 405–23Google Scholar.

25. J osef, Kalousek, “Robotni patent z 28. cervna 1680,” Archiv Cesky, 23 (1906): 486, 487Google Scholar; Wright, , Serf, Seigneur, and Sovereign, pp. 21, 22Google Scholar.

26. Heinrich, Kretschmayr, Maria Theresia, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1938), pp. 95–96 Google Scholar; Josef, Kallbrunner, ed., Maria Thercsias politisches Testament (Vienna, 1952), p. 44 Google Scholar.

27. Wright, Serf, Seigneur, and Sovereign, is a study of the eighteenth-century reforms.

28. Josef, Kalousek, “Robotni patent z 13. srpna 1775,” Archiv Cesky, 24 (1908): 488–508Google Scholar.

29. Josef, Kalousek, “Pravidla raabisacni z 1. bfezna 1777,” Archiv Cesky, 24 (1908): 523–26Google Scholar.

30. For texts of the several patents see Josef, Kalousek, Archiv Cesky, 25 (1910): 9–30Google Scholar.

31. Jerome, Blum, Noble Landowners and Agriculture in Austria, 1815-1848 (Baltimore, 1948), esp. chaps. 3, 5, and 6Google Scholar.