Bondage

Front matter

International Studies in Social History Volume 24

“Effectively undermines several certainties that have

characterized our thinking about the history of labor one Labor and Rights in Eurasia from MARCEL VAN DER LINDEN R i a the Sixteenth to the Early Twentieth Centuries

Contents

Acknowledgments ix Introduction 1 The Scope and Main Argument of this Book 1 The Legal Status and Rights of Labor in Russia and Europe 2 Serfdom in a Comparative Perspective 8

Global, Local, Imperial: Scales of Analysis 13

Part I. Bondage Imagined

1 Second Serfdom and Wage Earners in European and Russian Thought from the Enlightenment to the

Mid-nineteenth Century 23 The Eighteenth Century: Forced Labor between Reform

and Revolution 23 Enlightenment and Serfdom in Russia 27 The Proletarians Are the Real Serfs: Utopian Socialism,

Christian Socialism, and Radical Thought 31 Conclusion 35

2 Poor Laws, Management, and Labor Control in Russia and

Britain, or the History of the Bentham Brothers in Russia 42 A Global History of Labor Control: The Case of the Bentham

Brothers in Russia 43 Estate Organization in Russia: Instruktsiia, or How to Supervise

the Supervisor 45 Controlling Labor: Paupers and Servants in Britain 48 The Fate of Bentham’s Panopticon: Labor Organization in

Nineteenth-century Britain and Russia 52 Conclusion 56

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

vi Contents

Part II. The Architecture of Bondage: Slaves and Serfs in Central Asia and Russia

3 Slavery and Bondage in Central Asia and Russia from the Fourteenth to the Nineteenth Century 63 Introduction 63 Kholopy: Slaves, Serfs, or Indentured Servants? 68 War Captives at a Crossroads of Empires 75 Slavery in Central Eurasia: Its Estimation and Overall Interpretation 88 4 The Institutions of Serfdom 101 Property Rules and the Legal Status of Russian Peasantry 102 Changing Legal Status: Administrative Procedure or Court Proceedings 107 Peasants in Town 113 Conclusion: Legal Status and Economic Dynamism in Imperial Russia 118 5 Labor and Dependence on Russian Estates 127 Introduction 127 Proto-industry, Trade, and Growth in the Eighteenth Century 128 From Peasant-masters to Peasant-workers? (1800-1861) 132 Toward a Reassessment of Second Serfdom in Eastern Europe 137

Part III. Old Bondage, New Practices: A Comparative View of the Russian, European, and Indian Ocean Worlds

6 The Persistent Servant: Labor, Rules, and Social Hierarchies in France and Britain from the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Century 147 Labor Constraints in England 148 A French Exception? 159 Conclusion 164

Indentured Labor in the Indian Ocean 175 The Main Argument 175 Forms of Bondage in the Indian Ocean 176 Forced Migration Across the Oceans: Convicts 179 The Invention of Engagisme 181

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

Contents vii

Engagés from Asia and Africa in the Indian Ocean in the

Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries 183 Engagisme after Slavery 186 From Servants to Indentured Immigrants: The Case of Mauritius 192 Toward a New World? 196

Conclusion. The Collapse and Resurgence of Bondage 204 Collective Bargaining and the “New” Labor Contract in

Western Countries 204 Population, Migration, and Labor, 1870-1914 208 Russian Growth: From Serfdom to Bondage? 211

References 217 Archives 217 Printed Documents 219 Selected Bibliography 221

Index 253

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book is the final step of long-term research and discussions with many friends and colleagues. I would like to express my gratitude to the French Agency for Research (ANR), which provided funds for my archival researches in the Indian Ocean. The Wissenschafts Kolleg in Berlin supported the editing and provided the best environment in which to complete the final version. I am particularly indebted to the rector, Luca Giuliani. In France, the EHESS (Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales) and the CNRS (Centre National des Rercherches Scientifiques) provided funds and material support for my research.

Among my colleagues, I have benefited from the discussions with my very best friends Prabhu Mohapatra (Delhi University), Jane Burbank and Fred Cooper (NYU), and Marcel van der Linden (IISG, Amsterdam). I have also “exploited” Kimitaka Matsusato (Sapporo University), Kaoru Sugihara (Tokyo University), Takeo Suzuki (Waseda University), Haneda Masaki (Tokyo University), Gwyn Campbell (McGill University), Elise Kimerling Wirtschafter (Pomona University), Kenneth Pomeranz (Chicago University), Jiirgen Kocka and Andreas Eckart (Re-work, Humboldt University), William Gervase Clarence-Smith (SOAS, London), Leon Fink (University of Illinois at Chicago), Gareth Austin (Graduate Institute, Geneva), Ravi Ahuja (University of Goettingen), Marina Mogilner and Ilya Guerasimov (Ab Imperio, Kazan), and Peter Holquist (University of Pennsylvania).

Finally, I want to express all my gratitude to my partner, Valentina Carbone, and my daughter Ella, for their patience during my far-too-long and far-too-deep involvement in this project.

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

Introduction

The Scope and Main Argument of This Book

This book is about the evolution of labor and labor institutions in Russia as compared with Europe, Central Asia, and the Indian Ocean region, between the sixteenth and early twentieth centuries. It questions common ideas about the origin of labor institutions and market economies—their evolution and transformation in the early-modern and modern world. Since the eighteenth century, comparative analyses of labor institutions and labor conditions in Russia have been developed as if the boundary between free and unfree labor were universally defined, and thus free labor in the West is frequently contrasted with serf labor in Russia and Eastern Europe. This book intends to call that view into question and show that Russian peasants were much less bound and unfree than usually held. Furthermore, this book also shows that in most Western countries labor was similar to service, and wage conditions resembled those of domestic servants, with numerous constraints imposed on work mobility. In colonies, this situation then gave rise to extreme forms of dependency, not only under slavery, but after it, as well (e.g., indentured labor in the Indian Ocean region and obligatory labor in Africa).

Unfree labor and forms of coercion were perfectly compatible with market development—economic growth between the seventeenth and the mid-nineteenth century in Russia, Europe, and the Indian Ocean region was achieved through the wide use of bondage and legal constraints on labor. This was not so because the population was somehow lacking, but because consistent economic growth took place throughout Eurasia at that time. The growth was labor intensive: family units, landlords, estate owners, proto-industrial and manufacturing employers, and state and public administrations all required labor. The world of bonded

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

labor did not collapse with the French Revolution or the British Industrial Revolution, but only with the second Industrial Revolution and the rise of the welfare state, between 1870 and 1914. During this time, free contracts gave working people real rights, which emerged in response to the strength of unions, political turmoil, and welfare. Yet this process involved only a minority of workers in the West (mainly workers in large units), while small units, agriculture, and, above all, the European colonies were only marginally affected until the mid-twentieth century at the earliest. Twentieth-century Russia also departed from the Western path, and the “great transformation” there was ultimately achieved through new forms of bondage.

The Legal Status and Rights of Labor in Russia and Europe

From the eighteenth century to our own time, comparisons between the economies of Russia and the major Western European countries have formed part of a wider debate about the term Jackwardness. The goal of such debates has been to create a comparative scale that accounts for both economic growth and so-called blockages. Such comparisons have often highlighted the nature of labor, which has been categorized as “free” in the West and “forced” in Russia and Eastern Europe. Free labor is said to form the basis of capitalist economic growth, whereas forced labor is said to explain the economic backwardness of Russia."

The recrudescence of corvée in Eastern Europe and Russia from the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries (the so-called second serfdom) is usually explained by the increased interest devoted by local landlords to the rising international market for wheat, mostly pumped up by Western European demand and population growth. Liberal, radical, and Marxist historiography and such different authors as Kula, Wallerstein, and North agree on this: in early modern times, Eastern Europe responded to the commercial, agrarian, and, then, the industrial expansion of the West by binding the peasantries to the land and its lords.? According to this view, the enserfment of the peasantry in the East contrasts with the rise of free wage labor in the West. These dynamics are supposed to have accompanied an increasing international division of labor in which the periphery (Asia and Africa) and quasi-periphery (Southern and Eastern Europe) became subordinate to the core (Northern and Western Europe).

The fact that very different authors agree on these arguments confirms the persistent strength of two assumptions common to liberal and Marxist historiographies: first, an ethnocentric assumption, which states that Europe and Britain are the core of modern and contemporary history,

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

and, second, that there is a clear-cut and ahistorical opposition between free and unfree labor. Only on the basis of these assumptions can the overall economic dynamics of the early modern world be depicted in terms of a periphery, dependence, and the opposition between freedom and unfreedom, markets, and institutions. It is interesting that even new approaches in world history such as Pomeranz’s “great divergence,” while contesting China backwardness and European ethnocentrism, still consider Russia the paradigm of unfree labor and lack of markets and, as such, as the county that stands in contradistinction to both the Lower Yangtze and Britain.’

Clear-cut distinctions may be analytically useful, but they are not confirmed by an empirical analysis of the categories and practices of early-modern and modern Eurasia. This book firmly contests these issues and provides an alternative global explanation of labor, institutions, and economies of the seventeenth through the twentieth centuries. Part 1 (“Bondage Imagined”) discusses the role of ideas and perceptions in shaping dependency, peripheries, and bondage, challenging both Said’s Orientalism and Wallerstein’s world-system approach. Chapter 1 shows that the Enlightenment invented an ideal Russian serfdom and a backward Eastern Europe opposed to the modernizing West but that this attitude was much more complex than Orientalism suggests,* insofar as it owes much to a more general debate on forms of labor in the West. Indeed, in eighteenth-century thought, the definition of backwardness and its main element—labor—lay at the nexus of three interrelated debates: over serfdom in Eastern Europe, slavery in the colonies, and guild reform in France. I show that these debates were interrelated and that images of “the Other” were tightly linked to normative ambitions in France and Britain. During much of the eighteenth century, the attitudes of the French philosophes, economists, and travelers about forced labor (serfdom and slavery) were influenced by considerations both economic (forced labor is advantageous in certain situations) and political (reforms have to be gradual, and both owners and slaves must be educated before the system is abolished). Only in the 1780s did these positions become radicalized, in connection with the first slave revolts in Antilles. The 1780 edition of Raynal and Diderot’s Histoire des deux Indes clearly incited the slaves to revolt, and a revolutionary outlook took the place of reformism. During the same years the British abolitionist movement won massive support."

These varied attitudes toward slavery highlight a much more fundamental dilemma in French and British political philosophy about the status of labor and the role of law in relation to the economy.® The economic rationality that issued from the French Revolution and that was further developed over the first half of the nineteenth century had trouble

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

reconciling these elements. In Britain, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the first process of industrialization relied upon servants (not wage earners or proletarians) and the poor laws as a system of recruitment. This is why in Great Britain, even more than in Russia, moral and political arguments—rather than strictly economic ones—made the victory of abolitionism possible. It is therefore difficult to speak of a “distortion” of Enlightenment and (later) liberal philosophy by Russian economists and administrators, whose thinking was supposedly still influenced by the management of forced labor. On the contrary, Russian elites shared much of the European ambivalence about freedom and labor.

Chapter 2 integrates these views and studies the historical link between forms of surveillance and organization in labor relations in European representations. The experiences of Jeremy and Samuel Bentham in Russia, where they invented what is universally known as the Panopticon, orient my investigation. Using sources from British and Russian archives, I provide a new interpretation of the Panopticon through its Russian origins. Before and after Foucault,” the Panopticon has been seen as a response to social deviance and has been viewed in relation to prisons and the emergence of a global surveillance system in modern societies.’ I challenge this approach by arguing that the Panopticon project was actually a system for controlling wage labor that drew its inspiration from a particular image of Russian serfdom and from the Bentham brothers’ experiences in that country.’ Between 1780 and 1787, Samuel and Jeremy Bentham were asked to manage a large Russian estate owned by Prince Grigorii Potemkin, one of the closest advisors of Catherine II. The problem of controlling skilled English workers in Russia (and not the Russian serfs) is what actually led the Bentham brothers to reflect on the relationship between free and forced labor—and then between labor and society. The fact that the Benthams were uncomfortable with wage labor reflects a wider attitude of the British toward the poor and the servant in the broad social order of that time. In other words, liberal approaches to labor did not invent a backward Russia (the Orientalists’ approach) or new categories of “marginal people” (Foucault’s argument), rather it drew inspiration from Russia to solve the long-standing problem of managing wage labor and the poor in Britain.

At the same time, one cannot take for granted the elites’ representations of labor, slavery, and serfdom for implemented policies and socio-economic dynamics. Links, convergences, and disconnections between ideas, policies, and structural dynamics need to be empirically tested. The second part of this book, “The Architecture of Bondage,” contains three chapters, covering slavery and bondage in Russia and Inner Asia, the institutions of serfdom, and labor practices, respectively. Chapter 3 provides

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

one of the first attempts to identify and quantify slavery and bondage in early-modern Inner Asia, between the fourteenth and the nineteenth century. It also looks for the origins of Russian serfdom and Eurasian labor institutions in the medieval and early-modern slave trade. The import of Russian, Tatar, and Central Asian slaves into the Mediterranean region is usually depicted as an early expression of colonial slavery on the one hand,!° and of Russian serfdom on the other.!! The few available studies on this topic have focused mostly on imports by Ottoman”? and European powers but have neglected Russian sources and the existence of forms of bondage and eventually slavery in Russia itself (before serfdom). I develop a fully integrated approach and mobilize Russian sources that have been poorly explored until now (including translations from Persian, Chinese, Turkish, and particularly Genoese archives). I bring together the origin of war captives and their destinations and add to this the study of local forms of bondage and slavery in Russia. I furthermore link the slave trade in Inner Asia to three major networks and routes: the eastern route, from China to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean (the Silk Road); the north-south route, from Muscovy to Persia, Afghanistan, and India; and the north-southwest route, from Muscovy to the Ottoman Empire. I also attempt to quantify this slave trade, neglected by so many historians.

Traditionally, the dismissing of kholopstvo, or limited-term slaves, has been linked to the evolution of warfare (with the increasing importance of gunpowder), to the (related) growing importance of artillery, and, therefore, to the constitution of national systems of recruitment. In Russia as elsewhere, this went along with the necessity of reforming the fiscal system. New legal constraints on labor mobility were then imposed, which have been termed as serfdom. Chapter 4 studies the rise and implementation of these new constraints. In this case, as with slavery, I begin with an analysis of words and translations. I show that until the 1840s, Russian official rules, jurisprudence, legal records, and even estate archives never spoke of “serfs” but of “peasants” and “rural population.” The supposed Russian expression for serfdom emerged only in the years before the so-called abolition of serfdom. It seems dubious to assume a collective and spontaneous censorship over centuries, so we must take these sources seriously. But if peasants were not serfs, what were they?

I would argue that they were bonded people with important limitations on mobility who were obligated to provide labor.'* Yet these measures were dictated not only by the taxation and military requirements of the rising Russian state,'* which were linked to Russian territorial expansion, * but they also led to a significant redefinition of the relationships between social groups and the state, especially the value of land ownership as a social and political marker. Limitation of peasant mobility was

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

only a consequence and a tool in this fight, not the main aim of Russian politics.'° This explains how, in contradiction to common hypotheses and despite supposed serfdom,” archives (that until now have been poorly explored) show that peasants never stopped moving from one estate to another or from one region to another—and that the government took measures to ensure this right. In short, serfdom was an attempt to discipline the competition between estate owners, and it was a form of institutional extortion of peasants by landlords whose rights officially consisted of controlling marriages, second jobs, and emigrations. There never was a central institutionalization of serfdom in Russia, but there were local forms of bondage.'®

Further confirmation of this explanation is offered by the huge number of judicial litigations between landlords, landlords and peasants, and landlords and merchants concerning peasants moving without permission or working for another landlord or merchant without paying a fee and compensation to the entitled estate owner.'? I make wide use of unexplored Russian judicial archives, which gave me access to litigation between estate owners about their titles, between peasants and estate owners about rights and obligations, and, ultimately, between the state and estate owners. I show that in the decades before the official abolition of serfdom, half of the peasantry changed its status and left the category of “private peasants,” while within this last category, only half were still obliged to provide labor services.”° From this perspective, the reforms of 1861 have to be put in the broader context of several reforms implemented over a century and a half. These reforms did not mark a break, because first, serfdom did not previously exist as such, and, second, legal constraints on peasant mobility and peasant labor did not disappear after 1861.

In order to validate these statements, we need to closely consider the interplay between legal rules and their implementation, on the one hand, and economic practices, on the other. Chapter 5 discusses the organization of labor on Russian estates in detail. It addresses the questions: Were Russian peasants obliged to provide corvées, and were corvées a major obstacle to, if not the antithesis of, market relations?

I explore estate archives and answer no to both questions. Landlords could ask peasants for quitrent or labor services (corvées). Western, as well as Russian and Soviet, historiography traditionally argues that quitrent encouraged trade and economic growth, whereas labor service restricted both?! This argument has been widely echoed by historians of serfdom in Western”? and Eastern Europe. Any satisfactory answer to this question requires an assessment of labor productivity and overall demesne efficiency. The question underlying this debate is important:

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

were historical forms of forced labor compatible with the market, innovation, and capitalism?

I do not intend to provide a general a priori definition of capitalism, but I rely upon its flexible architecture and practices over time. Unlike liberal approaches, I do not link capitalism to the free market and private property; as I have shown in other works,” in its historical variations capitalism can never be associated with the free market and competition, but only with different forms of regulation. Markets are the very ground of capitalism, but they are never self-regulated. Starting from this, my thinking is close to Braudel and Sombart in linking capitalism to markets, regulated exchange, and the desire for (or attempt at) imperfect competition and forms of monopoly. The practices of property and the complicated definition of what “property” and “private” are in different historical situations suggest avoiding this category to define capitalism. “Corporate governance” and “Chinese regime” are but two names of among many other examples of how complicated the definition of private property can be.

In the present book, I focus on the other side of capitalism—labor. In this case, as well, I intend to take my distance from liberal, as well as Marxist and Weberian, definitions of capitalism. Workers were not other forms of “independent producers” making a free choice; on the contrary, we will see that this association between a worker and an independent artisan was used in nineteenth-century French law to settle a peculiar form of labor market. It was an institutional construction, and there was no free choice by the actors themselves.

I also intend to show that capitalism cannot be associated with wage labor and “proletarians”: first, because proletarians and wage earners became dominant actors only with the second Industrial Revolution, while during the previous centuries—the ones we study here—peasant workers and servants were the leading actors. The second reason I exclude any identification of capitalism with free labor is that “time on the cross” in American slavery and many other regimes up through today’s global economies are considered expressions of capitalism, despite the more or less massive presence of unfree labor. I prove this link by studying intermediate forms between chattel slavery and wage earners, that is: serfs, servants, indentured immigrants, and rural laborers. I show that these actors were not marginal, but rather they were central in the global economic and social dynamics between the seventeenth and mid-nineteenth centuries.

The chapter further demonstrates that not only were the “agency” problems on Russian estates solved on the basis of abstract economic considerations, but that these considerations responded to the peculiar way

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

institutions and actors interacted. Peasants’ leaders, landlords, and bailiffs were much more in coordination with than in opposition to each other. The attention given to supervision and its organization testifies to the role of intermediary institutions (bailiffs and village elders) and their ability to complement each other. Starting from this, I conclude that there is no evidence for Kula’s and Wallerstein’s models. According to them, under the second serfdom, Russian demesnes reduced their integration in local markets; peasants became self-sufficient; and landlords extracted a surplus of cereals from the peasants and then sold it mostly abroad and used the income not to invest, but to buy luxury products. In this view, Russian and Eastern European serfdom constituted a contribution from the supposedly backward Russia to the industrializing “advanced” Europe. Instead, I show that an increasing integration of Russian local markets into a national market occurred during the second half of the eighteenth century, when not only landlords, but their peasants, firmly entered the rural agrarian markets. Peasant activity on rural markets even surpassed that of merchants and small urban traders. Therefore, contrary to the traditional arguments, the trade in estate production increased with barshchina (corvées), which was compatible not only with exportation and long distances, but with the rise of local and national markets, as well.

Serfdom in a Comparative Perspective

The conclusions this book reaches for Russia are quite similar to those recently advanced for Eastern Europe agriculture under serfdom. As in Russia, seigniorial regulation in many Central and Eastern European areas aimed at integrating subject proto-industries into the system of demesne economy.” The peasant economy under serfdom corresponded neither to the Chayanovian nor Kula model. Russia and Eastern Europe were not the periphery and quasi-periphery of Western Europe. The case of Russia testifies to a different path on which peasants and noble estate owners took control of agrarian and proto-industrial markets. If this is true, then, is it still correct to associate serfdom with slavery and oppose it to wage labor?

The third part of this book (“Old Bondage, New Practices: A Comparative View”) consists of two chapters that put the institutions and practices of Russian serfdom into an entangled and comparative perspective. I attempt here to escape the usual comparisons between wage labor, serfdom, and slavery made on the basis of ideal types rather than historical realities. Conventional approaches provide an ideal definition of each term. Thus slavery and serfdom are defined by the lack of legal rights allotted to slaves and serfs, their hereditary statute, the master’s right of ownership, and the coercive extraction of surplus. The major identified

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

difference is that unlike slaves, serfs were attached to the land.” This distinction oriented Kolchin’s well-known comparison between American slavery and Russian serfdom.”

I adopt a different methodological assumption: rather than comparing ideal types, I examine historical forms of wage labor, serfdom, and slavery. Confino already criticized Kolchin’s book for its reliance on a peculiar model, namely, Wallerstein’s world economy, in which Russia and the United States are the peripheries of Europe. To this end, according to Confino, Kolchin deliberately ignored important differences between American slavery and Russian serfdom: to start with, the fact that Russian serfs did not come from distant countries and did not belong to a different ethnic group. Thus the master-slave relationship did not find an equivalent in Russia, where the peasant commune and its elders mediated the relationship between the estate owner and the peasants. The Russian master was therefore much more obliged to negotiate peasants’ services than was the American slave owner.’

I further develop this argument. The difference between American slavery and Russian serfdom was even greater than Confino and others (Steven Hoch, for example) have stressed. This issue stands upon two main arguments: on the one hand, the circulation of knowledge and practices between Russia, Inner Asia, and Europe (as discussed in chapters 1, 2, and 3) provides a solid ground for entangled historical dynamics and strongly supports the thesis of a commonality of values, notions, and practices in all these areas. On the other hand, as I demonstrate in chapters 4 and 5, unlike American slaves,” Russian peasants constantly brought judicial litigations and developed their own economic activity (they merely had to pay fees to their masters). Most important, the steppe was colonized (with a million people moving) in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and Siberia was colonized in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, before the official abolition of serfdom. It is as if American slaves had colonized the western frontier before 1865. In short, it makes no sense to consider American slavery and Russian serfdom to be similar institutions. The Cold War is over, and one need not find in the Russian past an equivalent of American slavery.

Instead, I suggest that revisiting Russian serfdom constitutes a powerful heuristic to discuss wage labor in Europe and forms of bondage in the Afro-Eurasian space. In particular, chapter 6 shows that from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, rules on runaways were adopted not only in Russia and for slaves and indentured workers in the colonies, but also in Great Britain, where fugitive workers, journeymen, and servants in general were submitted to severe criminal punishment under the Master and Servant Acts. Apprenticeship, advances in wages and raw materials,

This open access library edition is supported by Knowledge Unlatched. Not for resale.

and also simple master-servant relations were adduced to justify such provisions. From the sixteenth to the end of the nineteenth century in Britain and Europe, free labor, even where a contract existed, was considered the property of the employer and a resource for the whole community to which the individual belonged.* In Britain, punitive measures accompanied the emphasis placed on contractual free will as a foundation of the labor market. Punitive sanctions in text rules and their implementation increased in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Thus the long-term movement of labor and its rules in Great Britain hardly confirm the traditional argument that early labor freedom in the country supported the Industrial Revolution. On the contrary, the Industrial Revolution was accompanied by subjecting workers to increasingly tough regulations and punitive sanctions. Increasing legal constraints on labor—not increasing free wage labor—went hand in hand with the Industrial Revolution.*!

France presents quite a similar story: the notion of a work contract, and hence that of a “wage earner” as we know it today, did not exist until the end of the nineteenth century. Before that, although the French Revolution suppressed lifetime engagement, it did not abolish the notion of labor as service.”

Of course, institutional dynamics do not tell the whole story. Practices changed over time, and labor contracts, mobility, and organizations evolved throughout the studied period; however, the interplay between rules and practices on the one hand, and between Britain, France, and Russia on the other, causes such conventional breaks as “before and after the Industrial Revolution” and “before and after the French Revolution” to be outmoded. Continuities, not only changes, are important and deserve explanation.