Vagabonds
MEDIEVAL SOCIAL ORDER
Position and Legal PrivilegeMost people, of course, were not clergymen and were not nobles, but that doesn't mean that legally they all were the same. In fact, they weren't even all laborares. I won't spend a lot of time on this, but I'll give you an indication of what other kinds of legal statuses people might have.
One was outlaw. Those literally outside of law were of course without privilege. This mean, usually, they were without legal protection of any kind and crimes could be committed against them with impunity. Once arrested, they likewise had virtually no legal protection, no privilege. To be an outlaw was to be in the most desperate of social castes.
Another was to be a vagabond, which was hardly better than being an outlaw; indeed, in most people's eyes (including the law), the vagabond was a kind of potential outlaw. We would call these people homeless, but the dissociation was deeper in the Middle Ages, for the vagabond didn't report to anyone. He was not part of a village, not part of a town, had no lord. He was literally outside of society. He wasn't even a foreigner.
Speaking of which, foreigners sometimes had special legal status, and two groups are worth mentioning here. One was the pilgrim: he enjoyed special protections from the Church (for example, any debts he owed were suspended for the duration of the pilgrimage), and these protections were often supported in secular law. The other I'll mention is the resident merchant, by which I mean a foreign merchant more or less permanently residing in another town. Travel was slow enough and dangerous enough that merchants found it in their interest to have a man in other towns who would act on their behalf. So, for example, a merchant in Augsburg might have such men (sometimes called "factors") residing in Bruges or Lübeck or Venice. Sometimes there were enough of these men that they enjoyed special legal privileges; for example, the right to be tried according to their native laws rather than by local laws. Most foreigners had no such privleges, though—another reason why travel was a risky proposition in the Middle Ages.
Peasants, Serfs, Citizens and SlavesFinally, a quick word about each of these four groups. There were indeed slaves in the Middle Ages, though in our period slavery was pretty rare. You found it mainly in towns around the Mediterranean, where the slaves were nearly always non-Christian. Slaves weren't necessarily chattel, but they had few legal protections.
Serfs were a special case. They were peasants who were burdened by specific duties, bounded by special constraints, and yes even enjoying certain privileges. For example, a serf had to be tried in the court of his lord, but at the same time the serf enjoyed protection from being tried in some other court (e.g. a royal or ducal court) where he might not be treated as leniently. Of course, he might fare worse locally, if his lord were a tyrant. Whatever the case, serfs were in a distinct legal group.
"Peasant" is a highly generic word that covers a multiplicity of groups, but I'll leave out the details. In general, the peasant was subject to local courts but could appeal to higher courts (assuming he had both time and money, which he rarely did). He had to pay certain fees associated with the lands he worked, but otherwise was largely his own master.
"Citizen" is a term that applies only to towns during our period. Peasants weren't citizens. Indeed, the very word means to belong to a city. Within the city, only a fraction of the population were citizens. Cities did indeed maintain rolls and recorded the names of those who held citizenship. That legal status entailed special duties (e.g., serving in the city militia) but also special privileges (subject to city courts rather than to noble courts).
All of this and I still haven't talked about Jews and their legal status, the special status of children, of orphans, of widows, and so on. But this should be enough to give you the idea. The notion of three orders is overly simple to the point of being deceiving. And the modern idea of class based on wealth is hopelessly inaccurate.
Dr. E. L. Skip Knox
Position and Legal PrivilegeMost people, of course, were not clergymen and were not nobles, but that doesn't mean that legally they all were the same. In fact, they weren't even all laborares. I won't spend a lot of time on this, but I'll give you an indication of what other kinds of legal statuses people might have.
One was outlaw. Those literally outside of law were of course without privilege. This mean, usually, they were without legal protection of any kind and crimes could be committed against them with impunity. Once arrested, they likewise had virtually no legal protection, no privilege. To be an outlaw was to be in the most desperate of social castes.
Another was to be a vagabond, which was hardly better than being an outlaw; indeed, in most people's eyes (including the law), the vagabond was a kind of potential outlaw. We would call these people homeless, but the dissociation was deeper in the Middle Ages, for the vagabond didn't report to anyone. He was not part of a village, not part of a town, had no lord. He was literally outside of society. He wasn't even a foreigner.
Speaking of which, foreigners sometimes had special legal status, and two groups are worth mentioning here. One was the pilgrim: he enjoyed special protections from the Church (for example, any debts he owed were suspended for the duration of the pilgrimage), and these protections were often supported in secular law. The other I'll mention is the resident merchant, by which I mean a foreign merchant more or less permanently residing in another town. Travel was slow enough and dangerous enough that merchants found it in their interest to have a man in other towns who would act on their behalf. So, for example, a merchant in Augsburg might have such men (sometimes called "factors") residing in Bruges or Lübeck or Venice. Sometimes there were enough of these men that they enjoyed special legal privileges; for example, the right to be tried according to their native laws rather than by local laws. Most foreigners had no such privleges, though—another reason why travel was a risky proposition in the Middle Ages.
Peasants, Serfs, Citizens and SlavesFinally, a quick word about each of these four groups. There were indeed slaves in the Middle Ages, though in our period slavery was pretty rare. You found it mainly in towns around the Mediterranean, where the slaves were nearly always non-Christian. Slaves weren't necessarily chattel, but they had few legal protections.
Serfs were a special case. They were peasants who were burdened by specific duties, bounded by special constraints, and yes even enjoying certain privileges. For example, a serf had to be tried in the court of his lord, but at the same time the serf enjoyed protection from being tried in some other court (e.g. a royal or ducal court) where he might not be treated as leniently. Of course, he might fare worse locally, if his lord were a tyrant. Whatever the case, serfs were in a distinct legal group.
"Peasant" is a highly generic word that covers a multiplicity of groups, but I'll leave out the details. In general, the peasant was subject to local courts but could appeal to higher courts (assuming he had both time and money, which he rarely did). He had to pay certain fees associated with the lands he worked, but otherwise was largely his own master.
"Citizen" is a term that applies only to towns during our period. Peasants weren't citizens. Indeed, the very word means to belong to a city. Within the city, only a fraction of the population were citizens. Cities did indeed maintain rolls and recorded the names of those who held citizenship. That legal status entailed special duties (e.g., serving in the city militia) but also special privileges (subject to city courts rather than to noble courts).
All of this and I still haven't talked about Jews and their legal status, the special status of children, of orphans, of widows, and so on. But this should be enough to give you the idea. The notion of three orders is overly simple to the point of being deceiving. And the modern idea of class based on wealth is hopelessly inaccurate.
Dr. E. L. Skip Knox