The Carolingian Working Time Directive

How much did kings care about ordinary people in the early Middle Ages? How far did they see it as the king’s role to intervene in their lives?
The text translated below is a fascinating glimpse into one answer to that question. Known as the Capitulary of Le Mans (Capitulare in pago cenomannico datum), it is an edict that sets out limits to the amount of agricultural work that peasants can be asked to do for their lords each week (max 3 days).
It’s often assumed that the text was issued by Charlemagne, though I have argued elsewhere that this isn’t clear-cut. However, it is copied in several ninth-century manuscripts, so it should certainly be taken seriously as a source.
Edition: Boretius and Krause, eds., Capitularia regum Francorum I (MGH, Hannover, 1883), no. 31, pp. 81-2
Commentary: Charles West, ‘Carolingian Kingship and the Peasants of Le Mans: the “Capitulum in Cenomannico pago datum”‘, in Michel Sot and Rolf Grosse, eds., Charlemagne. Les temps, les espaces, les hommes. Construction et déconstruction d’un règne (Turnhout, 2018), pp. 227-244 (Open Access unpaginated version available here https://works.hcommons.org/records/kv8sv-gyq66)
English Translation
From the capitularies of Lord Charles. How manual labour and dues or tribute and other duties are demanded or performed according to facti or mansi or quarti.
On account of the serious complaint which reached us when we were in the region of Le Mans, about* men of the church or fisc, who were not allocated into daywork**, it seemed to us [best] to make a decree with the advice of our faithful followers.
Whichever of these men holds a quarter holding [factus], let him plough for his lord with his animals in the demesne field with his plough for a full day, and after that, let no manual service be required from him by his lord for that week. And whoever does not have enough animals to be able to carry this out in one day, let him carry out the aforementioned work in two days. And whoever has only four weak animals so that he is not able to plough on his own, let him associate himself with others, and then plough for one day in the lord’s field, and afterwards let him carry out manual work for one day in that week. And whoever is not able to do any of these things nor has any animals, let him work with his hands for his lord for three days from morning to dusk, and let his lord not request any more from him.
For these things were done in diverse ways: the whole week was being worked by some, half the week by others, and two days by others. Therefore we decreed this, that neither should the familia absent itself from these works, nor should more be required from them by the lords. And who has less than a quarter holding of good land, let him carry out work according to the measure of his land. We ordered Adalard the count of our palace to instruct this on our behalf to their satisfaction and that of our other faithful men, and publicly to declare it.
* “reclamatio… de hominibus”: usually understood as ‘from’: but in 9th-century texts, reclamatio… de normally means ‘complaint concerning’, as opposed to reclamatio + genitive, ‘complaint of’
** “qui non erant adiurnati”: usually understood as ‘had not been summoned’. However, all instances of this meaning of adiurnare (cf. modern English ‘adjourn’) are 13th-century, not early medieval. I have therefore followed Dietrich Hägermann’s interpretation (‘noch nicht zum Tagesdienst eingeteilt’) : see his ‘Wandel in Technik und Gesellschaft: Neuansatz und Verlust, Angleichung und Transformation im Übergang von der Spätantike zum frühen Mittelalter’, in Hägermann, Haubrichs and Jarnut, eds., Akkülturation: Probleme einer germanischer-romanischen Kultursynthese (Berlin, 2004)