[Ger-Poland-Volhynia] Germans Migrating to Volynia

[Richard Benert]

Hats off to Jerry once again for so graciously continuing his struggle 
against the myth that all Germans went to Russia because of Catherine II's 
invitation.  I wish I knew why this myth continues to be so widespread. 
Could it be something Freudian?  Be that as it may, there is one thing that 
should be added to what Jerry said.  A FEW Germans did  not settle along the 
Volga in the 1760s.  They all went through St. Petersburg, but a few stayed 
in that area.  This was pointed out by Adam Giesinger in "From Catherine to 
Krushchev," on pp. 90ff ( a book which we should all keep at our elbows.). 
Also a few colonies were established at a place called Jamburg (which 
Giesinger confusingly locates both on the Dnieper and the Luga Rivers), and 
at Hirschenhof, not too far from Riga.  So it's not quite true to say that 
Catherine attracted Germans ONLY to the Volga.

Now I must beg Otto's indulgence to comment on a couple of things he said. 
Historians have had many disagreements about the origins of serfdom in 
Western Europe, but I think it is commonly agreed that, while the word, 
"serf," is related to the Latin word, "servus," a serf was not a slave.  He 
may have been bound to the soil, and was sometimes badly treated by the lord 
of the manor, but he was usually "personally free."  Perhaps Otto's use of 
the word "modified" covers this.  But I would question the use of the word, 
"chattel," and the idea that landlords "owned" their serfs.  Otto, could you 
point out your sources for these assertions?  This is a very complex 
subject, and what you say may be true in some cases.  There were indeed 
slaves still existing in the early Middle Ages, but they were distinguished 
from serfs.

Central and Eastern Europe certainly became strongholds of serfdom (not 
feudalism, see below), but only after the Middle Ages, at a time when it was 
disappearing from Western Europe.  I think the consensus nowadays is that it 
really became systematic in Russia only in the 17th century.  It had existed 
in Russia since the late Middle Ages, but there was always a safety valve, 
in that a serf could leave and settle elsewhere (in the fall, if his debts 
were paid).  During the 17th century this ability to move away was taken 
away, which pleased the nobility no end.  This again is a complicated 
subject, and one can find conditions of dependency in medieval (Kievan) 
Russia, as I suppose everywhere where centralized government is lacking and 
"little people" needing protection submit themselves to someone more 
powerful in the neighborhood.  When to call it "serfdom" is partly a matter 
of definition.

Most historians, I think, distinguish between manorialism (with its serfdom) 
and feudalism.  Feudalism is system of personal relations between freemen, 
cemented by oaths of loyalty and a contractual agreement binding on both 
lords and vassals.  Serfs were not freemen, and were not technically part of 
the feudal system, except for being its economic backbone.  I guess some 
Russian historians have argued that Russia had some kind of feudal system, 
but I think that most of them say it didn't.  As I understand it, this is 
largely because the Russian autocracy was so top-heavy that any "agreement" 
between the tsar and a noble was considered not a contract but a grant of 
privilege to the nobleman, usually in exchange for some service to be 
performed, and it could be withdrawn at the tsar's whim.  The nobleman had 
no such power, and I think this is why we can't call Russian nobles 
"vassals" in the western sense.  This has great implications for how 
government in Western Europe developed in ways unknown and impossible in 
Russia.  Feudalism caused western kings to be limited, a condition no 
self-respecting Tsar could accept and the Russian nobility had no power to 
enforce.

As for Russian peasants, Otto is right on in pointing out that, outside of 
serfdom, many of them were less secure than under it.  That is one reason 
they sometimes hankered after German-owned land.

With apologies for the length of this...   And, Otto, please jump on me if 
I'm wrong about any of this!

Dick Benert
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Otto" <otto at schienke.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2010 7:32 PM
To: "joepessarra" <joepessarra at suddenlink.net>
Cc: "GPV List" <ger-poland-volhynia at eclipse.sggee.org>
Subject: Re: [Ger-Poland-Volhynia] Germans Migrating to Volynia

>
> On Apr 18, 2010, at 7:36 PM, joepessarra wrote:
>
>> " 1861: Tsar Alexander II granted freedom to serfs, the peasants who
>> worked
>> for large farms. As a result, some of the nobility started selling
>> land, and
>> a large-scale migration of Germans into the area took place.”
>>
>> Joe in Texas
>
>
> One must be specific in differentiating between the term "serf" and
> "peasant."
> Only the serfs could be given their freedom.
> A serf was part of a system of slavery. The term serf is derived from
> the Latin "Servus."
> A serf was a modified slave under the old Feudal System that grew out
> of  agricultural slavery in the late Roman Empire and spread through
> Europe during the 900's ce. Serfs, under law, were classified as
> "chattel", i.e. cattle, and could be sold or loans obtained on them.
> Manors formed the basic unit of society at the time and serfs were
> owned by the nobility. A serf's personal property would revert to the
> Manor upon death. A noble was responsible for the feeding, health and
> protection of his serfs. Many nobles lacked what we may consider
> nobility.
>
> Feudal had a stronghold in Central and Eastern Europe.
>
> In the census of 1857, 23.1 million serfs existed in Russia.
> The Russians liked Alexander ll. Need we ask why?
>
> Peasants were free people but poor, yet independent. They could sell
> day labor or needed to rent land from a noble and often times
> supplement it with free labor. When crops failed they were on their
> own. When feudalism ended and nobles had to free their serfs, they had
> to then hire a labor force or rent or sell their land (they in turn
> were vassals of the royalty).  Many peasants whose only choice had
> been to rent could now choose to buy their own little acre. Peasants
> could begin cottage industries or become landless craftsmen
> specializing in a trade... the little shoemaker or carpenter for
> example.
>
> The two classes are often spoken of disparagingly yet if one was not
> of the nobility or royalty. . . what remains. . .?
>
> At times the peasants would find survival more difficult than the
> serfs did because they were on their own under the big sky.
> Jokingly I liken serfs and peasants to todays standards of corporate
> employees with percs versus self-employment with feast or famine on
> ones plate.
>
> . . .   Otto
>          " The Zen moment..." wk. of January 01, 2010-
>                   _____________________________________
>                   "Satisfaction . . . lurks in the answers."
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ger-Poland-Volhynia Mailing List hosted by
> Society for German Genealogy in Eastern Europe http://www.sggee.org
> Mailing list info at http://www.sggee.org/listserv
>



>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.801 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2820 - Release Date: 04/19/10 
> 00:31:00
>