Slave trade in Ancient Russia: what was it? VI. On the nature of slavery in Kievan Rus

There are many pages in the history of mankind that I would like to forget. And slavery is one of them. But at a certain stage it was a necessary step in the development of society, and in one form or another existed in all parts of the world. What were the slaves called? different countries?

First stage

Slavery originated in the days of a patriarchal society, when captured enemies became disenfranchised members of the family and lived with the owner. Gradually, not only foreigners, but also fellow tribesmen began to be turned into slaves for debts and serious crimes.

AT Ancient Egypt the prisoners were killed and called accordingly "killed". With the development of agriculture and crafts, they became the prey of the leaders - "the living dead."

In Babylonian society, slaves were called wardum, East African slaves in southern Mesopotamia were called zinji. In China, a male slave was denoted by the word nu, a slave - bay, slaves - nu-bei.

talking things

In the ancient world, with the final division into free citizens and slaves, physical labor became the lot of only non-citizens, that is, captured foreigners.

They were considered a thing, a "talking tool", as slaves were called in Rome. The Latin name for a slave is servus. The development of slavery in Rome led to the emergence of different categories of slaves: belonging to the family of urban (familia urbana), rural (familia rustica), gladiators, etc.

In Turkey, slaves were called Mamluks. The slaves of the Anglo-Saxons are lets, the Vikings have thralls.

AT Ancient Russia captive slaves became servants, and from the local population - serfs. Gradually these words took on a different meaning.

That is, in certain periods, slavery was developed almost everywhere.

I already wrote that one of the troubles of Russia, which prevents it from moving towards a developed civil society is a slave psychology, which at the genetic level is inherent in the vast majority Russian citizens(see the article "The Troubles of Russia" published in No. 5 of the Donskoy Consumer).
When did this trouble appear in Russia and is it possible for modern Russians to get rid of this manifestation of human nature?
I will try to understand this article.

History of slavery

Such a phenomenon as slavery originates from ancient times. The first mention of slaves can be seen in rock paintings that date back to the Stone Age. Even then, the people captured from another tribe were turned into slavery. This tendency to turn captured enemies into slavery was also in ancient civilizations. For the past 5,000 years, slavery has existed almost everywhere. Among the most famous slave-owning states is Rome, in ancient China the concept - si, equivalent to slavery, has been known since the middle of the 2nd millennium BC.

In a later period, slavery existed in Brazil. Slavery in the Ancient East had many distinguishing features and was distinguished by the greatest cruelty towards the slaves.
In totalitarian states, the largest slave owners were not individual owners, but these states themselves.
That is, as can be seen from history, slavery in different countries and civilizations proceeded differently and influenced the development of both the economic and spiritual components of a particular country or civilization.

We all know such first civilizations as Ancient Greece and Rome. Using the slave labor of the peoples they conquered, these civilizations flourished for more than one century. But the key to their prosperity, in the first place, of course, was not the labor of slaves, but science, culture and craft developed to heights inaccessible at that time, which were engaged in by citizens ancient greece and the Roman Empire, being freed from the daily performance of heavy physical labor, since only slaves were used in these works. It is thanks to this freedom of the Greeks and Romans that we are still surprised by the works of art, inventions and achievements in science made at that time. AT Soviet time singer I. Ivanov, sang a song with the following words;

I believe the day will come when
We'll meet again.
I will bring you all together
If in a foreign land
I won't die by chance
From his Latin.

If they don't go crazy
Romans and Greeks
Composing Volumes
For the library.

The content of this song reflects very well what contribution the ancient Greeks and Romans actually made to the development of science, art and technology at that time. It turns out that for the free citizens of ancient Greece and Rome, the use of slave labor in that period of time benefited them and gave impetus to the development of these ancient civilizations. And what gave slavery to ancient Russia?

Slavery in ancient Russia

Among the dependent population of ancient Russia in the 9th - 12th centuries, slaves also occupied a very significant place. Their work, perhaps, even prevailed in the ancient Russian patrimony. In modern historical science especially popular is the idea of ​​the patriarchal nature of slavery in Russia. But there are other opinions in the literature. P.N. Tretyakov, referring to slavery among the Slavs and Antes, wrote: “Slaves were sold and bought. A member of a neighboring tribe could become a slave. During wars, slaves, especially women and children, were indispensable and very important part military booty. It is hardly possible to consider all this as a primitive patriarchal slavery, which was common among all primitive peoples. But it was not, of course, developed slavery, which took shape as an integral system of production relations.
"Russian Truth" also indicated other sources for the appearance of slaves in Russia, in addition to capturing prisoners. Such sources were: self-sale into slavery, marriage with a slave, entry into the service (tiunas, housekeepers), “without a row” (that is, without any reservations), bankruptcy. Also, a runaway purchase or a person who committed a serious crime could become a slave.

Researcher E.I. Kolycheva writes the following about slavery in ancient Russia: “... servitude in Russia as a legal institution was not something exclusive, unique. It is characterized by those essential features, as for slavery in other countries, including for ancient slavery.

Since slave labor in Russia did not become the basis of social production, the history of slavery in our country should be transferred, first of all, to the plane of changing the forms of exploitation of slaves, that is, the forms of organization of slave labor.

AT ancient history In the Eastern Slavs, there was no gulf between slaves and free people: slaves were part of kindred collectives on the rights of its junior members and worked on an equal footing and together with the rest. Mauritius the Strategist acutely felt the peculiarity of the position of slaves among the Slavs, who, according to him, limiting the slavery of captives to a certain period, offer them a choice: either “for a certain ransom, return home or remain in the land of the Slavs and Antes in the position of free and friends.

A voice that sounded several centuries later seems to testify to the same thing: “They (Russians - author's note) treat slaves well ...” This style of relations between slaves and masters was determined by the social affiliation of the slave owner, being the most typical for the common people - peasants and artisans who managed to acquire slaves. These relations were built on long-standing traditions that were lost somewhere in the primitive communal world and survived to the times Kievan Rus.

That is, as can be seen from the history of ancient Russia, the Slavs for the most part were free, hardworking and kind even to their slaves. So where did the hatred of the “those in power” for the people ruled by them and the slavish nature of the people themselves come from in later Russia? How did it happen that the free cultivators actually became slaves in their own country? This question worries more than one generation of historians-researchers.

And indeed! Here they are, the free tribes of the ancient Slavs. Here is their daring prince with his retinue. Here, the freedom-loving Russian people are throwing off the Mongol-Tatar yoke, because if they were not freedom-loving, they would not have thrown it off. And then - within a short time, 90% of the country's population become slaves, who are traded like cattle. How, at what point could this happen? Why did people let this happen to them? Why didn't they rebel, as they rebelled against the Mongols - Tatars? Why didn’t they put the presumptuous princelings and boyar children in their place, as they had done more than once before, driving the negligent prince and his retinue away? After all, even the pride of the Russian Land of the Holy and Blessed Prince Alexander Nevsky was driven away by the Novgorodians when he was too impudent. And then ... What happened to these people? How, in two hundred years, by the middle of the 16th century, did he lose all that freedom and dignity, which he was rightfully proud of and which even foreigners noted?

The answer, I think, lies on the surface, and our history has proven this more than once. The last such proof occurred in the middle of the last century. Our people, gathered together, could defeat any external aggressor, but always found themselves helpless and defenseless in the face of internal aggression and terror from their rulers. Why this happened, I think there is no need to explain, we all know that in Russia since the tenth century, it has been accepted as the main religion Orthodox Christianity. BUT Christian faith at all times she preached that any power on earth is from God. So the Russians, like true Orthodox Christians, endured any even the most cruel power given to him from above, as he believed from God.

The emergence of serfdom in Russia

The Moscow State at the turn of the 16th century took shape the local system. The Grand Duke transferred the estate to a servant, who was obliged for this military service. The local noble army was used in continuous wars waged by the state against Poland, Lithuania and Sweden, and in the defense of the "Ukraine" (that is, the border regions) from the raids of the Crimean Khanate, the Nogai Horde: tens of thousands of nobles were called up every year to the "coastal" (according to Oka and Ugra) and border service. During this period, the peasant was still personally free and kept the land under an agreement with the owner of the estate. He had the right to withdraw or refuse; that is, the right to leave the landowner. The landowner could not drive the peasant off the land before the harvest, the peasant could not leave his plot without paying off the owner at the end of the harvest.

The Sudebnik of Ivan III established a uniform period for the peasant exit, when both parties could settle accounts with each other. This is the week before St. George's Day on November 26) and the week following this day. A free man became a peasant from the moment he “instructed the plow” on a taxable plot (that is, he began to fulfill the state duty to cultivate the land) and ceased to be a peasant as soon as he gave up farming and took up another occupation.

Even the Decree on the Five-Year Investigation of the Peasants of November 24, 1597 did not cancel the peasant "exit" (that is, the opportunity to leave the landowner) and did not attach the peasants to the land. This act only determined the need for the return of the runaway peasant to the former landowner, if the departure took place within a five-year period before September 1, 1597. The decree speaks only of those peasants who left their landowners "not on time and without refusal" (that is, not on St. George's day and without paying the "old").

And only under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov, the Cathedral Code of 1649 establishes an indefinite attachment to the land (that is, the impossibility of a peasant exit) and a fortress to the owner (that is, the owner’s power over a peasant who is on his land). At the same time, according to the Council Code, the owner of the estate does not have the right to encroach on the life of the peasant and deprive him land plot. It is allowed to transfer a peasant from one owner to another, however, in this case, the peasant must again be “planted” on the land and endowed with the necessary personal property (“bellies”).

Since 1741, the landlord peasants were removed from the oath, there was a monopolization of ownership of the serfs in the hands of the nobility, and serfdom extended to all categories of the possessing peasantry.

The 2nd half of the 18th century became the final stage in the development of state legislation aimed at strengthening serfdom in Russia and the final enslavement of peasants, as follows:

In 1760, the landowners received the right to exile peasants to Siberia.
In 1765, the landowners received the right to exile peasants not only to Siberia, but also to hard labor
In 1767, the peasants were strictly forbidden to submit petitions to their landlords personally to the emperor.

At the same time, in a significant part of the country's territory, in the Russian North, in most of the Ural region, in Siberia (where the bulk rural population were black-mossed, then state peasants), in the southern Cossack regions, serfdom was not widespread. In 1861, a reform was carried out in Russia, nicknamed official Great Reform which abolished serfdom.

The main reason for this reform was the crisis of the serf system. In addition, historians of the USSR considered the inefficiency of the work of serfs as a reason. The urgent revolutionary situation was also attributed to economic reasons, as an opportunity to move from the everyday discontent of the peasant class to the peasant war. In the context of peasant unrest, especially intensified during Crimean War, the government, headed by Alexander II, and went to the abolition of serfdom.

Serfdom is worse than slavery

As can be seen from the above section, a serf in Russia was the same slave, but at the same time, the position of serfs was much worse than that of slaves. The reasons why the position of a serf in Russia was worse than that of a slave were as follows.
The main reason, of course, was that the slave was not given to his master for free, but the serfs were given to the landowner for free. Therefore, the treatment of him was worse than with the "cattle". Since the landowner always knew that even if the “two-legged cattle” “dies” from excessive labor or beatings, then the “Russian woman” still gives birth to new serfs, that is, “free slaves”.

The second reason is that serfdom, as such, deprived a person of even the hope that he would ever become free. After all, every serf from birth knew that this was his “heavy burden” for life, as well as the burden of his children, grandchildren, etc. The slave, who had been free before becoming a slave, lived in the hope that someday he would be able to become free again, having escaped, for example, from the owner or received “freedom” from him for his merits. Therefore, the peasant children, who were already born not free, did not even think about freedom, since they did not know any other life except “to live in eternal bondage” and therefore slowly, imperceptibly, the free Russian people turned into landlord property. Like a cane or a dog.

Supporters of the theory of the absence of slavery in Russia may object to me that the serf differed from the slave in that he remained the subject of taxation. But this made his position even worse than that of a slave!
When, by the middle of the 17th century, the construction of the building of Russian slavery was completed. Russian peasants, and this is the majority of the population of a vast country in the east of Europe, became (was not, but became!) Slaves. This is unprecedented! Not Negroes brought from Africa to work on plantations, but their own compatriots, people of the same faith and language, together, shoulder to shoulder for centuries, who created and defended this state, became slaves, "working cattle" in their homeland. Those. they became so outcast that a century later their owners, out of disgust, feeling like people of a completely different breed, began to switch from Russian to French.

The Formation of a Slave Psychology

In fact, from the middle of the 16th century to the middle of the 20th century, slavery lasted in Russia. It began with the enslavement of the peasants, and ended with Khrushchev's issuance of passports to collective farmers. 400 years with a break of 68 years. The peasants received a slight relief after the abolition of serfdom in 1861, and even until the beginning of the 20th century, in order to leave the landowner, the peasant had to pay him a redemption payment. And this relief ended with the forced collectivization of 1929-1930.

The peasants, who did not want to work "for sticks", were driven to the great construction sites of communism, to camps, into exile. And those who agreed were attached to the collective farm, they took away all the goods, and seven days a week - corvée. This was not the case even under the landowners. Even getting married needed the permission of the chairman, if the bride or groom was from another collective farm. And go to work - don't even think about it, they'll catch you - and go to the camp. For twenty-five years, worse than under the king. True, the last entry into slavery was not long, thirty years. But more people were killed than in the previous three hundred ...
Now for some simple arithmetic. In four hundred years, about twelve generations have changed. Formed national character, the so-called mentality. The majority of the population of our country are the descendants of those same serfs. Because ruling class the Bolsheviks destroyed the aristocracy, commoners and Cossacks, and those who were not destroyed emigrated. And now imagine how this character was formed. Unbearably huge spaces, littered here and there with small villages of 100-200 souls. No roads, no cities. Only villages with black, rickety five-walls and impassable mud for almost six months a year (spring and autumn). From early spring until late autumn, the serf worked hard day and night. And then almost everything was taken away by the landowner and the tsar. And then in the winter the “poor peasant” sat on the stove, and howled with hunger.

And so from year to year, from century to century. True, sometimes a royal messenger appeared, took away some of the young village boys, which were stronger in recruits, and that’s all, the guys disappeared forever, as it had never happened. There was no communication between the villages. It’s far to go to visit each other, but on horseback it’s a pity for a horse. So, sometimes, the master will go to a neighbor, so what will he tell? It's none of your business, they say...
Out of the corner of your ear heard that somewhere the war. Are we beating a Turk or a Swede? The devil will understand him. But mostly requisitions, requisitions, requisitions ... Nothing happens. From day to day. Year after year. From century to century. Complete and final hopelessness. Nothing can change. Never. All. Literally everything is against you. Both the landowner and the state. Don't expect anything good from them. You work badly, they beat you with whips. You work well, they still beat you, and what you earn is taken away. Therefore, no matter what was killed, and the family did not die of hunger, the peasant, just in case, always had to lie and "bend".

And now the descendants of those serfs, already being “free” and regardless of their positions, at the genetic level continue to lie and “bend” just in case of a “fire case”. Somewhere out there, far away beautiful life, there were some balls ... Someone killed someone in a duel ... Some eccentric wrote great book... All these Poltava and Ishmael, Senate Square and the Sovremennik magazine, St. Petersburg and Raskolnikov's torment - this is not about serfs. Somewhere separately lived two hundred - three hundred thousand other people, about whom their history was written, about their Russia.

And tens of millions lived a different life, where is this story ... And until the history of the common people is written, we will not understand why the Russian people do not trust their state. Why, since the 16th century, the state has always been perceived as an enemy. Perhaps because the Russian people have never seen anything good from the state? Perhaps, after writing such a story, our statesmen will stop spreading demagogy about the state and the strengthening of statehood, and looking at the people crippled by the construction of a great power, they will say, paraphrasing Kennedy: “Do not ask what you have done for the state, but ask what the state has done for you ". And then every citizen of Russia, daily squeezing a slave out of himself drop by drop, will begin to build a real state for citizens, and not citizens for the state.

1. Russian Truth(other Russian (XI century, 1019-1054) (here "pravda" in the meaning of Latin Greek) - the legal code of Russia. Russian Pravda appeared during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise, based on the oral law and customary law of Russia. - smerd, caught in a heavy economic situation who borrowed property from his master and guaranteed its return, as it were, a self-mortgage.

2. Purchase he worked on the master's farm and could not leave him until he repaid the debt (otherwise he was transferred to a full, “whitewashed” serf).

Probably, many of us, since our school days, have affirmed that serfdom in Russia was abolished as early as 1861. But in fact, the traditions of the slave trade have existed throughout the world for a long time. Ancient Russia was no exception.

"Servants"

There were several ways to become a slave in Russia. One of them is the capture of foreign prisoners. Such “polonyan” slaves were called “servants”.

In one of the articles of the agreement concluded in 911 with Byzantium after the successful raid of the ancient Rus on Constantinople, the Byzantines were asked to pay 20 gold coins (solids) for each captured "chalet". This amounted to about 90 grams of gold and was twice the average market price for slaves.

After the second campaign against Byzantium (944), which ended less successfully, prices were reduced. This time, 10 gold coins (45 grams of gold) or "two curtains" - two pieces of silk fabric - were given for a "good boy or girl". For a "seredovich" - a middle-aged slave or slave - eight coins were relied on, and for an old man or child - only five.

"Chelyad" was most often used for various unskilled jobs, for example, as a domestic servant. Polonian women, especially young ones, were valued above men - they could be used for love pleasures. Many of them became concubines and even wives of slave owners.

According to "Russian Truth" - a collection of laws of the XI century - average cost"Chelyadina" was five or six hryvnia. Many historians believe that we are not talking about silver grivnas, but about hryvnia kunas, which were four times cheaper. Thus, for a slave at that time they gave about 200 grams of silver or 750 dressed squirrel skins.

In 1223, after an unsuccessful battle with the Mongols on the Kalka, the Smolensk prince Mstislav Davidovich concluded an agreement with the merchants of Riga and Gotland, according to which the cost of one servant was estimated at one hryvnia in silver (this corresponded to 160-200 grams of silver and about 15 grams of gold).

Prices for servants depended on the region. So, in Smolensk, a slave cost a little cheaper than in Kyiv, and three times cheaper than in the same Constantinople ... Than more people were captured as slaves during military campaigns, the more the price fell.

Slavery by law

In Russia, the internal slave market was also actively developing. Another common form of slavery, in addition to the "servants", was servility. It was possible to get into serfs for debts, as a result of marriage with a serf or a serf, entering the service, as a punishment for a serious crime ... There were cases when parents themselves sold or gave their children into slavery, because they could not feed them.

Serfdom began to develop only in the XI century, with the formation of a centralized state. It was based on the dependence of poor peasants on landowners. In Kievan Rus and the principality of Novgorod, all unfree peasants were divided into three categories - smerds, purchases and serfs. Unlike the first two categories, serfs could not have any property, they did not have the right to move to another owner.

In the 15th century, after the Moscow principality was freed from Tatar-Mongol yoke, the price for one slave fluctuated from one to three rubles. By the middle of the 16th century, it had risen to one and a half to four rubles. On the eve of the Time of Troubles, it already reached four or five rubles. However, crop failures and wars invariably lowered the prices of live goods.

If it was quite difficult to control the external slave trade, then inside the country the state tried to regulate slave ownership. There were special bonded books, where the relevant transactions were recorded. At the same time, a special tax was taken from the owners of slaves.

Slavery certainly existed in Russia, but it (more precisely, serfdom itself) should not be identified with slavery in Russia. ancient world or in the South of the USA: Russian serfdom had completely different roots. In Ancient Russia, one could become a slave by selling oneself, taking a debt (purchase) or being captured (serf, servant). At the same time, the purchase was not the property of its creditor and was more dependent than a slave. The bulk of the peasants were initially personally free, and to work on the landowner's plot, they entered into an agreement with him. The peasant could at any time leave the landowner by paying him for the use of the land. It was this right that was limited by the Sudebnik of Ivan III: after 1497, the peasant could leave the landowner only on St. George's Day (December 9).

Over the next century and a half, the peasants were finally attached to the land (the right to leave the landowner on St. George's Day was canceled at the end of the 16th century). Put an end to this issue Cathedral code 1649 But the peasants still had some personal rights: this changed during the eighteenth century. - by 1783, the landowner took the oath for the peasants, who had the right to sell and buy them, exile them to Siberia and hard labor, and also resort to physical force. Beginning in 1803, the position of the peasants began to slowly improve, and from 1861 slavery ceased to exist in Russia. Details of its phasing out - separate story: for the sake of a red word, it is worth noting that in the bowels of the central institutions Russian Empire in different time there were 11 (!) committees to solve the peasant question, and only the last reform project was put into practice.

Slavery is also called (rightly) the situation of prisoners in the Gulag and collective farm peasants in the Stalinist USSR. In the course of collectivization, their lands were united into collective farms, the owner of which was the labor collective, but the production rate was set by the state. Domestic animals were also selected for the collective farm fund (where a significant part quickly died; in general, the famine of 1932-33 was a direct consequence of collectivization). Simultaneously with collectivization, a mandatory passport system was introduced for all urban residents. For being in the city without a passport, administrative responsibility was provided. In fact, the peasants were again attached to the land. They received freedom of movement only in 1976, and full passportization was completed ten years before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Russian truth

Cathedral Code of 1649

Zayonchkovsky P.A. The abolition of serfdom in Russia.

Fitzpatrick Sheila. Stalinist peasants. Social history of Soviet Russia in the 1930s: village.

Belykh Nikita. The economy of the Gulag as a system of forced labor.

For the sake of justice, it is worth noting that the Slavs, although they did not use slaves in the household, actively and not shyly traded slaves, selling captured foreigners to merchants in cities on the coast of Euxine Pontus - Greek historians have this.

Reply

Comment

Since when do we mean bondage to the earth by slavery? Collective farmers in the USSR could not be considered slaves. A slave is a completely disenfranchised person who is in personal and economic dependence on another or on the state. With a certain degree of conditionality, prisoners of the Gulag can be considered slaves of the state, "talking tools", as Varro used to say.

Is it enough to consider serfs as slaves? controversial issue. Along with the serfs, until 1723, there were all the same serfs. Slavery means a complete lack of rights, the condition of a serf does not imply this. Perhaps one of the most common myths about them is that the landowners could torture and kill peasants with impunity. Nobles who deliberately killed their serfs were subjected to criminal punishment, up to the death penalty or hard labor. Those. in fact, the master had no right to the life of his servant. And given the fact that serfs could be witnesses and plaintiffs in court? Even in the later periods of the existence of the Roman state (with the most developed institution of slavery, it is better to keep silent about other countries), the local owners of slaves were not subjected to criminal penalties, which allows many to question the fact that slaves = serfs.

Closer to the slaves in their traditional sense, of course, were the serfs, who were the object of the masters' property. Serfs are difficult to recognize as such. The Roman institution of the colonate, as well as other similar institutions that had developed in many European countries, were close to serfdom.

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 during the hostilities, turned into slavery. 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 need was recognized not to affect the civilian population.

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 Grand Duke Vsevolod took part in the campaign against the Polovtsians, the latter would have been defeated and then the female captives would have been sold for one leg, and the men for 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 didn't have 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.