The manorialism, also called manorial system, seignorialism, or seignorial system, is political, economic, and social system by which the peasants of medieval Europe were rendered dependent on their land and on their lord. Its basic unit was the manor, a self-sufficient landed estate, or fief that was under the control of a lord who enjoyed a variety of rights over it and the peasants attached to it by means of serfdom. The manorial system was the most convenient device for organizing the estates of the aristocracy and the clergy in the Middle Ages in Europe, and it made feudalism possible. Under other names the manorial system was found not only in France, England, Germany, Italy, and Spain but also in varying degrees in the Byzantine Empire, Russia, Japan, and elsewhere. The manorial system’s importance as an institution varied in different parts of Europe at different times. In western Europe it was flourishing by the 8th century and had begun to decline by the 13th century, while in eastern Europe it achieved its greatest strength after the 15th century.
The manorialism had its origins in the late Roman Empire, when large landowners had to consolidate their hold over both their lands and the labourers who worked them. This was a necessity in the midst of the civil disorders, enfeebled governments, and barbarian invasions that wracked Europe in the 5th and 6th centuries. In such conditions, small farmers and landless labourers exchanged their land or their freedom and pledged their services in return for the protection of powerful landowners who had the military strength to defend them. In this way, the poor, defenseless, and landless were ensured permanent access to plots of land which they could work in return for the rendering of economic services to the lord who held that land. This arrangement developed into the manorial system, which in turn supported the feudal aristocracy of kings, lords, and vassals.
The typical western European manor in the 13th century consisted partly of the cottages, huts, and barns and gardens of its peasants, which were usually clustered together to form a small village. There might also be a church, a mill, and a wine or oil press in the village. Close by was the fortified dwelling, or manor house, of the lord, which might be inhabited by him or merely by his steward if the lord happened to hold more than one manor. The village was surrounded by arable land that was divided into three large fields that were farmed in rotation, with one allowed to lie fallow each year. There were also usually meadows for supplying hay, pastures for livestock, pools and streams for fishing, and forests and waste lands for wood gathering and foraging. Most of the latter and a portion of the cultivated land were held by the lord as his demesne—i.e., that portion of a manor not granted to free tenants but either retained by the lord for his own use and occupation or occupied by his villeins (serfs) or leasehold tenants.
The lord would grant part of his land out to free tenants to hold at a rent or by military or other service. Below the lord and the free tenants came the villeins, serfs, or bondmen, each holding a hut or small dwelling, a fixed number of acre strips, and a share of the meadow and of the profits of the waste. Normally the peasant was unfree; he could not without leave quit the manor and could be reclaimed by process of law if he did. The strict contention of law deprived him of all right to hold property, and in many cases he was subject to certain degrading incidents, such as marchet (merchetum), a payment due to the lord upon the marriage of a daughter, which was regarded as a special mark of unfree condition. But there were certain limitations. First, all these incidents of tenure, even marchet, might not affect the personal status of the tenant; he might still be free, though held by an unfree tenure. Second, even if unfree, he was not exposed to the arbitrary will of his lord but was protected by the custom of the manor as interpreted by the manor court. Moreover, he was not a slave, since he could not be bought and sold apart from his holding. The hardship of his condition lay in the services due from him. As a rule, a villein paid for his holding in money, in labour, and in agrarian produce. In money he paid, first, a small fixed rent that was known as rent of assize and, second, dues under various names, partly in lieu of services commuted into money payments and partly for the privileges and profits enjoyed by him on the waste of the manor. In labour he paid more heavily. Week by week he was required to come with his own plow and oxen to plow the lord’s demesne. When plowing was completed, he had to harrow, to reap the crops, to thresh and carry them, or to do whatever might be required of him, until his allotted number of days’ labour in the year had been accomplished.
The most-complicated structure in the system was the manor court, whose business was divided into criminal, manorial, and civil. Its powers under the first head depended on the franchises enjoyed by the lord in the particular manor. For the most part, only petty offenses were triable, such as small thefts, breaches of the assize of bread and ale, assaults, and the like. Except under special conditions, the justice of great offenses remained in the hands of the king or other territorial sovereign. But offenses against the custom of the manor, such as bad plowing, improper taking of wood from the lord’s woods, and the like were of course the staple criminal business of the court. Under the head of manorial business, the court dealt with the choice of the manorial officers and had some power of making regulations for the management of the manor, but its most important function was the recording of the surrenders and admittances of the villein tenants. Finally, the court dealt with all suits as to land within the manor, questions of dower and inheritance, and those few civil suits not connected with land.
The revival of commerce that began in Europe in the 11th century signaled the decline of the manorial system, which could only survive in a decentralized and localized economy in which peasant subsistence farming was dominant. The reintroduction of a money economy into Europe and the growth of cities and towns in the 11th and 12th centuries created a market for the lords’ agricultural produce and also provided luxuries for them to purchase. As a result, lords increasingly allowed their peasants to commute their (labour) services for money and eventually to purchase their freedom with it as well. Agricultural surpluses could now be sold to the cities and towns, and it was found that free workers who paid rent or received wages farmed more efficiently (and produced more profits) than enserfed labourers. Owing to these and other economic reasons, the inefficient and coercive manorial system disintegrated in western Europe, gradually evolving into simpler and less-onerous economic arrangements between landlords and rent-paying tenants.
The manorialism underwent a somewhat different evolution in central and eastern Europe. These areas had witnessed the decline of manorialism in the 12th and 13th centuries as vast areas of forest and wasteland were colonized by free German and Slavonic peasants. But the numerous wars fought between the Russians, Poles, Prussians, Lithuanians, and others in the 15th and 16th centuries reproduced the political instability and social insecurities that had led to peasant enserfment in western Europe centuries earlier. In addition, western Europe’s growing demand for grain from the Baltic area gave nobles and other landlords there an additional incentive to enserf their peasants, since that was the best way to ensure labour services for grain-growing demesnes. So by the 16th century manorialism had been re-created on a large scale in eastern Europe, particularly in eastern Germany, Poland, and Russia. These reactionary manorial developments were not reversed in eastern Europe until the 19th century in most cases.