188
THE SAXONS IN ENGLAND.
[book i.
It does not however by any means follow that
the total defeat of a hostile tribe resulted in the im-
mediate and direct enslaving of all the survivors :
as in the example just cited, the blood-feud no
doubt frequently led to the murder of the captive
chiefs and nobles, even if less justifiable motives
did not counsel the same miserable means of re-
moving dangerous competitors1; but the heavy
doom of death must have been one of the melan-
choly privileges of the noble class : and even though
many of the common freemen may have been sold
or retained as slaves at the caprice of the captors,
still we cannot suppose this to have been the lot of
any but those who had actually taken part in com-
bat ; no natural or national law could extend these
harsh provisions to the freemen who remained quiet
at home. Nevertheless even these were liable to
be indirectly affected by the hostile triumph, inas-
much as the conquerors appear invariably to have
taken a portion, more or less great, of the territory
occupied by the conquered2: and wherever this is
l After a battle between Ragnachari and Chlodowich, in which the
former was taken prisoner, the victor thus addressed him : “ Cui
dixit Chlodoveus, Our humiliasti gentem nostram, ut te vinciri per-
mitteres ? Nonne melius tibi fiιerit mori ? Et elevata bipenne, in
caput eius defixit, et mortuus est. Conversusque ad fratτem eius, ait :
Si tu solatium fratri tuo praebuisses, ille Iigatus non fuisset ! Similiter
et ipsum in capite percussum interfecit, et mortuus est.” Gest. Reg.
Franc. (Script. Rer. Gall. et Francic. ii. δ5δ.) It was the interest of
Chlodowich to put these princes to death, but there must still have
been some right acknowledged in him to do so. He seems however to
rest it upon the disgrace which they had brought upon the mægburh,
gens or family, by suffering themselves to be captured and bound.
2 “ Quod Ariovistus......in eorum finibus Consedisset, tertiamque
CH. VIII.]
THE UNFREE. THE SERF.
189
the case to the extent of depriving the cultivator of
means sufficient for his support, he has no resource
but to place himself in dependence upon some
wealthier man, and lose, together with his lot or
κληpoc, the right to form an integral part of the
state : the degree of his dependence, and the con-
sequent comparative suffering to himself, may vary
with a multitude of circumstances ; but the one fact
still remains, viz. that he is in the mund or hand
of another, represented in the state by that other,
and consequently, in the most emphatic sense of
the word, unfree.
It is now generally admitted that this must have
been the case with the whole population in some
districts, who thus became dependent upon a few
intrusive lords : but still these populations cannot
be said to have stood in that peculiar, relation to
the conquerors, which the word serυus strictly im-
plies towards an owner. The utmost extent of their
subjection probably reached no further than the
payment of tribute, the exclusion from military
duty and the standing under a protectorate1. In-
glorious and easy, when once the dues of the lord
were paid, they may even have rejoiced at being
spared the danger of warfare and the laborious suit
partem agri Sequani qui esset optimus totius Galliae, Occupavisset ; et
nunc de altera parte tertia Sequanos decedere iuberet.” θæs. Bell. Gall,
ɪ. 32. The same proportion of a third, sometimes however in produce,
not land, occurs in other cases : Eichhorn, Deut. Staatsges. i. 161 geq.
§ 23, with the accompanying quotations.
This is the condition of the Perioecians in Laconia, with the ex-
ception that these were called upon for military service. The Helotae
or Penestae were more nearly praedial serfs.