Neo-Serfdom in Bohemia

"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, tlhen, 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 thouglh they all seem to sail under the same colors. It is, happily, no longer unusual to find East Central European serfdom treated separately and recognized as different from the serfdom that prevailed in Western Europe. Indeed, whether one is concerned with serfdom in tlhe East or in tlhe West, one readily discerns that it is a phenomenon most distinguished by an extraordinary range of variations in specific conditions. Moreover, one would not have to compare the extremes of East and West to find a bewildering multiplicity of terms and conditions of servitude and land tenure. Nevertheless, the institution of peasant serfdom in Bohemia does present a sufficiently clear and distinct development to be treated as a whole, and the purpose here will be to indicate the fundamental characteristics and the salient features in the evolution of Bohemian serfdom from the so-called neo-serfdom or second serfdom, beginning with the opening of the modern era, througlh the eighteenth century, when the institution became obsolete and fell under the reforming zeal of Maria Theresa and her even more zealous son, Joseph II. In seeking to describe any given example of serfdom and its continuing elaboration over a period of years, one may look to three key areas of the peasant's life and status. First, the peasant's legal relationship to his lord, the law, and the state will indicate the extent of his personal freedom or thralldom; second, the peasant's security of tenure of his land is a very important test of his economic independence; and, third, the number and value of his obligations (in whatever measure-time, money, or kind) owed to his lord will also reveal the degree to which he can benefit from his personal freedom and his tenure of land. If one could imagine a scale running