Slavery among the Eastern Slavs of the VIII-X centuries. Was there slavery in Russia Was there slavery among the ancient Slavs
The question of the existence of slave owners in Ancient Russia seems not as simple as it might seem at first glance, because there is plenty of evidence of slavery in literary sources. But then why do the most respected historians sincerely believe that the Russians did not have slaves and slavery?
Was there slavery?
The existence of slaves, and consequently, of slave owners in the work “Al-Alaq al-Nafisa” is directly spoken by the Persian scholar Ahmed Ibn-Dasta, who lived in the 10th century, who describes the settlement of the Rus on a large marshy island.
He tells that the leader of the Rus is a kagan, and they live by robberies and capturing slaves, who are then taken to the slave markets in the cities of Khazaran and Bulkar and sold there for money.
The Persian notes that the Rus have many cities, “they treat slaves well and take care of them,” although the historian immediately clarifies that if the priests order to bring a human sacrifice to the gods, then they are not overruled, they take slaves and hang them on poles, “until they won't choke."
Russkaya Pravda writes in great detail about the attitude towards slaves - a code of laws that has been in force in Russia since 1016: a person who killed a slave had to pay 5 hryvnia to its owner, and 6 hryvnia for a slave ("robe"), for a princely a serf killed without guilt - they already paid 12 hryvnias to the prince. The serf himself could be freed from the fault at the will of the owner - then his owner had to give "vira" for the slave's misconduct - a fine.
It also spoke about various actions during the escape of a serf, about the responsibility of the master in case of various misconducts of the slave. It also indicated the responsibility of the people who fed the fugitive slave or showed him the way: they also had to pay the slave owner vir in 5 or 6 hryvnias.
According to Russkaya Pravda, not only captives, but also debtors and criminals became slaves in Russia; men or women who have expressed a desire to marry or marry a slave; and in extreme poverty one could sell oneself into slavery.
The Soviet historian Pyotr Nikolaevich Tretyakov in his works expressed the opinion that in Ancient Russia there were both slaves and slave owners, but pointed out that among the Slavs a member of another tribe, or a prisoner captured in the war, often became a slave; especially prized were women and children, who were an important part of the booty. At the same time, the historian specified that slavery in Ancient Russia was not of a patriarchal nature and was part of socio-economic life.
Historian Evgenia Ivanovna Kolycheva believes that slavery in Russia was not unusual, and it was characterized by the same features as for slavery in the ancient world.
The Soviet historian Boris Alexandrovich Romanov in his work “People and Customs of Ancient Russia” expressed the opinion that slavery in Russia in general played a huge role and had a “corrupting” effect on the morality of the population. According to the scientist, a “free husband” in Russia could not be imagined without a slave, and those who did not have them, by all means sought to acquire them.
Romanov believed that already in the 11th century there was a “democratization” of slave owners, that is, any free inhabitant of Russia could be a slave, and in the 12th century almost all of them owned slaves.
In these conclusions, the historian relied on the ideas of Soviet science and believed that from the 10th to the 13th centuries, Russia was going through a complex process of the formation of classes in a feudal society, which is unthinkable without slavery.
There was no slavery
But by no means all historians shared the opinion that slavery among the ancient Slavs existed in full, especially for historians of the 19th century.
For example, Professor Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov believed that slavery in its ancient form did not exist among the ancient Slavs at all, since there was no economic need for it - the Slavs were not accustomed to luxury.
The historian pointed out that the peoples of Ancient Russia were not too warlike, that is, they had few prisoners, and the Slavs were engaged in farming and farming themselves, without transferring these duties to women and slaves. Solovyov also pointed out that a large number of slaves made it extremely difficult for the Slavic tribes to move in the event of an enemy attack.
His opinion was shared by another Russian historian, Nikolai Alexandrovich Rozhkov, who referred to Byzantine authors in his studies. He also expressed the opinion that slavery was not developed among the Slavs, there were few slaves, their situation was not difficult: they treated the slaves well, and often set them free
The Russian historian of the 19th century, Matvey Kuzmich Lyubavsky, believed that slavery in Russia spread only with the arrival of the Varangian squads and the formation of large princely courts, which included "boyars, ognischans, gridi, youths, children's, princely slaves." And if before that the enemies captured in battles were sold to other lands, then with the advent of large cities they began to remain in the possessions of the princes.
If we turn to the authors cited by scientists, we learn that, for example, the Byzantine commander Mauritius the Strategist wrote about the Slavs as freedom-loving people who would prefer death to slavery, and captives “are not kept in slavery all their lives, but are limited to it for a certain period , after which the prisoner has the right to ransom.
The Baghdad traveler Muhammad Ibn Haukal, speaking about the people of Kyivians (inhabitants of the city of Kuyaba), mentions the slaves only in passing: "they ... take out ... black sables, black foxes and tin and a certain number of slaves."
The absence of the spread of slavery among the ancient Slavs is also evidenced by the fact that in Russia there were no specialized slave markets, which existed, for example, in Bulgaria, in the Crimea or in the East.
So the truth may lie somewhere in the middle. Undoubtedly, there were slave owners in Ancient Russia, but this phenomenon was not common as in ancient Greece, in the Roman Empire or in the East: a few slave owners took care of the slaves, they were allowed to redeem and limited the time spent in slavery.
The spread of slave dependence and the increase in the number of "free men" owning slaves occurred already after the 12th century in connection with the spread of new economic relations, the emergence of large cities and large landowners.
We are not Slaves - We are not Slaves
There are multiple opinions in the form of myths that there has never been slavery in Russia. The Slavs were civilians who were plowmen - Aryans, led a righteous lifestyle and never fought. We are all enlightened, intelligent, educated, believers, we know perfectly well that slavery and the slave trade are relics of the past. Ah, remnants, so they were and there was slavery? We all know that there was slavery, but neo-pagans say that it did not exist, so who is right and what years are we talking about? I think, if we are talking about Russia, then we will consider it an established state, and not divided into various nationalities and tribal groups. In what year was a single state formed and under what banners was everything organized?
And so, we read an excerpt from The Tale of Bygone Years, further events are described as follows:
"... In the summer of 6367 (859). The Varangians from overseas took tribute from the Chud, and from the Slovenes of Novgorod, and from Mary, from all the Krivichi. In the year 6370 (862) they expelled the Varangians overseas and did not give them tribute and became themselves and there was no truth in them, and generation upon generation rebelled, and there was strife among them, and they began to fight with themselves. And they went across the sea to the Varangians, to Russia. That was the name of those Varangians, Rus, as other Varangians are called Svei (Swedes), others Urmans (Normans), Angles (Normans from England), other Goths (inhabitants of the island of Gotland), and these. Chud Rus (Finns), Slovenes (Novgorod Slavs), and Krivichi (Slavs from the upper Volga) said the following words: "Our land is great and plentiful, but there is no dress in it; go reign and rule over us." And three brothers volunteered with their kind and came. The elder Rurik settled in Novgorod, the other, Sineus, on Beloozero, and the third, Truvor, in Izborsk. The Russian land was nicknamed from them, that is, the land of the Novgorodians: these are Novgorodians from the Varangian family, before they were Slavs. "Source: http://otvet.mail.ru/question/67105268
What follows from this? As we can see in those distant times, on the territory of Russia and beyond its borders, there were many divided peoples who not only traded with each other, but also fought (but they are trying to prove to us remakes of history that the Russians lived peacefully. The inhabitants were not so harmless territory of Russia, - a lot of blood was shed. There were many of these nationalities, but in the end, no matter how they argued, no matter what the scientists proved, what theories they did not invent, anyway, the course of history could not be changed - it turned out that the peoples The birth of a single state took place in AD 862. Prince Rurik laid the foundation for the first Russian dynasty, which ruled our state for more than seven centuries.
No matter how we talked about how wonderful everyone lived, and there was no slavery, everyone was saints, they sang epic songs and Jesus said to “his Jews”: - “Don’t go there with sermons (in the sense of Russia), there are people almost saints live (so say our Rodnovers, neo-pagans, Levashov, Zadornov the same and many others repeat these quotes one after another.) So, I will never believe this. No - no - they sang epic songs and our language is beautiful, and there is a lot of piety in the peoples of Russia, there is not even a dispute, but the scattered peoples, principalities could not live peacefully, there were always raids, theft, ruin, but where there are wars, even small ones, there is slavery.Even in our time, young people from one village fight with the peers of another village - they arrange massacres - this is an indisputable fact - in their teens they themselves fought village against village, street against street, that's what we lacked? Militancy is sewn into all nations at the level of genetics and the Slavs are no exception. too peaceful and not only that, later, that they would not have conquered everyone, they united and created one huge and powerful state, called Russia.
Well, let it be the way the adherents of the "Slavic-Aryan Vedas", neo-pagans and people who picked up these ideas are trying to inspire us. Let's all unanimously assume that in Russia everyone was a saint, no one fought, there was no slavery (it even became ridiculous), then all the same, scattered peoples, principalities on the territory of Russia - Russia could not be called in any way. Why? Yes, because each united grouping was its own mini-state.
To make it clearer, I will give a small part of the life of the formation of Russia, namely, part of the dates:
1503 - Accession to Moscow of the South-Western Russian lands.
1505–1533 - The reign of Basil III.
1510 - Accession of Pskov to Moscow.
1514 - Accession of Smolensk to Moscow.
1521 - Accession of Ryazan to Moscow.
1533–1584 - The reign of Grand Duke Ivan IV the Terrible.
1547 - The wedding of Ivan IV the Terrible to the kingdom.
1549 - Beginning of the convocation of Zemsky Sobors.
1550 - Adoption of the Sudebnik of Ivan IV the Terrible.
1551 - "Stoglavy Cathedral" of the Russian Orthodox Church.
1552 – Annexation of Kazan to Moscow.
1555–1560 - Construction of the Intercession Cathedral in Moscow (St. Basil's Cathedral).
1556 - Accession of Astrakhan to Moscow.
1556 - Adoption of the Code of Service.
http://info-olymp.narod.ru/hrone.html
What do we see? Joining, joining, joining ... Now it is clear that everything was scattered, so who or what to call Russia? Ryazan, Kazan, Smolensk, Astrakhan? Only a small part of the events that took place in our history is given, and the essence is already visible from this example.
Let's go back to slavery. After all, we are talking about slavery, and was it in Russia? So, what kind of tribe, people or principality are we talking about then? To talk about this, you need to see a whole and unified state, called Russia, then you can talk about Russia as a state and slavery in it, and it began to form only in 862 AD. They began to unite because they were tired of bloodshed and strife. Brother killed brother, fathers with wars were children, strife, persecution, bloodshed. Everyone is tired of the stupidity. There is no need to look far for examples - look at modern Ukraine, what is going on there? They kill each other, strife strangles the country. This is in the modern world, but in the past it was much more difficult. By the time you ride a horse, all the families have already been slaughtered.
But uniting is not enough, you need to create a stable state that could resist all other peoples, states that did not want to unite with the future Russia and were ready to attack and fight. Russia itself was proclaimed an empire after the Northern War, which ended in 1721. Thus, Peter I became the first emperor. source: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_empire
And so, the Russian Empire was formed in 1721, and it was proclaimed a republic on September 1, 1917 - this is the official and internationally recognized name of the country and it doesn’t matter who and what they say or someone suddenly thinks they are smarter than those who proclaimed and acknowledged it. The very fact of recognition has already come true and this is history. As we can see, before mighty Russia appeared in the form in which we know it, it went through a long, painful development, with all its numerous wars, including civil ones, hardships and hardships, with its ups and downs.
Now, dear friends, let's see if there was slavery in Russia? What period are we looking at? Let's start at least from the time of the formation of the state, and not the moment when everyone lived separately and fought with each other. Although he made an extract from those times: I. Ya. Froyanov wrote the book “Slavery and tributary among the Eastern Slavs”, (St. Petersburg, 1996) and in his last book he wrote:
“Eastern Slavic society was aware of slavery. Customary law forbade the slaves of their fellow tribesmen. Therefore, captured foreigners became slaves. They were called servants. For the Russian Slavs, servants are primarily an object of trade ... "
"at that time, a goat and a sheep were valued at 6 feet, a pig at 10 feet and a mare at 60 feet, then the price of a prisoner at 2 feet should be explained only by extreme need to quickly sell too plentiful goods."
Source: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D5%EE%EB%EE%EF%F1%F2%E2%EE
As we can see, slavery existed in Russia in ancient times and slaves were traded. There were also serfs. What is servility? Kholop is the same slave in ancient princely Russia. Kholop - a slave from the local population, chelyadin - a slave captured as a result of a campaign against neighboring tribes, communities and states. That is, a servant is a foreign slave, a foreign slave. Compared to the servant, the serf had more rights and indulgences, but still remained a slave. Source: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery
Further, what is serfdom? When did it appear, in what years? Who are the serfs? (let's look at the picture by enlarging it - a serf artist is breastfeeding a dog puppy, and her child lies at her feet - pay attention - this is a real picture and there were real people - artist Nikolai Alekseevich Kasatkin (1859 - 1930))
Serfdom in Russia existed since the Kievan Rus of the 11th century AD. It was a system of legal relations between farmers and peasants. Roughly speaking, the relationship between a slave owner and a slave.
In Kievan Rus and Novgorod, unfree peasants were divided into categories: smerds, purchasers and serfs. In tsarist Russia, serfdom had become widespread by the 16th century; officially confirmed by the Cathedral Code of 1649; canceled in 1861. Human trafficking continued in Russia until February 1861. Recall "Dead Souls" (Gogol) Source: - Wikipedia.
Here's your grandmother and St. George's Day! Have you heard such a saying? But these exclamations are connected with the slavery of serfs, they could change the slave owner on St. George's Day, but later a law was issued that forbade changing the landowner at the end of the year. The peasant became not just a slave, but a silent beast. Reading the quote:
The Sudebnik of 1497 was the first law regulating the beginning of the enslavement of the peasants. Since the annual cycle of agricultural work usually ended by the end of November, from 1497 a peasant could change the landowner only a week before St. George's Autumn Day (November 26) and a week after it. Since the 15th century, in connection with the registration of serfdom in Russia, a restriction was introduced on the rights of peasants to transfer from one landowner to another. In 1592, the transition of peasants from one landowner to another was finally prohibited.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%DE%F0%FC%E5%E2_%E4%E5%ED%FC
Further, recruitment in Russia existed from 1705 to 1847 - recruitment military service, but we will not touch it, although people served in the army for life, later replaced by 25 years of service. He cited recruitment as an example in order to show the "sweet" life of the Russians. I wonder how many wars there were, can we list them by date?
So the neo-pagan myths about the sweet heavenly life, about the glorious Gods, the Magi, who were almost Gods in ancient Russia, or rather, these great and peaceful people lived in settlements that stood on the territory of the future Great Power, later called after the unification of peoples , - Russia. So, these myths, in my opinion, are not entirely true. Also, the fiction that there was no slavery in Russia, that Russia was captured by Christians and forced to pray to Christ is a complete absurdity, which is driven into our entire population by neo-pagans and people who did not study very well at school, others who blindly believe fairy tales and agree with them.
These are the thoughts, dear friends, I visited today ... It has not yet been told about various repressions, Stalin's camps, the Civil War (again strife), millions of tortured peasants (I think they are also slaves) - under Peter the Great, who built Petersburg and other objects. This city literally stands on the bones. Our Primer began with the words "Mom washed the frame", "We are not slaves - we are not slaves" with these slogans, the complete illiteracy of the ordinary population of Russia was eliminated. Even the primer began with the words "slaves." Yes, there were literate people - these were landowners, merchants, the intelligentsia, and the common people of which the foundation of Russia consists, were illiterate.
So not everything was so sweet in Russia or in Russia. This is how history is being substituted for us, and the most important substitution is taking place in our time, and by whom?
All that he wrote - these topics were passed and studied in any Soviet school, but Soviet education was considered the best in the world. All materials that are mentioned in this article are freely available and open to everyone.
Comments: 3
I think the list is not complete, but still - Chronology of wars:
Old Russian state 862-1054
Byzantine campaigns of the 9th-10th centuries.
Campaigns of Svyatoslav I-X centuries.
Campaigns of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich and Yaroslav the Wise X-XI centuries.
The struggle against the nomads of the X-XI centuries.
The defeat of the Khazar Khaganate in 985
Russian principalities 1054-1547
Battle on the Nemiga River 1067
Battle of Stugna 1093
Bitka on the Kalka River 1223
Battle of the Neva 1240
Ice Battle of 1242
Campaigns in Russia Batu 1237-1257.
Battle on the Irpen River 1321
Battle of Kulikovo 1380
The overthrow of the Golden Horde yoke 1439-1480
Border War 1487-1494
Russo-Swedish War 1495-1497
Russian-Livonian-Lithuanian war 1500-1503
Russo-Lithuanian War 1507-1508
Russo-Lithuanian War 1512-1522
The conquest of Central Asia at the beginning of the 16th century - 1839
Starodub War 1534-1537
Kingdom of Russia 1547-1721
Russo-Swedish War 1554-1557
Livonian War 1558-1583
Crimean campaign against Moscow in 1571
Molodinsk battle of 1572
Time of Troubles 1598-1613
Northern War 1700-1721
Russian Empire 1721-1917
Persian War 1722-1723
War of the Polish Succession 1733-1735
Turkish War 1736-1739
Swedish War 1741-1743
Seven Years' War 1756-1763
First Polish War 1768-1772
Catherine's First Turkish War 1768-1774
Pugachev rebellion 1773-1775
Second Turkish War 1787-1791
Swedish War 1788-1790
Second Polish ("Insurrection") War of 1795
Persian campaign of Count Zubov in 1796
First war with France 1799
War with Persia 1804-1813
Second war with France 1805-1807
War with Turkey 1806-1812
War with Sweden 1808-1809
Patriotic War of 1812-1814
War with Turkey 1828-1829
Polish War 1830-1831
Hungarian campaign of 1849
Crimean War 1853-1856
Polish uprising of 1863
War with Turkey 1877-1878
Akhal-Teke expedition 1880-1881
1885 clashes with Afghanistan
Pamir campaigns 1891-1895
War with Japan 1904-1905
First World War 1914-1917
Civil War 1918-1922
Soviet-Polish war 1919-1921
Battles at Khalkhin Gol 1939
Polish campaign of the Red Army in 1939
Soviet-Finnish war 1939-1940
Great Patriotic War 1941-1945
- Moscow battle 1941-1942
- Battle of Stalingrad 1942-1943
- Battle of Kursk 1943
- Belarusian operation 1944
Soviet-Japanese War 1945
Intervention in Afghanistan 1979-1989
Russian Federation since 1991
First Chechen War 1994-1996
Second Chechen War 1999-2009
Armed conflict in South Ossetia in 2008
The profound socio-economic and political changes now taking place in Russian society have caused a rise in the historical self-awareness of our people. Again, as more than once before, the question arose about the ways of Russia's development, its role and significance in world history. Historians debating this question solve it ambiguously, offering two essentially different approaches. Some of them, speaking about the modernization of Russia, associate it with joining Western European civilization, with the stages that Western society went through. They talk about Russia's return to capitalism after the failed Bolshevik experiment of building socialism and communism "in a single country." Other researchers show the specifics of Russian history and seek to find Russia's own place in world development. He sees the future of Russia not through primitive copying of Western models, but through the revival of age-old national traditions, in which not individual, but collective values prevail, where the fundamental is not private property that separates people, but communal-state property that contributes to their unification. Among these researchers is I. Ya. Froyanov, whose work on the history of medieval Russia has become widely known in science.
With his scientific work, I. Ya. Froyanov partly, as it were, anticipated the changes that are now taking place in the historical consciousness of Russian society. He entered historical science in a bright and original way, with an arsenal of ideas that destroyed the stereotypes familiar in Soviet historiography relating to the early history of Russia, which opened up the possibility of a non-standard understanding of the Russian historical process in general. In defending scientific convictions, he had to endure many difficulties, attacks and even persecution. Already the first book he wrote, Kievan Rus: Essays on Socio-Economic History, met with active rejection in protective academic circles. But I.Ya. Froyanov resisted the fight, responding to high-ranking enemies with new and new works, the fate of which, however, was sometimes dramatic.
Most recently, in 1995, his capital book “Ancient Russia: An Experience in the Study of the History of Social and Political Struggle” was published, which is the first and so far the only generalizing scientific study on the history of social and political struggle in Russia in the 9th-early 13th centuries. The main pathos of this book by I.Ya. Froyanov is directed against overly exaggerated ideas about the role of the class struggle in the development of ancient Russian society, rooted in the Soviet historiography of Kievan Rus. And now we have before us another work of the historian, dedicated to slavery and tributary among the Eastern Slavs of the 6th-10th centuries. and filling a significant gap in historical science, since it still does not have a monographic study on this topic. There is another circumstance that gives great importance to the present work of I. Ya. Froyanov.
The view of the social system of the Eastern Slavs and Ancient Russia among modern historians is largely due to their understanding of the problem of slavery and especially tributary ties. It was on the basis of the interpretation of tribute as feudal rent that the theory of state feudalism, which allegedly dominated Russia, was formed. I. Ya. Froyanov convincingly refutes this theory, showing its inconsistency.
Very interesting and scientifically promising is the author's desire to bring slavery and tributary out of the framework of industrial and social relations into the sphere of spiritual and moral life, or into the mental area. This makes the research of the author of the book more voluminous, comprehensive and systematic, raising it to a new, higher scientific level that meets modern requirements. Quite curious are the observations concerning the origin of wars as actions that have a direct connection with the religious beliefs of ancient people.
I have no doubt that the book by I. Ya. Froyanov, kept in the best stylistic traditions of Russian historical science, will be read by the reader with keen interest and will become a significant milestone in the knowledge of Russian history.
Prof.V. T. Pulyaev, Scientific Supervisor of the State Program "Peoples of Russia: Revival and Development"
Introduction
This book is devoted to slavery and tributary among the Eastern Slavs of the VI-X centuries. - questions by no means new in Russian historiography. What is the reason for our appeal to these questions, which, it would seem, have been sufficiently worked out in science? The answer here cannot be unambiguous.
First of all, it should be noted that the knowledge of the past is a constantly renewed process, if, of course, we are talking about major historical phenomena covering relatively long periods of time, and not about isolated and obvious facts. It is to such phenomena that the Eastern Slavic institutions of slavery and tributary belong.
The study of these institutions allows us to see the most archaic forms of domination and exploitation, dating back to the preliterate era of Eastern Slavs, and thereby observe the emergence of collective, and then individual wealth, which later became a source of cruel wars, social injustice, social troubles and upheavals. In other words, we have institutions that played an important role in the life of East Slavic society. Hence their attraction to the historian. Some circumstances of a historiographic order also encourage us to turn to them.
As for the problem of slavery among the Eastern Slavs, in pre-revolutionary historical science it was barely touched upon. There was an opinion according to which the slaves of the Eastern Slavs were negligible and slavery did not have any serious social significance. S. M. Solovyov, for example, wrote: “The desire to have slaves and keep them as long as possible in this state is strong, firstly, among peoples whose economic and social functions are complex, luxury is developed; secondly, peoples need slaves, although they are wild, but warlike, who consider employment in war and its semblance, hunting for animals the only decent for a free person, and all household chores are borne by women and slaves; finally, as to any phenomenon, so to the phenomenon of slavery among themselves, the people must get used, for this the people must either be educated and acquire slaves by means of a purchase, or warlike and acquire them as booty, or must be a conqueror in a country whose former inhabitants have converted into slaves."
S. M. Solovyov did not find all these properties and qualities among the Eastern Slavs. He believed that “the Slavs lived under the simplest forms of life, tribal life, their economic functions were not difficult and uncomplicated, the absence of any luxury dominated in clothes and dwellings; with all this, and with a constant struggle with friends and foes, with a constant readiness to leave their place of residence and escape from the enemy, the slaves could only hamper the Slavic family, and therefore were not of great value. Then it is known that militancy was not a dominant feature of the Slavic national character and that the Slavs did not at all disdain agricultural pursuits. Among the people, living in the simplicity of tribal life, the slave does not have too much difference from the members of the family, he is also the youngest member of it, small, young; the degree of his obedience and duties to the head of the family is the same as the degree of obedience and duties of the younger members to the ancestor.
N. A. Rozhkov thought East Slavic slavery to be small and relatively easy. “Before the 10th and even before the 11th century,” he said, “there were few serfs and their situation was not difficult: all the writers who tell us information about the primitive Slavs – these are predominantly Byzantine writers – left us a whole series evidence that the Slavs had few slaves, they treated these slaves well and soon set them free.
According to some historians, the Eastern Slavs did not have "real slavery" at all. So, B. N. Chicherin argued that "real slavery is with us along with the Varangian squad, and, probably, was brought by it." Similar opinions were expressed by M.K. Lyubavsky, according to whom “among the Eastern Slavs, with the arrival of the Varangian princes, a special society was formed, separated from the rest of the population, which had its own special organization - a society that can be called princely. In addition to princes, princely men - boyars and firemen, gridi, youths, children, princely slaves belonged to him. But the appearance of the class of slaves proper M.K. Lyubavsky attributed to the times of Ancient Russia, linking it with the growth of landownership of princes and boyars: “.. an important social consequence of the development of princely and boyar landownership was the deposition of a significant class of slaves in Russian society and the legal development of the institution of slavery. In the 10th century, servants were mostly exported abroad. But from the time she found a job for her at home, the servants accumulated more and more in Russia. From the reasoning of the historian it is clear that before the arrival of the Varangian princes, slave ownership among the Eastern Slavs (if there was one) meant little.
And yet, we must pay tribute to some representatives of pre-Soviet historiography, who were able not only to assess the extent of the spread of East Slavic slavery, but also to see in it an effective means of asserting personal power in the local society, and therefore, property differentiation and the prerequisites for social inequality.
M.D. Zatyrkevich, speaking about the "way of life of wandering peoples", including the "Slavic tribes", noted the existence of inequality "in terms of status and social status between families." The scientist believed that “this inequality appeared by itself as an inevitable consequence of the incessant wars that prevailed between wandering peoples. As a rule, all prisoners of war among wandering peoples, if they were not freed from captivity by means of a ransom, were turned into slaves by the victors, entered into their direct disposal and were obliged to work in favor of their masters and their neighbors. Thus, persons distinguished by courage and physical strength always had the opportunity to acquire wealth (consisting at that time mainly of movable property) and prisoners of war slaves who were at their direct disposal. This alone made it possible for individuals to rise above their relatives and all neighboring families in general. Unfortunately, these thoughts were thrown by the author in passing, as if in passing, without becoming the basis for a more or less detailed study. In addition, M. D. Zatyrkevich did not show proper consistency and succumbed to the influence of the idea of the external origin of ancient Russian slavery, which arose as a result of the appearance of the “Varyagorusses” in Eastern Europe. Part of the population of "Varangian-Russian" origin, who settled in the "cities of Old Slavonic", formed the "yard people" of the prince. These "yard people, who were first called in the general population either clan or house ... consisted almost exclusively of persons of an unfree, slave state - servants, people." The number of yards was enormous. Even at the first princes of Rurik's house, it "reached many thousands."
Thus, it can be argued that in pre-Soviet historical science (if we take it as a whole), slavery among the Eastern Slavs (before the arrival of the Varangian princes) remained insufficiently studied and did not receive a proper assessment.
In Soviet historiography, the situation has changed, which was associated with a class approach to the study of the past, which was prescribed by the Marxist theory of knowledge of history. The disintegration of the primitive communal system and the emergence of a class society in Russia are becoming the leading themes of Soviet historical science. A turn to these topics was already indicated in the 1920s. It is quite understandable that East Slavic slavery is now regarded as a factor in class formation. According to P. I. Lyashchenko, “the main element of the decomposition of the primitive communist economy was slavery. The urban native Slavic population, apparently, long ago singled out such a privileged class, for which slavery received a production connection with the primitive economy. In the sources, this privileged class, according to P. I. Lyashchenko, is called "firemen". Its economic basis was trade, as well as land ownership, based on the labor of servants, or slaves.
With particular acuteness, the question of slavery among the Eastern Slavs arose during discussions about the social system of Kievan Rus, which took place in the 30s. The dispute then revolved around the problems of slavery and feudalism, linked to the task of studying history in the key of the Marxist-Leninist theory of socio-economic formations. In polemical discussions, the issue of slavery among the Eastern Slavs was also touched upon. Some of the participants in the discussions characterized the East Slavic society of the 9th-10th centuries. as a slave. Among them was V.V. Mavrodin, who believed that the Truth of Yaroslav, which reflected the phenomena of the 9th-10th centuries, depicts a society divided into classes of slaves and slave owners. According to I. I. Smirnov, in the 10th century, the Eastern Slavs had a “developed class society” of slave owners and slaves. The Truth of Yaroslav captured precisely this society, and the so-called Truth of the Yaroslavichs stood on the verge of two epochs, refracting in itself "the initial feudal relations" and "very strong traces of the previous system - slavery." I. I. Smirnov proved from a theoretical point of view the inevitability of the slave-owning formation as a stage of social development, earlier than feudalism. M.M. Tsvibak also spoke about East Slavic slavery, from which the feudal system grew in Kievan Rus. Not supporting the idea of the existence of a slave-owning formation in Russia, he nevertheless considered the desire to “belittle the role of slave-owning relations in ancient Russia” historically incorrect. The point is not that “there was no slavery. It was and was very widespread, it was very difficult ... The point is not to deny slavery, but to show how it turns into a source of feudalization, servage. Even B.D. Grekov, who stubbornly pursued the idea of the feudal nature of social relations in Kievan Rus, was forced to partly agree with those historians who saw in the era reflected by Yaroslav's Pravda the clear features of a slave-owning society. Other scholars discussed the importance of slavery in the life of the Eastern Slavs, especially in the 9th-10th centuries.
This position in historiography did not last very long. Already by the end of the 30s. was given a clear tilt towards feudalism. The ancientization of its origins began. As a result, there was an idea according to which Russia passed to the feudal formation directly from the primitive communal system, bypassing the slave-owning formation. Unfortunately, it established itself in historical science as a monopoly, which led to negative consequences: a certain weakening of researchers' interest in slavery among the Slavs of the 6th-10th centuries. and underestimation of the role of slavery in the life of the East Slavic society of that time. B. D. Grekov was proclaimed the head and highest authority of Soviet historical science, connected with the study of national history. Naturally, under these conditions, his concept was recognized as the only correct one. This was very similar to the cult of B. D. Grekov among Russian historians, as, indeed, among others.
However, the idea of the importance of slavery among the Eastern Slavs and in Ancient Russia made its way. Back in the late 1930s, A.V. Shestakov published an article in Uchitelskaya Gazeta, which asserted the idea of the slave-owning nature of ancient Russian society, which caused a heated discussion that took place at the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. A significant role in the development of social relations among the Eastern Slavs of the 9th-10th centuries. assigned slavery to SV Yushkov. Pointing out the absence of prerequisites for the transition of the East Slavic society into a “slave-owning socio-economic formation”, he nevertheless argued that at the indicated time “on the basis of the decomposition of the rural community, the first classes of slaves and slave owners arise”, and “slavery during this period has bright patriarchal features ".
During the war years, the book by A.I. Yakovlev “Slavery and serfs in the Muscovite state of the 17th century” was published. 12th century The researcher’s appeal to the problems of early slavery is not accidental: “In order to navigate a number of tasks that arise when studying the columns of the Order of the servile court, the observer studying this material had to develop a certain general understanding of the history of servitude in Russian conditions in general and in order to delve into the distant past X and XI centuries AD. e., since the basic concepts of servile law were formed precisely in the era of Yaroslav and the Yaroslavichs. Having delved into the distant past, A.I. Yakovlev found in Ancient Russia a rather ramified servility, “the top of the slave-owning society”, and among the Eastern Slavs - a fairly developed slave trade. At the same time, the historian denied the presence in Kievan Rus of a “slave-owning formation of the ancient type”, believing that its formation was “prevented by the communal system of the Slavs”.
P.P. Smirnov wrote about the slave-owning system in Kievan Rus. B. A. Romanov pointed out the important role of slaves in ancient Russian society. According to his observations, slavery, penetrating deep into social life, had a tangible impact on the life and customs of the population of Ancient Russia. According to the researcher, “a free husband somehow cannot be imagined without a slave (and a robe), a slave is an indispensable part of the life of the free. And those who did not have slaves strove to acquire them, right and wrong. B. A. Romanov drew attention to the democratization of the composition of the ancient Russian slave owners, noting that slave ownership in the “XII century. becomes accessible to the widest strata of “free” men from among the “unfamiliar”, who, in conditions of extreme aggravation of contradictions in the emerging feudal society, on occasion, themselves overturned into the abyss ... of the labor yoke. Speaking about the wide spread of slavery in Russia in the 12th century, about the feudal society that was just emerging at that time, B. A. Romanov thereby broke with the dominant Greek concept, according to which slave ownership was being eliminated at that time, and feudalism had entered the mature phase of its development, feudal fragmentation served as an indicator of which. However, he tried to smooth the impression that his book was supposed to make on the scientific community, primarily on B. D. Grekov and the Greeks. “The works of my predecessors (and especially B. D. Grekov), wrote B. A. Romanov, saved me from the need to raise and revise the question of the social formation in the depths of which those formed, acted and developed” people" and those "mores" that are the subject of my study and display during the XI-XIII centuries. (before the Mongol invasion). I could proceed from the position firmly established by Soviet historiography that ancient Russia of the 11th-13th centuries. is undergoing a process of class formation inherent and characteristic of the feudal formation.
It would be naive to expect that such curtsy would satisfy the aforementioned "predecessors (and especially B. D. Grekov)", since the thoughts of B. A. Romanov regarding the process of class formation in Russia in the 11th-13th centuries and the widespread development of slavery in ancient Russian society strongly contradicted the ideas of B. D. Grekov about the presence among the Eastern Slavs (starting from the 9th century) of a “feudal mode of production”, a “registered feudal basis”, about slave ownership in Kievan Rus, going to “reduction” and "destruction". Unfortunately, B. D. Grekov chose means of struggle that were by no means of an academic nature, having specially arrived in Leningrad to prevent the publication of B. A. Romanov’s book. He urged V. V. Mavrodin, dean of the Faculty of History of Leningrad State University, to refuse to publish it, motivating his insistence that B. A. Romanov allegedly wrote not a scientific study, but something similar to the Decameron. And yet the book came out. But this brought B. A. Romanov more bitterness than joy.
Probably, at the suggestion of B. D. Grekov or his supporters, the apparatus of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks developed a distorted idea of the book of B. A. Romanov as “pornographic”. It is clear that the reviews about her in the science department of the Central Committee (in particular, a certain Udaltsov) were unflattering. Accusations of excessive attention to sexual, intimate moments were brought against B.A. Romanov during a discussion of his book (April 1949) in the Leningrad branch of the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The main speaker I. I. Smirnov, evaluating the work of B. A. Romanov from the point of view of the generally accepted concept of B. D. Grekov, said that it “radically changes our understanding of the nature of the process of feudalization, of the ways and methods of developing the feudal dependence of the peasantry, about the nature of the legislation of Kievan Rus, about the policy of state power and the role of the church of the Kievan era. The book of B. A. Romanov did not satisfy I. I. Smirnov "in no way". Later, however, I. I. Smirnov would give a high assessment to the works of B. A. Romanov on Russian Pravda and Ancient Russia, putting him next to B. D. Grekov in terms of the degree of influence on his own work, and even admits that he “studied he has the art of historical research. These confessions, made during the warming of the scientific climate in our country, clearly betray the inspired, opportunistic nature of I. I. Smirnov's speech at the April 1949 discussion of B. A. Romanov's book. The same is evidenced by his specific historical research. We know that in the 1930s he persistently argued for the existence of a slaveholding formation in Kievan Rus. In the late 50s - early 60s. I.I. Smirnov made extensive articles on the history of serfs and serfs, and then published a book on socio-economic relations in Russia in the 12th-13th centuries. The preface to it said: “In his work, the author relied on the colossal work that Soviet historical science had done to study the history of ancient Russia. Among these studies, the author considers it necessary to highlight the classic work of B. D. Grekov "Kievan Rus", where B. D. Grekov outlined the foundations of the concept of Kievan Rus as an early feudal state, which has now received universal recognition and which also served as a prerequisite for the author of this book. in the study of Russia in the XII-XIII centuries.
I. I. Smirnov’s statement about his commitment to the legacy of B. D. Grekov turned out to be essentially declarative when the researcher began to comprehend the factual material. Unlike B. D. Grekov, who considered the VI-VIII centuries. as “the time of the formation of feudal relations and the emergence of feudal property among the Eastern Slavs”, and the 9th century as the final facet of the creation of the “feudal mode of production” and the formation of the “feudal basis”, I. I. Smirnov attributed the completion of the feudalization process to the 11th century. He wrote: “The initial period in the development of feudal relations in Ancient Russia, the period of the genesis of feudalism, basically ends within the 11th century. By this time, the basis of the economy of a feudal society is already taking shape and there is a feudal patrimony ... ".
I. I. Smirnov completely disagreed with B. D. Grekov on the issue of ancient Russian slavery - servitude. If B. D. Grekov spoke about the extinction of slavery in Russia in the 11th-12th centuries, then I. I. Smirnov, like B. A. Romanov, noted the rapid development of servility at the indicated time. Kholop-slaves cease to belong only to the "princely domain", merging into the servants of other owners, primarily the boyars. They are becoming the most important category of the dependent population in ancient Russia and are turning, one might say, into the main group of the working people of the ancient Russian patrimony. Without entering into an open polemic with B. D. Grekov on the problem of slavery in Ancient Russia, I. I. Smirnov, nevertheless, actually refuted it.
Direct disagreement with the "head of Soviet historians" was expressed by A.P. Pyankov, who called into question the thesis about the withering away of slavery in medieval Russia and its supposedly patriarchal character only. According to the scientist, "the development of the feudal system did not reduce the scope of servant labor, but, on the contrary, expanded it."
The idea of A.P. Pyankov about the groundlessness of the assumption that slavery in Russia was dying off was shared by A.A. Zimin, who, disputing the statement of B.D. in the spiritual letters of this time there is no evidence of "an increase in the release of slaves to freedom." He even suggested that at the end of the 15th century, "the absolute number of serfs (due to the growth of feudal land ownership and population) increased somewhat." At the same time, "the proportion of unfree servants in the household of the feudal lord apparently decreased by the end of the period under study."
An important milestone in the knowledge of the history of East Slavic and Old Russian slavery was the book by A. A. Zimin “Serfs in Russia”. Speaking of slavery among the Eastern Slavs, the historian emphasizes its patriarchal character. Slaves in East Slavic society were brought in mainly for the purpose of obtaining a ransom and selling on the foreign market. In Russia XII-XIII centuries. slaves lose a significant role in the "balance of trade" and are increasingly closely associated with the "economic life of the growing feudal patrimony."
A. A. Zimin assigns a very significant role to slaves in the process of "forming a class of feudally dependent peasants." On the one hand, this class was formed "due to the gradual elimination of the free rural population", and on the other hand, as a result of "the transformation of serfs into serfs." This last social phenomenon, according to A.A. Zimin, “was noted in the works of Soviet historians, but researchers did not attach any serious importance to it.” And so he tried to fill this gap. But, as sometimes happens, he got too carried away and brought almost all the feudal elements of the patrimonial population (smerdov, zakupov, ryadovichi) out of slavery - servanthood, or servility. A. A. Zimin, thus, more than fulfilled the long-standing wish of M. M. Tsvibak: to show how slavery "turns into a source of feudalization, servage." At the same time, the historian in no way rejected "the Marxist concept of the transition of Russia directly to the feudal system from the primitive communal system, bypassing the slave-owning formation." However, the revision of this concept did not mean a departure from the Marxist theory of the historical process. Therefore, some researchers, remaining on the basis of Marxism, nevertheless tried to interpret the social system of the Eastern Slavs from a different point of view.
N. L. Rubinshtein, peering into the contours of social organization, appearing in the Most Ancient Truth, discovered “only two main social categories - the husband and the servant. A husband is a free community member... A free community member-husband is opposed by a patriarchal slave - a servant. A.P. Pyankov and V.I. Goremykina are even more resolute in their conclusions: the first insisted on the existence of an early slave-owning society among the Ants, and the second - in Kievan Rus of the X-XI centuries. However, most Soviet historians rejected such bold attempts, retaining the old opinion that the transition of East Slavic society to feudalism was made directly from the primitive communal system without any intermediate slave-owning steps.
What conclusions follow from what we have done, of necessity, a brief digression into the field of domestic historiography of East Slavic slavery? The first conclusion is that the problem of slave ownership among the Eastern Slavs is still debatable in modern historical science and therefore in need of further research. It must also be said that the study of the processes of the emergence and development of slavery in the social life of the Eastern Slavs is very important in the field of knowledge of the social evolution of our ancestors. Finally, without a study of slavery among the Eastern Slavs, it is impossible to correctly understand the history of slavery in the era of Ancient Russia.
A closer examination of the institution of East Slavic slavery reveals its close connection with tributary, due to the common origin of these social phenomena. War, military coercion is the only source of slavery and tributary. That is why a successful study of the problem of slavery without recourse to tributaryism is hardly achievable, and vice versa. However, from the side of public relations, tributary relations in themselves are of great interest to the historian.
In pre-revolutionary historical science, tributaryism attracted the attention of researchers in terms of financial policy and meeting the material needs of the prince and his squad. To this it must be added that everything written about tribute in noble and bourgeois historiography is fragmentary statements, at best, brief essays.
Soviet historians attribute tribute to the most important elements in the formation of class organization in Russia. In modern historical literature, there have been different approaches to the coverage of tribute as a principle that creates a feudal society. According to one of them, “tributes, viry, sales, polyudie and other requisitions undermined the foundations of the community, ruined the economically weak community members. To pay tribute or for that. in order to somehow survive after the devastating tribute collection, they had to go into bondage to their already rich accomplices, to tribal nobility, all sorts of “best people”, “old” or “deliberate child”, “old men”, to “every prince” , besides the prince or his boyars-combatants. This is how debt bondage grew - one of the sources of the formation of a feudal-dependent people.
The tribute here, therefore, is presented as a reason for the impoverishment of the community members, which drove them into feudal bondage. But the most common was the view of tribute as feudal rent. According to the supporters of this view, the establishment of tributary relations among the East Slavic tribes was accompanied by "princeship" - the establishment of the supreme ownership of the prince or state on the lands of tributaries, which imparted a rent-like character to the received tribute: from that moment on, tribute acted as a centralized feudal rent levied by the corporation of feudal lords from " personally free direct producers. Before us is the concept of state feudalism in Kievan Rus, some of whose bearers claim the last word in historical science, without having sufficient grounds for this.
The “reintroduction” of tribal territories with the tributary ensuing from it is considered by the latest researchers as factors in the construction of the Old Russian statehood. Both “reigning” and collecting tribute are among the main features of the state.
Thus, the history of tributary among the Eastern Slavs has acquired the significance of a problem of paramount importance in modern historical science. But, oddly enough, the adherents of the theory of state feudalism in Russia have not yet bothered to bring together the whole range of information at their disposal about tributary among the Eastern Slavs, to identify the origin of this institution, to follow the evolution of tributary relations since their inception (or, in in any case, from the first mention of them in the sources) until the 9th-10th centuries, when tributary service allegedly became the main engine of the feudalization development of the East Slavic society and an important element in the formation of the state. In other words, tributary, tributary relations in East Slavic society have not yet been truly studied. There is, therefore, a discrepancy between the conclusions about the feudal nature of tribute in Russia in the 9th-10th centuries, its state essence and the research base on which they are built. There is only one way out of this situation: a monographic analysis of tributary relations among the Eastern Slavs throughout the entire era of their existence, accessible to the review of a modern historian.
We believe that the above fully motivates our appeal to the history of East Slavic slavery and tributary of the 6th-10th centuries.
See: Afanasiev Yu. I must say this. Political journalism of the times of perestroika. M., 1991. P.13; Kobrin V. To whom are you dangerous, historian? M., 1992. S.180–183.
See, for example: Academician L. V. Cherepnin. Once again about feudalism in Kievan Rus // From the history of the economic and social life of Russia. Collection of articles dedicated to the 90th anniversary of Academician Nikolai Mikhailovich Druzhinin. M., 1976. S.15–22.
See: Medieval and New Russia. Collection of scientific articles dedicated to the 60th anniversary of Professor Igor Yakovlevich Froyanov. SPb., 1996. P.9, 760–818.
Rozhkov N. Review of Russian history from a sociological point of view. Part one. Kievan Rus (from the VI to the end of the XII century). M., 1905. S.62.
3tyrkevich M. D. On the influence of the struggle between peoples and estates on the formation of the Russian state system in the pre-Mongol period. M., 1874. S.37–38.
Lyashchenko P. I. History of the Russian national economy. M., 1926. P.43. Similar thoughts, however, in somewhat different terms and with some shift in emphasis, P. I. Lyashchenko expressed much later. He considered slavery "an element that contributed to the more rapid decomposition of the primitive pre-class society." “Primitive slavery itself usually arises within the limits of the primitive economy and tribal system long before their destruction. But here it has a special, mostly so-called "domestic" character, not yet having deep production foundations. According to P. I. Lyashchenko, slave ownership acquired significant “significance for the decomposition of primitive society among the Slavs only when it began to be combined with the economic exploitation of slaves.” The desire for the “economic use” of slaves arises with the “disintegration of tribal life, with the emergence of land inequality and the territorial community, with the seizure of land by the leading tribal and tribal groups.” - Lyashchenko P. I. History of the national economy of the USSR. T.1. pre-capitalist formations. M., 1956. P.88.
See: Danilova JI. B. Formation of the Marxist trend in Soviet historiography of the era of feudalism / / Historical notes. 76. M., 1965. P. 100–104; Froyanov I. Ya. Kievan Rus: Essays on Russian historiography. L., 1990. S.230–246.
The oldest Russian concept for designating a slave, as we have seen, is chelyadin in plural - servants. The term is found in Old Church Slavonic texts and is also used in Russian-Byzantine treaties of the tenth century.
Another ancient term rob(otherwise - slave; in the feminine - robe, later - slave), suggestive in connection with the verb robotati. In this sense, a slave is a "worker" and vice versa,
In the middle of the eleventh century, a new term appears - serf, which can be compared with Polish clap(in Polish spelling chlop), "peasant", "serf". The Proto-Slavic form was holp; in the transcription used by most Slavic philologists - cholpas.In Russian term serf denoted a male slave. The slave was constantly named slave.
Slavery in Kievan Rus was of two types: temporary and permanent. The latter was known as "total slavery" (servility is abundant). The main source of temporary slavery was captivity in war. Initially, not only the soldiers of the enemy army, but even civilians captured in the course of hostilities, were enslaved. With the passage of time, more mercy was shown to civilians, and finally, by the time of the conclusion of the treaty between Russia and Poland, signed in 1229, the necessity of not affecting the civilian population was recognized.
By the end of the war, the captives were released for a ransom, if one was offered. The Russo-Byzantine treaties set a redemption ceiling in order to exclude abuses. If it was not possible to collect a ransom, the captive remained at the disposal of the person who captured him. According to the "Law of Judgment by People", in such cases, the work of the prisoner was considered as the payment of a ransom, and after covering it in full, the prisoner had to be released.
The rule had to be properly observed in relation to the citizens of the states with which the Russians entered into special agreements, such as, for example, with Byzantium. In other cases, it could be ignored. In any case, it is important that Russkaya Pravda does not mention captivity in the war as a source of complete slavery.
According to paragraph 110 of the expanded version, "full slavery is of three kinds." A person becomes a slave: 1) if he voluntarily sells himself into slavery; 2) if he marries a woman without having previously concluded a special agreement with her master; 3) if he is employed in the service of the master in the position of butler or housekeeper without special agreement that he must remain free. As for self-sale into slavery, two conditions had to be observed in order for the transaction to become legal: 1) the minimum price (at least half a hryvnia) and 2) payment to the city secretary (one nogata). These formalities were prescribed by law in order to prevent a person from being enslaved against his will. This part of Russkaya Pravda does not say anything about female slaves, but it can be assumed that a woman can sell herself into slavery, like a man. On the other hand, a woman was not privileged to retain her freedom by agreement with her master if she married a male slave. Although not mentioned in Russkaya Pravda, we know from later legislation, as well as from various other sources, that such a marriage automatically made the woman a slave. This must have been an ancient custom, and therefore it was not considered worthy of mention in Russkaya Pravda.
In addition to the main sources of the slave population mentioned, the sale agreement can be characterized as a derived source. Obviously, the same formalities as in the case of self-sale had to be observed in the case of the sale of a slave. Thus, a minimum price was set for full slaves. There was no minimum price for prisoners of war. After the victory of the Novgorodians over the Suzdalians in 1169, the captive Suzdalians were sold two nogata each. The Tale of Igor's Campaign says that if the Grand Duke Vsevolod took part in the campaign against the Polovtsy, the latter would be defeated and then the female captives would be sold by one leg, and the men by one cut.
No upper price was set for slaves, but public opinion—at least among the clergy—was against speculation in the slave trade. It was considered sinful to buy a slave at one price and then sell it for more; it was called "outrageous".
The slave had no civil rights. If he was killed, then compensation was to be paid by the killer to his master, and not to the relatives of the slave. There is no regulation in the laws of this period regarding the killing of a slave by its owner. Obviously, the master was responsible if he killed a temporary slave.
If the slave was "full", then the owner was subjected to church repentance, but this was obviously the only sanction in such a situation. The slave could not bring charges in court and was not accepted as a full-fledged witness in litigation. By law, he was not supposed to own any property, with the exception of his clothes and other personal belongings, known as peculium in Roman law (Old Russian version - old woman); a slave could not assume any obligations or sign any contract. In fact, many of the Kievan Rus' slaves had property and assumed obligations, but in each case this was done on behalf of their owner. If in such a case the slave did not fulfill his obligations, his owner paid for the loss, if the person with whom the slave was dealing was not aware that the other side was a slave. If he knew about the fact, he acted at his own risk.
Slaves were used by their owners as domestic servants of various types and as field workers. It happened that they were men and women experienced in the craft, or even teachers. They were judged on their ability and services rendered. So, according to Russkaya Pravda, the amount of compensation to the prince for the murder of his slaves varied from five to twelve hryvnias, depending on what kind of slave the victim was.
As for the end of the slave state, leaving aside the death of a slave, temporary slavery could end after a sufficient amount of work had been done. The end of complete slavery could come in two ways: either the slave redeemed himself (which, of course, few could afford), or the master could release his slave or slaves by a willful decision. The Church constantly encouraged him to do this, and many rich people followed this advice, freeing slaves posthumously in a special section of the will.
There was also, of course, an illegal way of self-liberation of a slave - flight. Many slaves appear to have taken this route to freedom, as Russkaya Pravda has several paragraphs about runaway slaves. Any person who gave shelter to such a slave, or assisted him in any way, was to be fined.
Ancient Russia is a state, with all its features corresponding to its time. Therefore, the same social laws of the development of society operated in it as in other countries. Accordingly, there was such a stratum of the population as slaves. True, slavery in Russia was somewhat specific. Historians note that this is the result of Slavic customs, centuries-old way of life and traditions, which differed significantly from the states of Western Europe or the East.
And so, let's turn to the original definition: people who performed forced labor are usually called slaves. In the ancient Russian territories there were serfs, serfs, servants. This is the stratum that in one way or another had a certain relation to slavery.
Slaves in Russia
Let's start with the servants. This concept appeared a long time ago and over time has somewhat changed its meaning. At first, prisoners were called servants. After all, in ancient times, our ancestors were extremely warlike, raided and captured the population from other territories. As a result, the captives who became servants were deprived of all rights. They could be sold or exchanged at any time. In addition, those people who were forced to work off debts fell into the category of servants.
Later, when Christianity was introduced, slaves were called serfs. And now the servants were those who served the boyars and princes. They also included the poor relatives of a wealthy owner, if they lived in his house and were fully supported by him.
Execution of a slave on the hands
In ancient Russia, serfs were a special form of slavery. According to the legal norms of that time, they were referred not to subjects, but to objects. Kholopov was equated with courtyard buildings, cattle. If someone encroached on the life of someone else's serf and killed him, then a fine was imposed for this, in the same amount as for damage to clothes.
The owner of the serf was free to dispose of him at his own discretion, even to kill him, while remaining unpunished.
serfs
How did they become serfs, that is, slaves? First of all, they were prisoners. And since the period of feudal fragmentation in Russia was rich in internecine wars, there were a lot of prisoners, so they were often sold for next to nothing.
But besides this most common way all over the world, there was another one - a debt hole or bondage. If a person could not return the borrowed funds, then he became a slave, lost all his rights and became completely dependent on his creditor.
In addition, criminals and their families became serfs, the children of serfs were serfs from birth. There was also voluntary servility in Russia, this is such a phenomenon when free people, for one reason or another, themselves entered slavery for a year, and then left it again. But this phenomenon was not universal.
If a free girl married a serf, she also became a slave, and vice versa, if a rich owner married a serf, then under the terms of a special contract she became free.
Serfdom was abolished by the decree of Peter I, and it was replaced by such a phenomenon as "smerdy". These were none other than forced farmers. They largely depended on the princes and boyars. They, when the peasants were permanently attached to the land, became serfs.
Serfs in the Russian Empire
From all of the above, we note that signs of slavery can be traced in all designated categories, but it is still clearly visible that only serfs were slaves in the full sense of the word. Moreover, the Slavs took care of their slaves, they could entrust them with hard, dirty or unworthy work, but they did not bring them to exhaustion and did not cause injury. In addition, in most cases, the owner worked on a par with the serf.
How did the slave trade develop?
We remember that there was no shortage of slaves in Russia. That is, the subject of sale has always been, and moreover, this business was considered profitable, but did not receive active distribution. Russian merchants preferred to trade mainly in sable, wax, tin, and only in passing slaves.