Johann Christoph Adelung
Johann Christoph Adelung was a German grammarian and philologist. He was born at Spantekow, in Western Pomerania, educated at schools in Anklam and Berge Monastery and the University of Halle. In 1759 he was appointed professor at the gymnasium of Erfurt, but relinquished this situation two years and went to reside in a private capacity at Leipzig, where he devoted himself to philological researches. In 1787 he received the appointment of principal librarian to the Elector of Saxony at Dresden, where he continued to reside until his death in 1806; the writings of Adelung are voluminous. By means of his excellent grammars and various works on German style, he contributed towards rectifying the orthography, refining the idiom, fixing the standard of his native tongue, his German dictionary Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der hochdeutschen Mundart bears witness to the patient spirit of investigation which Adelung possessed in so remarkable a degree, to his intimate knowledge of the history of the different dialects on which modern German is based.
Shortly before his death, he issued oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde. The hint of this work appears to have been taken from a publication with a similar title, published by Konrad von Gesner in 1555, but the plan of Adelung was much more extensive, he did not live to finish what he had undertaken. The first volume, which contains the Asiatic languages, was published after his death. Of the numerous works by Adelung, the following may be noted: Directorium diplomaticum, he believed that the orthography of the written language should match that of the spoken language. He declared, "Write as you speak and read as it is written"; this principle has been accepted as the key point of the reform of the Serbian literary language initiated by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić. This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed.. "Adelung, Johann Christoph". Encyclopædia Britannica. 1. Cambridge University Press. P. 190. Adelung, J. C. Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Hochdeutschen Mundart
A mint is an industrial facility which manufactures coins that can be used in currency. The history of mints correlates with the history of coins. In the beginning, hammered coinage or cast coinage were the chief means of coin minting, with resulting production runs numbering as little as the hundreds or thousands. In modern mints, coin dies are manufactured in large numbers and planchets are made into milled coins by the billions. With the mass production of currency, the production cost is weighed. For example, it costs the United States Mint much less than 25 cents to make a quarter, the difference in production cost and face value helps fund the minting body; the earliest metallic money did not consist of coins, but of unminted metal in the form of rings and other ornaments or of weapons, which were used for thousands of years by the Egyptian and Assyrian empires. Metals were well suited to represent wealth, owing to their great commodity value per unit weight or volume, their durability and rarity.
The best metals for coinage are gold, platinum, tin, aluminum, zinc and their alloys. The first mint was established in Lydia in the 7th century BC, for coining gold and electrum; the Lydian innovation of manufacturing coins under the authority of the state spread to neighboring Greece, where a number of city-states operated their own mints. Some of the earliest Greek mints were within city-states on Greek islands such as Crete. At about the same time and mints appeared independently in China and spread to Korea and Japan; the manufacture of coins in the Roman Empire, dating from about the 4th century BC influenced development of coin minting in Europe. The origin of the word "mint" is ascribed to the manufacture of silver coin at Rome in 269 BC at the temple of Juno Moneta; this goddess became the personification of money, her name was applied both to money and to its place of manufacture. Roman mints were spread across the Empire, were sometimes used for propaganda purposes; the populace learned of a new Roman Emperor when coins appeared with the new Emperor's portrait.
Some of the emperors who ruled only for a short time made sure. Ancient coins were made by striking between engraved dies; the Romans cast their larger copper coins in clay moulds carrying distinctive markings, not because they knew nothing of striking, but because it was not suitable for such large masses of metal. Casting is now used only by counterfeiters; the most ancient coins were cast in bulletshaped or conical moulds and marked on one side by means of a die, struck with a hammer. The "blank" or unmarked piece of metal was placed on a small anvil, the die was held in position with tongs; the reverse or lower side of the coin received a “rough incuse” by the hammer. A rectangular mark, a “square incuse,” was made by the sharp edges of the little anvil, or punch; the rich iconography of the obverse of the early electrum coins contrasts with the dull appearance of their reverse which carries only punch marks. The shape and number of these punches varied according to their weight-standard. Subsequently, the anvil was marked in various ways, decorated with letters and figures of beasts, still the anvil was replaced by a reverse die.
The spherical blanks soon gave place to lenticular-shaped ones. The blank was struck between cold dies. One blow was insufficient, the method was similar to that still used in striking medals in high relief, except that the blank is now allowed to cool before being struck. With the substitution of iron for bronze as the material for dies, about 300 AD, the practice of striking the blanks while they were hot was discarded. In the Middle Ages bars of metal were hammered out on an anvil. Portions of the flattened sheets were cut out with shears, struck between dies and again trimmed with shears. A similar method had been used in Ancient Egypt during the Ptolemaic Kingdom, but had been forgotten. Square pieces of metal were cut from cast bars, converted into round disks by hammering and struck between dies. In striking, the lower die was fixed into a block of wood, the blank piece of metal laid upon it by hand; the upper die was placed on the blank, kept in position by means of a holder round, placed a roll of lead to protect the hand of the operator while heavy blows were struck with a hammer.
An early improvement was the introduction of a tool resembling a pair of tongs, the two dies being placed one at the extremity of each leg. This avoided the necessity of readjusting the dies between blows, ensured greater accuracy in the impression. Minting by means of a falling weight intervened between the hand hammers and the screw press in many places. In Birmingham in particular this system became developed and was long in use. In 1553, the French engineer Aubin Olivier introduced screw presses for striking coins, together with rolls for reducing the cast bars and machines for punching-out round disks from flattened sheets of metal. 8 to 12 men took over from each other every quarter of an hour to maneuver the arms driving the screw which struck the medals. The rolls were driven by horses, mules or water-power. Henry II came up against hostility on the par
Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor
Maximilian I was Holy Roman Emperor from 1508 until his death. He was never crowned by the Pope, he was instead proclaimed Emperor elect by Pope Julius II at Trent, thus breaking the long tradition of requiring a papal coronation for the adoption of the imperial title. Maximilian was the son of Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, Eleanor of Portugal, he ruled jointly with his father for the last ten years of the latter's reign, from c. 1483 to his father's death in 1493. Maximilian expanded the influence of the House of Habsburg through war and his marriage in 1477 to Mary of Burgundy, the heiress to the Duchy of Burgundy, though he lost the Austrian territories in today's Switzerland to the Swiss Confederacy. Through marriage of his son Philip the Handsome to eventual queen Joanna of Castile in 1498, Maximilian helped to establish the Habsburg dynasty in Spain, which allowed his grandson Charles to hold the thrones of both Castile and Aragon. Maximilian was born at Wiener Neustadt on 22 March 1459.
His father, Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor, named him for an obscure saint, Maximilian of Tebessa, who Frederick believed had once warned him of imminent peril in a dream. In his infancy, he and his parents were besieged in Vienna by Albert of Austria. One source relates that, during the siege's bleakest days, the young prince would wander about the castle garrison, begging the servants and men-at-arms for bits of bread; the young prince was an excellent hunter, his favorite hobby was the hunting for birds as a horse archer. At the time, the dukes of Burgundy, a cadet branch of the French royal family, with their sophisticated nobility and court culture, were the rulers of substantial territories on the eastern and northern boundaries of France; the reigning duke, Charles the Bold, was the chief political opponent of Maximilian's father Frederick III. Frederick was concerned about Burgundy's expansive tendencies on the western border of his Holy Roman Empire, and, to forestall military conflict, he attempted to secure the marriage of Charles's only daughter, Mary of Burgundy, to his son Maximilian.
After the Siege of Neuss, he was successful. The wedding between Maximilian and Mary took place on 19 August 1477. Maximilian's wife had inherited the large Burgundian domains in France and the Low Countries upon her father's death in the Battle of Nancy on 5 January 1477. Before his coronation as the King of the Romans in 1486, Maximilian decided to secure this distant and extensive Burgundian inheritance to his family, the House of Habsburg, at all costs; the Duchy of Burgundy was claimed by the French crown under Salic Law, with Louis XI of France vigorously contesting the Habsburg claim to the Burgundian inheritance by means of military force. Maximilian undertook the defence of his wife's dominions from an attack by Louis XI and defeated the French forces at Guinegate, the modern Enguinegatte, on 7 August 1479. Maximilian and Mary's wedding contract stipulated that their children would succeed them but that the couple could not be each other's heirs. Mary tried to bypass this rule with a promise to transfer territories as a gift in case of her death, but her plans were confounded.
After Mary's death in a riding accident on 27 March 1482 near the Wijnendale Castle, Maximilian's aim was now to secure the inheritance to his and Mary's son, Philip the Handsome. Some of the Netherlander provinces were hostile to Maximilian, and, in 1482, they signed a treaty with Louis XI in Arras that forced Maximilian to give up Franche-Comté and Artois to the French crown, they rebelled twice in the period 1482–1492, attempting to regain the autonomy they had enjoined under Mary. Flemish rebels managed to capture Philip and Maximilian himself, but they were defeated when Frederick III intervened. Maximilian continued to govern Mary's remaining inheritance in the name of Philip the Handsome. After the regency ended and Charles VIII of France exchanged these two territories for Burgundy and Picardy in the Treaty of Senlis, thus a large part of the Netherlands stayed in the Habsburg patrimony. Maximilian was elected King of the Romans on 16 February 1486 in Frankfurt-am-Main at his father's initiative and crowned on 9 April 1486 in Aachen.
He became ruler of the Holy Roman Empire upon the death of his father in 1493. Much of Austria was under Hungarian rule when he took power, as they had occupied the territory under the reign of Frederick. In 1490, Maximilian entered Vienna; as the Treaty of Senlis had resolved French differences with the Holy Roman Empire, King Louis XII of France had secured borders in the north and turned his attention to Italy, where he made claims for the Duchy of Milan. In 1499/1500 he drove the Sforza regent Lodovico il Moro into exile; this brought him into a potential conflict with Maximilian, who on 16 March 1494 had married Bianca Maria Sforza, a daughter of Galeazzo Maria Sforza, duke of Milan. However, Maximilian was unable to hinder the French from taking over Milan; the prolonged Italian Wars resulted in Maximilian joining the Holy League to counter the French. In 1513, with Henry VIII of England, Maximilian won an important victory at the battle of the Spurs against the French, stopping their advance in northern France.
His campaigns in Italy were not as successful, his progress there was checked. The situation in Italy was not the only problem; the Swiss won a decisive victory against the Empire in the Battle of Dornach on 22 July 1499. Maximilian had no choice but to agree to a peace treaty signed on 22 September 1499 in Basel that granted the Swiss Confederacy independence from the Holy Roman Empire. In addition, the Cou
Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological suffering on someone by another as a punishment or in order to fulfill some desire of the torturer or force some action from the victim. Torture, by definition, is a knowing and intentional act. Torture has been carried out or sanctioned by individuals and states throughout history from ancient times to modern day, forms of torture can vary in duration from only a few minutes to several days or longer. Reasons for torture can include punishment, extortion, political re-education, coercion of the victim or a third party, interrogation to extract information or a confession irrespective of whether it is false, or the sadistic gratification of those carrying out or observing the torture. Alternatively, some forms of torture are designed to inflict psychological pain or leave as little physical injury or evidence as possible while achieving the same psychological devastation; the torturer may or may not kill or injure the victim, but torture may result in a deliberate death and serves as a form of capital punishment.
Depending on the aim a form of torture, intentionally fatal may be prolonged to allow the victim to suffer as long as possible. In other cases, the torturer may be indifferent to the condition of the victim. Although torture is sanctioned by some states, it is prohibited under international law and the domestic laws of most countries. Although illegal and reviled, there is an ongoing debate as to what is and is not defined as torture, it is a serious violation of human rights, is declared to be unacceptable by Article 5 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Signatories of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977 agree not to torture captured persons in armed conflicts, whether international or internal. Torture is prohibited for the signatories of the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which has 163 state parties. National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that torture and similar ill-treatment are immoral, as well as impractical, information obtained by torture is far less reliable than that obtained by other techniques.
Despite these findings and international conventions, organizations that monitor abuses of human rights report widespread use condoned by states in many regions of the world. Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 world governments practice torture, some of them openly; the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in force since 26 June 1987, provides a broad definition of torture. Article 1.1 of the UN Convention Against Torture reads: For the purpose of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.
It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions. This definition was restricted to apply only to nations and to government-sponsored torture and limits the torture to that perpetrated, directly or indirectly, by those acting in an official capacity, such as government personnel, law enforcement personnel, medical personnel, military personnel, or politicians, it appears to exclude: torture perpetrated by gangs, hate groups, rebels, or terrorists who ignore national or international mandates. Some professionals in the torture rehabilitation field believe that this definition is too restrictive and that the definition of politically motivated torture should be broadened to include all acts of organized violence. An broader definition was used in the 1975 Declaration of Tokyo regarding the participation of medical professionals in acts of torture: For the purpose of this Declaration, torture is defined as the deliberate, systematic or wanton infliction of physical or mental suffering by one or more persons acting alone or on the orders of any authority, to force another person to yield information, to make a confession, or for any other reason.
This definition includes torture as part of domestic violence or ritualistic abuse, as well as in criminal activities. The Rome Statute is the treaty; the treaty was adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome on 17 July 1998 and went into effect on 1 July 2002. The Rome Statute provides a simplest definition of torture regarding the prosecution of war criminals by the International Criminal Court. Paragraph 1 under Article 7 of the Rome Statute provides that: "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or
Lord of the manor
In English and Irish history, the lordship of a manor is a lordship emanating from the feudal system of manorialism. In modern England and Wales, it is recognised as a form of property, one of three elements of a manor that may exist separately or be combined, may be held in moieties: the title. A title similar to such a lordship is known in French as Seigneur du Manoir, Welsh as Breyr, Gutsherr in German, Godsherre in Norwegian and Swedish, Ambachtsheer in Dutch and Signore or Vassallo in Italian. A lord of the manor might be a tenant-in-chief if he held a capital manor directly from the Crown; the origins of the lordship of manors arose in the Anglo-Saxon system of manorialism. Following the Norman conquest, land at the manorial level was recorded in the Domesday Book of 1086; the title cannot nowadays be subdivided. This has been prohibited since 1290 in the Statute of Quia Emptores that prevents tenants from alienating their lands to others by subinfeudation, instead requiring all tenants wishing to alienate their land to do so by substitution.
Lord Denning, in Corpus Christi College Oxford v Gloucestershire County Council QB 360, described the manor thus: In medieval times the manor was the nucleus of English rural life. It was an administrative unit of an extensive area of land; the whole of it was owned by the lord of the manor. He lived in the big house called the manor house. Attached to it were many acres of grassland and woodlands called the park; these were the "demesne lands". Dotted all round were the enclosed homes and land occupied by the “tenants of the manor”; the owner of a lordship of the manor can be described as, Lord/Lady of the Manor of, sometimes shortened to Lord or Lady of. In modern times any person may choose to use a name, not the property of another. Under English common law a person may choose to be known by any name he sees fit as long as it is not done to commit fraud or evade an obligation. A manorial lordship is not a noble title. Lordship in this sense is a synonym for ownership, although this ownership involved a historic legal jurisdiction in the form of the court baron.
The journal Justice of the Peace & Local Government Law advises that the position is unclear as to whether a lordship of a manor is a title of honour or a dignity, as this is yet to be tested by the courts. Technically, lords freemen. John Selden in his esteemed work Titles of Honour writes, "The word Baro hath been so much communicated, that not only all Lords of Manors have been from ancient time, are at this day called sometimes Barons But the Judges of the Exchequer have it from antient time fixed on them."John Martin Robinson, Maltravers Herald Extraordinary and co-author of The Oxford Guide to Heraldry, gave his opinion that "Lordship of this or that manor is no more a title than Landlord of The Dog and Duck". The style'Lord of the Manor of X' or'Lord of X' is, in this sense, more of a description than a title, somewhat similar to the term Laird in Scotland. King's College, Cambridge have given the view that the term'indicated wealth and privilege, it carried rights and responsibilities'.
Since 1965 Lords of the Manor have been entitled to compensation in the event of compulsory purchase. Before the Land Registration Act 2002 it was possible for manors to be registered with HM Land Registry. Manorial incidents, which are the rights that a lord of the manor may exercise over other people's land, lapsed on 12 October 2013 if not registered by with the Land Registry; this is a separate issue to the registration of lordships of manors, since both registered and unregistered lordships will continue to exist after that date. It is only their practical rights that will lose what is called'overriding interest', or in other words the ability to affect land if the interests or rights are not registered against that land, as of 12 October 2013. Manorial incidents can still be recorded for either unregistered manors; this issue does not affect the existence of the title of lord of the manor. There have been cases where manors have been sold and the seller has unknowingly parted with rights to unregistered land in England and Wales.
In England in the Middle Ages, land was held of the English monarch or ruler by a powerful local supporter, who gave protection in return. The people who had sworn homage to the lord were known as vassals. Vassals were nobles who served loyalty in return for being given the use of land. After the Norman conquest of England, all land in England was owned by the monarch who granted the use of it by means of a transaction known as enfeoffment, to earls and others, in return for military service; the person who held feudal land directly from the king was known as a tenant-in-chief. Military servic
A parlement, in the Ancien Régime of France, was a provincial appellate court. In 1789, France had 13 parlements, the most important of, the Parlement of Paris. While the English word parliament derives from this French term, parlements were not legislative bodies, they consisted of about 1,100 judges nationwide. They were the court of final appeal of the judicial system, wielded much power over a wide range of subject matter taxation. Laws and edicts issued by the Crown were not official in their respective jurisdictions until the parlements gave their assent by publishing them; the members were aristocrats called nobles of the gown who had bought or inherited their offices, were independent of the King. From 1770 to 1774 the Lord Chancellor, tried to abolish the Parlement of Paris in order to strengthen the Crown; the parlements spearheaded the aristocracy's resistance to the absolutism and centralization of the Crown, but they worked for the benefit of their own class, the French nobility. Alfred Cobban argues that the parlements were the chief obstacles to any reform before the Revolution, as well as the most formidable enemies of the French Crown.
He concludes that the Parlement of Paris, though no more in fact than a small, selfish and venal oligarchy, regarded itself, was regarded by public opinion, as the guardian of the constitutional liberties of France. In November 1789, early in the French Revolution, all parlements were suspended, they were formally abolished in September 1790; the political institutions of the Parlement in Ancien Régime France developed out of the King's Council, enjoyed ancient, customary consultative and deliberative prerogatives. In the 13th century, the parlements acquired judicial functions the right of remonstrance against the king; the parlement judges were of the opinion that their role included active participation in the legislative process, which brought them into increasing conflict with the increasing monarchical absolutism of the Ancien Régime, as the Court of Justice evolved during the 16th century from a constitutional forum to a royal weapon, used to force registration of edicts. Since c. 1250, there was only the Parlement of Paris, severed from the King's Council in 1307, with sessions held inside the medieval royal palace on the Île de la Cité, still the site of the Paris Hall of Justice.
The Paris parlement's jurisdiction covered the entire kingdom as it was in the 14th century, but did not automatically advance in step with the Crown's expanding realm. In 1443, following the turmoil of the Hundred Years' War, King Charles VII of France granted Languedoc its own parlement by establishing the Parlement of Toulouse, the first parlement outside Paris; the Parlement of Paris played a major role in stimulating the nobility to resist the expansion of royal power by military force in the Fronde, 1643-1652. In the end, the King won out and the nobility was humiliated; the parlements could withhold their assent by formulating remonstrances against the king's edicts, forcing the king to react, sometimes resulting in repeated resistance by the parlements, which the king could only terminate in his favour by issuing a Lettre de jussion, and, in case of continued resistance, appearing in person in the parlement: the Lit de justice. In such a case, the parlement's powers were suspended for the duration of this royal session.
King Louis XIV moved to centralize authority into his own hands, imposing certain restrictions on the parlements. In 1665, he ordained that a Lit de justice could be held without the king having to appear in person. In 1667, he limited the number of remonstrances to only one. In 1671–1673, the parlements resisted the taxes occasioned by the Dutch War. In 1673, the king imposed additional restrictions that stripped the parlements of any influence upon new laws by ordaining that remonstrances could only be issued after registration of the edicts. After Louis' death in 1715, all the restrictions were discontinued by the regent, although some of the judges of the Parlement of Paris accepted royal bribes to restrain that body until the 1750s. From 1443 until the French Revolution, several other parlements were created all over France, until at the end of the Ancien Régime there were provincial parlements in: Douai, Metz, Colmar, Besançon, Aix, Toulouse, Bordeaux and Rouen; these locations were provincial capitals of those provinces with strong historical traditions of independence before they were annexed to France.
Assembled in the parlements, the hereditary members, the provincial nobles of the gown were the strongest decentralizing force in a France, more multifarious in its legal systems and custom than it might have seemed under the apparent unifying rule of its kings. The Parlement of Paris had the largest jurisdiction of all the parlements, covering the major part of northern and central France, was known as "the Parlement". In some regions provincial States-General continued to meet and legislate with a measure of self-governance and control over taxation within their jurisdiction. All the parlements could issue regulatory decrees for the application of royal edicts or of customary practices, they could refuse to register laws that they adjudged as either untimely or contrary to the local customary law. Tenure on the court was bought from the
Serfdom is the status of many peasants under feudalism relating to manorialism. It was a condition of debt bondage, which developed during the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries until the mid-19th century; as with slaves, serfs could be bought, sold, or traded, abused with no rights over their own bodies, could not leave the land they were bound to. Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the lord of the manor who owned that land. In return they were entitled to protection and the right to cultivate certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence. Serfs were required not only to work on the lord's fields, but in his mines and forests and to labor to maintain roads; the manor formed the basic unit of feudal society, the lord of the manor and the villeins, to a certain extent serfs, were bound legally: by taxation in the case of the former, economically and in the latter. The decline of serfdom in Western Europe has sometimes been attributed to the widespread plague epidemic of the Black Death, which reached Europe in 1347 and caused massive fatalities, disrupting society.
The decline had begun before that date. Serfdom became rare in most of Western Europe after the medieval renaissance at the outset of the high Middle Ages. But, conversely it grew stronger in Central and Eastern Europe, where it had been less common. In Eastern Europe the institution persisted until the mid-19th century. In the Austrian Empire serfdom was abolished by the 1781 Serfdom Patent. Serfdom was abolished in Russia in the 1860s. In Finland and Sweden, feudalism was never established, serfdom did not exist. According to medievalist historian Joseph R. Strayer, the concept of feudalism can be applied to the societies of ancient Persia, ancient Mesopotamia, Muslim India and Japan during the Shogunate. James Lee and Cameron Campbell describe the Chinese Qing dynasty as maintaining a form of serfdom. Melvyn Goldstein described Tibet as having had serfdom until 1959, but whether or not the Tibetan form of peasant tenancy that qualified as serfdom was widespread is contested by other scholars.
Bhutan is described by Tashi Wangchuk, a Bhutanese civil servant, as having abolished serfdom by 1959, but he believes that less than or about 10% of poor peasants were in copyhold situations. The United Nations 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery prohibits serfdom as a practice similar to slavery; the word serf was derived from the Latin servus. In Late Antiquity and most of the Middle Ages, what are now called serfs were designated in Latin as coloni; as slavery disappeared and the legal status of servi became nearly identical to that of the coloni, the term changed meaning into the modern concept of "serf". Serfdom was coined in 1850. Serfs had a specific place in feudal society, as did barons and knights: in return for protection, a serf would reside upon and work a parcel of land within the manor of his lord, thus the manorial system exhibited a degree of reciprocity. One rationale held that a serf "worked for all" while a knight or baron "fought for all" and a churchman "prayed for all".
The serf was the worst fed and rewarded, but at least he had his place and, unlike slaves, had certain rights in land and property. A lord of the manor could not sell his serfs. On the other hand, if he chose to dispose of a parcel of land, the serfs associated with that land stayed with it to serve their new lord; this unified system preserved for the lord long-acquired knowledge of practices suited to the land. Further, a serf could not abandon his lands without permission, nor did he possess a saleable title in them. A freeman became a serf through force or necessity. Sometimes the greater physical and legal force of a local magnate intimidated freeholders or allodial owners into dependency. A few years of crop failure, a war, or brigandage might leave a person unable to make his own way. In such a case he could strike a bargain with a lord of a manor. In exchange for gaining protection, his service was required: in labour, produce, or cash, or a combination of all; these bargains became formalized in a ceremony known as "bondage", in which a serf placed his head in the lord's hands, akin to the ceremony of homage where a vassal placed his hands between those of his overlord.
These oaths bound the lord and his new serf in a feudal contract and defined the terms of their agreement. These bargains were severe. A 7th-century Anglo Saxon "Oath of Fealty" states: By the Lord before whom this sanctuary is holy, I will to N. be true and faithful, love all which he loves and shun all which he shuns, according to the laws of God and the order of the world. Nor will I with will or action, through word or deed, do anything, unpleasing to him, on condition that he will hold to me as I shall deserve it, that he will perform everything as it was in our agreement when I submitted myself to him and chose his will. To become a serf was a commitment