214
THE SAXONS IN ENGLAND.
[book I.
seems doubtful whether the labour of the serf was
practically more severe, or the remuneration much
less than that of an agricultural labourer in this
country at this day : his lord was bound to feed him
for his own sake, and if, when old and worn out, he
wished to rid himself of a useless burthen, he could
by an act of emancipation hand over his broken-
down labourer to the care of a Church which, with
all its faults, never totally lost sight of the divine
precepts of charity1. We are not altogether with-
out the means of judging as to the condition of the
serf, and the provision made for him ; although the
instances which we may cite are not all either of one
period, or one country, or indeed derived from
compilations having the authority of law, they show
sufficiently what opinion was entertained on this
subject by some among the ruling class. In the
prose version of Salomon and Satum2, it is said
that every serf ought to receive yearly seven hun
dred and thirty loaves, that is, two loaves a day,
beside morning meals and noon meals ; this can-
not be said to be a very niggardly portion. Again,
the valuable document entituled, uRectitudines
Singularum personarum3,” gives details respecting
ɪ The Romans used to slay their infirm and useless serfs, or expose
them in an island of the Tiber. Claudius made several regulations
in their favour. “ Cum quidam aegra et affecta mancipia in insulam
Aesculapii taedio medendi exponerent, omnes, qui exponerentur, liberos
esse sanxit, nee redire in ditionem domini, si COnvaluissent ; quod si
quis necarβ mallet quem quam eɪponere, caedis crimine teneri.” Suet,
in Claud. 25.
a See supra, p. 38, note 1.
s Thorpe, A. S. Laws, i. 432, and a later edition by Dr. H. Leo of
Halle, 1842.
CH. VHI.]
THE UNFREE. THE SERF.
215
the allowances made to the serfs in various prædial
or domestic capacities, which would induce a belief
not only that they were tolerably provided for, but
even enabled by the exertion of skill and industry
to lay up funds of their own towards the purchase
of their freedom, the redemption of their children,
or the alleviation of their own poverty. From the
same authority and others, we may conclude that
on an estate in general, serfs discharged the func-
tions of ploughman, shepherd, goatherd, swineherd,
oxherd and cowherd, barn-man, sower, hayward,
woodward, dairymaid, and beadle or messenger ;
while the geneat, cotsetla, gebur, beocere and ga-
folswan were probably poor freemen from whom a
certain portion of labour could be demanded in
consideration of their holdings1, or a certain rent
(gafol) reserved out of the produce of the hives,
flocks or herds committed to their care : and these
formed the class of the Læt and Esne, poor mer-
cenaries, serving for hire or for their land, but not
yet reduced so low in the scale as the J>eow or
wealh. It is not only probable that there would be
distinctions in the condition of various serfs upon
the same estate, but even demonstrable : it can
hardly be doubted that men placed in situations
of some trust, as the ploughman, oxherd or beadle,
were in a somewhat higher class, and of better con-
dition, than the mere hewers of wood and drawers
This is the Robot of Slavonic countries, the Operatio of our Nor-
man law ; a mere labour-rent, necessary in countries where there is no
accumulated capital, and wealth (for want of markets) consists only in
land, and limbs wherewith to till it.