The true face of the Russian “democrat” is a self-righteous slave-servant. Forced conversion to servitude

Serf

Serfdom- the state of the unfree population in Ancient Rus'. There are also other terms for this population: serfs- actually only male persons, and an unfree woman was called robe, servants(unit of servants), (o)dren, Obel or whitewash And (o) soddy serfs, later simply " People", usually indicating their ownership by someone.

Pre-Moscow period - Russian Truth

Serfdom is a primordial institution of customary law that has played a very important role important role V public organization Russian lands. Only the meaning of servitude can explain the fact that our most ancient legal monuments contain a relatively significant number of norms dedicated to clarifying various sides this institution, although they do not exhaust it in its entirety. Most of the instructions and rules are given by Russian Truth. From it, first of all, it is clear that the slave is not the subject, but the object of rights. For the murder of a slave, the usual criminal fine imposed for murder is not imposed free man, that is, vira: “But in the serf and the rob there is no vira; but if he is killed without guilt, then he must pay for a slave’s lesson, or for a robe, and sell 12 hryvnia to the prince” (Tr. 84). Criminal fine - sale- was punished under this article for malicious destruction of someone else’s property in exactly the same way and in the same amount as in the case if someone “cuts a horse or cattle with dirty tricks” (80). In the same way, in both cases, the murdered slave or slaughtered cattle was recovered in favor of the master. lesson, that is, compensation for damage caused to his property.

The serf, however, could not be the subject of an offense. This idea is expressed quite clearly, although thanks to the casuistry characteristic of Russian Pravda, and not in a general form, but in relation only to theft: “Even if there are serfs, the prince cannot execute them by selling them, they are not free” (42). Responsibility for harm and losses caused by the slave’s offense falls on his master and, moreover, according to general rule, in double size (although not always; cf. 56). The importance of objects of law that Russian Pravda attaches to slaves explains why this monument examines in relative detail the issue of the emergence of servitude, the protection of master's rights over slaves, and the attitude of masters to third parties regarding the various actions of their slaves.

How they became slaves

Serfdom could arise in different ways. Russian Truth lists only three cases of occurrence whitewashed servility(102-104), but besides them, he specifically points out several others (50, 52, 57, 93). However, her instructions are incomplete: she does not talk, for example, about captivity. All known cases The origin of servitude can be divided into two groups:

1. when servility arose against the will of the person; And
2. when it was established with the consent of the person entering the serfs.

Forced conversion to servitude

The first group includes:

1. Captivity. This is the original and universal cause of slavery. In our historical time the chronicle repeatedly mentions the capture of captives during wars with foreigners or between Russian lands and others, and sometimes notes that there were “many” captives, sometimes indicates their number, and sometimes cannot even list their great multitude and then reports only a fabulously cheap the price for which the captives were sold. For example, in the city of Novgorod, having repulsed the Suzdal militia and pursuing the retreating, they captured so many prisoners that “the judges bought 2 nogat each.” If we take into account that at that time a goat and a sheep were valued at 6 nogat, a pig at 10 nogat and a mare at 60 nogat, then the price of a captive at 2 nogat should be explained only by the extreme need to quickly sell the overly abundant goods. The nature of ancient wars in general and in particular the usual goal of military campaigns - the capture of as much military booty as possible - leave no doubt that captivity was one of the most abundant sources of servility.
2. Crime. Russian Truth mentions such a consequence only for a purchaser who has committed theft or secretly escaped; but the contemporary Russian Pravda treaty of Smolensk with the Germans in 1229 contains a general indication that the prince, angry with the Rusyns, could take away “everything, his wife and children as slaves.” In another edition of this monument there is a different rule that the prince, in anger at the Rusyn, “will order to plunder him with his wife and children.” This undoubtedly refers to punishment, known to Russian Pravda under the name flow and plunder and prescribed for murder during robbery, arson and horse stealing. The consequence of this punishment could also be the conversion of the criminal to serfs. Even in the 14th century. The Moscow princes had slaves who inherited them “in wine.”
3. Failure to pay debt. Russian Pravda speaks only about commercial insolvency, and distinguishes its causes: only insolvency that occurred through the fault of the merchant (drunkenness, wastefulness) made him completely dependent on the discretion of creditors: “whether they wait for him, but their will, whether they sell, but theirs.” their will" (50). There is no doubt, however, that every unscrupulous debtor was subject to the same fate. This is confirmed by the draft treaty of Novgorod with Gotland, XIII century.
4. Birth from unfree parents. Russian Pravda considers “fruit from servants”, along with offspring from livestock, to be part of the testator’s movable property (93): it was natural increase master's servants.

Voluntary conversion to servitude

The second group includes cases of servitude arising out of the free will of those entering. There are only three types of them, and they are listed by Russian Pravda as three whitewashed servility:

1. selling oneself in the presence of a witness for at least half a hryvnia,
2. marriage to a serf or servant,
3. entering the service as a tiun or housekeeper.

In two recent cases with a special agreement it was possible to establish other relations in abolition of the usual rules.

The listed types of sources of servility hardly exhaust all known to practice cases of its establishment. For example, during the famine that was common at that time, parents gave away their children for free (“take away the guest’s bread”) and gave themselves up on the same conditions. Such information is available from the 11th, 12th and even 15th centuries. Perhaps similar cases Russkaya Pravda had in mind when talking about in the dachas, who, however, were not classified by the Truth as serfs and were subject to release if they worked for a year for the favor they received (105). Such a limitation of practice could not have arisen without the influence of the clergy, who were well aware of the ruling of the Law of Judgment regarding a person who gave himself to another “at the time of his death”; According to the law, “he doesn’t need crap.” The tendency of masters to enslave needy people is also obvious from the article on in the dacha. On the other hand, at that time of the reign of force and lawlessness, a shelter consisting of servants the rich gentleman promised for many deliverance from at least the impending death of starvation.

Legal status of slaves

The legal position of slaves is determined by the basic position that they are the property of their masters. Old Russian secular law did not interfere at all in the relations between masters and their servants; therefore, one must think that they were determined solely by the discretion of the masters. This discretion went very far: masters could kill their slaves with impunity. This can be concluded from the fact that even outsiders were only responsible for the murder of other people’s slaves “without guilt.” This means that someone else’s slave could be killed for guilt with impunity; it was only necessary to prove the guilt of the murdered man in court. For the murder of his own slave, there was no one to even bring the murderer to justice, because he did not violate anyone’s interests except his own.

Ancient law takes under its protection slaveholding rights from attacks by outsiders, but does nothing to protect the interests of slaves. The most important protection of the rights of a master over a slave was the rule of Russian Pravda about zakliche: a missing slave was announced on bargaining, and if no one brought a slave within 3 days, then the master could take him from anyone, even a bona fide owner. In later monuments, a rule was also formulated about the eternity of claims for servitude, which did not have a statute of limitations: “And in a slave and a robe from time immemorial there is judgment.” Whoever kills a slave without guilt or assists in his escape pays the master the value of the slave.

On the other hand, the master is responsible for the actions of his slave to third parties. Russian Truth in several articles and very casuistically resolves the issue of the responsibility of masters for their slaves. General meaning These resolutions are that for all the actions of the slave, committed under the authority of the master, the latter was fully responsible for all losses caused to third parties: “redeem him to the master and do not lose him.” If a slave, by his own actions without the knowledge of the master, caused damage to a third person (stole, lied money), then the master was given the option of either paying the losses or handing over the slave to the loser.

If we add to all these resolutions the rule of Russian Pravda on preventing serfs from joining obedience, except in cases of extreme need, you will get a rather strictly held view of the slave as an object of law. Such a harsh regulation of slave-holding law is explained by the fact that the country's economic system was based to a large extent on slavery.

Use of slave labor

The work of a slave was widely used in households at city and country yards and in villages that belonged to princes, boyars and monasteries. The chronicle more than once mentions princely and boyar villages entirely inhabited by servants. The numerical composition of the unfree population in private households can be partly judged by the following random indication: one of the Chernigov princes In his country yard, the winner captured 700 servants.

Servants not only did agricultural and other menial work, but also studied various crafts: Russian Truth sharply distinguishes ordinary serfs, “ordinary workers,” from “craftsmen,” valuing the latter much more expensive. Even higher stood the slaves, who were entrusted with the management of certain sectors of the economy: these were housekeepers and rural tiuns, military, fire, grooms, etc. They were the closest people to their masters, not excluding the princes, and were important bodies of government in the field of court and especially finance, since at that time it was impossible to distinguish the private princely economy from the state one. It was most convenient to entrust such a delicate branch of management as farming to unfree person, precisely because the free man had nothing to do with the prince except his own good will, while the slave was eternally faithful to the master.

The service of slaves in the household of masters was the prototype of public service; From the individual duties of slaves at the princely courts, the most important government positions. This was the case not only here, but also in medieval Europe.

Trade in slaves

Serfdom played another important role in the economic system of the country: servants Ancient Rus' traded profitably. Along with furs, honey and wax, servants were one of the main items of retail trade, which is repeatedly mentioned in the chronicle and which was so clearly expressed by Svyatoslav, who wished to move to Pereyaslavets-on-the-Danube as a center to which goods from all countries flocked: from the Greeks, gold , pavoloki and wine, silver from the Czechs and Ugrians, “from Rus' comes honey, wax and servants.” In Constantinople, near the Church of St. Moms, there was a special trade in Russian slaves, who were willingly bought up as rowers.

From the 16th century. There is information that in Italy they were especially willing to buy Russian slaves and paid dearly for them. Since ancient times - for the first time under treaties with the Greeks, then in Russian Pravda - the cost of slaves was taxed: 20 spools under the first contract, from 10 to 5 spools under the second; according to the Russian Truth, an ordinary serf is valued at 5 hryvnia kun, a robe at 6 hryvnia, artisans and rural tiuns at 12 hryvnia, and finally, tiuns, fire and the stable boy 80 hryvnia, that is, an amount equal to double vira for the murder of the prince's husband.

Consistent implementation of the view of the slave as an object of law, however, was impossible even for the most ancient era. That a slave is not a beast is quite clear to Russkaya Pravda (33). The slaves, who enjoyed the trust of their masters to such an extent that they were entrusted with the management of important sectors of the economy, lived in an environment appropriate to their position: separate farm, in special courtyards.

Russian Truth provides for the case that someone knowingly gives money to a slave, and determines: “and he will lose his kun.” This means that there were people who lent money to slaves - of course, with the expectation of getting the debt back. To protect the master's interests, Russian Truth declares such debts to be insignificant, and if, despite this threat, the slaves could find creditors, then this makes one think that the slaves had property in their hands, which they independently disposed of. This practice was, apparently, not at all exceptional, since even foreigners extended credit to slaves.

That is probably why, in the Smolensk Treaty of 1229, a serious deviation was made from the strict rule of Russian Pravda: it was decided that if a German lends money to a prince or boyar slave, and the latter dies without paying the debt, then the debt passes to the one who receives the property deceased. This article not only confirms the creditworthiness of the slaves, but shows that after the slaves there could be property left over which their heirs could make claims.

Role of the Church

Judging by the above data, the strict right to slaves was significantly softened in practice, and a slave from being an object of rights could find himself in the position of an entitled subject. Such a transformation, however, did not in the least shake the master’s rights, since it was possible only with the permission of the masters themselves. However, this practice was supposed to little by little prepare the ground for improving the legal position of slaves.

Attempts to soften the morals of slave owners

This was energetically promoted by the Christian Church, whose representatives took upon themselves the difficult task of softening slave-owning morals. The church, in essence, not only did not object to the institution of serfdom, but even at first allowed the possession of serfs individual representatives clergy; at least Russian Truth mentions Chernesky serfs. But in my worries about salvation flock The church could not help but recognize the image and likeness of God in the servants, for slaves are the same people, only given by God to serve their masters. In a number of epistles, slaveholders are exhorted to treat their servants kindly, to feed, clothe, and instruct them as if they were their own children or orphans. He who does not feed and put shoes on his servants, and they are killed for theft, is responsible before God for the blood shed. It is recommended to punish for disobedience servants vine from 6 to 30 wounds, but no more.

However exhortations Church teachings hardly often touched the slave-owning conscience; more impressive means were needed to influence it. They were used by the church against cruel masters who tormented their servants nakedness, wounds and hunger and then wanted to calm their conscience with rich offerings and contributions to the benefit of the church for the repose of their soul: it was forbidden to accept gifts from such gentlemen and it was recommended to better help the victims and “make them carefree.”

Fight against the arbitrary killing of slaves and the slave trade

The church fought especially persistently against the arbitrary killing of slaves and against the slave trade. It is very likely that under the direct influence Judgment Law or City Law an even more categorical rule was drawn up in the so-called “Belechesky Charter” or “Commandments” of Metropolitan George, which says: “if anyone kills a servant, he will accept penance as a robber.” But such a strict rule of church law did not penetrate public morals for a long time: the monument of secular law of the end of the 14th century (Dvina Charter) was not yet far from the views of the era of Russian Truth on the unlimited rights of slaveholding, ensuring the irresponsibility of the ruler if he “sinned, hit his slave or robe” and that will cause death. Although, apparently, only the unintentional murder of slaves is not subject to punishment here, in practice, under this article it was always possible to challenge any charge of killing one’s own slave.

In the fight against slave traders, church teachings are armed against the sale of servants to Gentiles ( nasty) and assign church punishments for disobedient people. The usual practices of professional traders are also condemned: the church demanded that servants sold for the same price at which it was purchased; if anyone charges surplus, “then the treasures of earth and salt are found by other people’s souls,” for which the teachings threatened serious responsibility before God.

Release

But these exhortations could hardly have serious results, just like church sermons against rezoimania. The influence of the church was more successful in matters of freeing slaves. By influencing their sons during confession, especially before death, the clergy had the opportunity in many cases to insist on the release of at least several people from the servants every slave owner “for the peace of his soul” or “to his liking.” According to spiritual wills, such freedmen were therefore called “suffocated people.”

Further, the clergy sought to put into practice the rules on the mandatory, in some cases, release of slaves at will and in the face of public authority. This solemn form of absolution is mentioned in Russian Pravda. Here is also indicated the case of the obligatory release after the death of the father of the children he had begotten from his slave: such children did not receive an inheritance, but were freed together with their mother. According to the Charter of Vsevolod Gabriel and robicichi received decree part of the father’s property: “a horse and armor and a twist, according to the belly.”

Another case of release was mentioned in the agreement between Novgorod and the Germans; it was the raped slave who received freedom. Although the meaning of the article is clear, its editorship raises a number of doubts: it must be assumed that it has not been completely rewritten. The only possible interpretation of it is that it implies the rape of someone else's slave; otherwise the article could not have been included in the contract. But the article provides for the consequences of the act only in relation to the slave and does not mention a word about compensation for the master’s damage; one must think that the original also provided for this consequence of the offense. That the church cared about protecting sexual morality among slaves is confirmed by other, purely church monuments. It is very likely that the mentioned article arose not without the influence of the church.

Helping those who escape to freedom

Finally, the church provided assistance to slaves who sought to buy their freedom, both with material support and by removing obstacles to the fulfillment of these aspirations; she fought, for example, against the custom of taking “extradition for those redeeming themselves for freedom” and preached that if someone is redeemed for freedom, he must give for himself as much as was paid for him. The surcharge over the regular price was called outcast, of course, because those who were redeemed from servitude were counted among the outcasts and as such, as defenseless people who needed outside support, together with suffocating people, they were included in the category of church people, almshouses, under the patronage of church institutions.

It would be unthinkable for the latter to feed all this huge mass of unfortunates at their own expense; the church had to take care of adapting these free working hands to various industries economy, in particular agriculture. The monuments mention “outcast villages” owned by church institutions. A milder, but by no means less productive exploitation of the labor of former slaves who became free could serve a great example for slave owners, proving the possibility of such utilization of slave labor without prejudice to their own economic interests.

Moscow period

During the Moscow period, the institution of servitude underwent a number of significant changes. First of all, along with the old type of servitude appears new form bonded servitude, gradually replacing the first. Then total mass unfree population different types first, in fact, and then legally, he begins to get closer to the peasants, who were gradually losing their civil freedom, and finally completely merges with them. To all this should be added an increasingly strict registration of rights to slaves.

Changing the sources of servitude

Sources whitewashed Servitude in this period gradually narrows. So for example

1. Captivity no longer plays the same role, both due to the gradual unification of the Moscow State, and because captives were usually ransomed and even handed over to each other without ransom. Only prisoners remained from international wars along the western, southern and eastern borders. But regarding them, a decree was passed in 1556, according to which the captive remained a slave until the death of the master, “and his children are not slaves.” Thus, captivity became a source of only temporary servitude. Although the Code did not maintain this rule, it introduced some restrictions regarding the servitude of captives (XX, 61 and 69).
2. Slavery from a crime does not exist at all according to Moscow law, since criminal penalties are introduced for all important crimes.
3. The rule on the consequences of commercial insolvency was borrowed from the Russian Pravda in its entirety in the 1st Code of Law: merchants who became in debt through their own fault were given over to creditors “with their heads for sale,” that is, into complete slavery. But already from the beginning of the 16th century, there has been a mitigation in this practice, enshrined in Code 2: insolvent debtors were given to creditors not for sale, but “head to redemption,” that is, before the debt was worked off. The Code (X, 266) also defines the norm for counting work in payment of debts given by the head before redemption of debtors: the work of an adult man was valued at 5 rubles per year, for women - half.
4. IN full force Throughout the entire period, birth from slaves retained the significance of the source of complete servitude.

As for the occurrence of servitude of those who enter freely, then:

1. The sale of oneself and the parents of children is fully recognized by the 2nd Code of Law; it says that a slave cannot sell his free son, who was born to him before his slavery, but “he himself will sell himself to whomever he wants”; a similar rule has been established regarding Cherntsov. Further, the Code of Law allows the peasant to be sold with arable land into complete serfs without observing the transition deadline and without paying elderly. But there is already a limitation regarding served people: both themselves and not served It was also forbidden to accept children as slaves, except for those dismissed from service. After the Code of Law, new restrictions took place. Thus, according to the decree of 1560, insolvent debtors could not be sold to their creditors as full and reportable slaves, but they were ordered to be given to the creditors with their heads until redemption; according to the decree of 1597, it was prescribed that enslaved people who would begin to issue full reports and reports were sent to bed servants. In the Code, in all cases of becoming a slave, not complete, but indentured servitude is implied; on one particular occasion, there is even a reference to the sovereign’s decree, according to which “baptized people are not ordered to be sold to anyone” (XX, 97).
2. Entry into the service as a tiun and a keymaster is retained among the sources of complete servility according to both Sudebniks, but with some deviations from the Russian Pravda: they do not mention at all that by a special agreement it was possible to protect freedom upon admission to a tiun, and according to the 2nd Sudebnik, tiunship without full or report letter and did not entail servitude at all. Slavery according to the city key has been completely destroyed; all that remained was servitude according to the rural key, and this latter arose according to the 1st Code of Law with or without a report, and according to the 2nd Code of Law - certainly with a report. Finally, a clause was added about children, of whom only those who were recorded with them in the same charter or were born in serfdom followed their parents as slaves. However, bonded service gradually replaced these forms of entry into the service of full-time and reportable slaves.
3. Finally, the rule of the Russian Truth about servitude due to marriage to a rob without a row is formulated by the Code of Laws and the Code in categorical form: “a slave according to a rob, a rob according to a slave.” From this strict rule, however, a significant deviation was made in the Code: runaway townsman and peasant girls or widows who married someone’s slaves while on the run were given up with their husbands and children to the townspeople or landowners; but fugitive slaves who married townsman girls or widows while on the run were not enrolled in the townsfolk, but were given over to their former masters, with their wives and children. According to these articles, the condition of the spouses was determined by the condition of the fugitive. In addition to this decree restriction, the rule was “a slave in robes, a slave in robes,” and practice allowed deviations from it under special conditions.

Documentation

Along with the indicated modifications in the sources of serfdom, Moscow law also developed more precise forms of strengthening the rights to serfs. With the development of literacy, records began to be compiled for those entering servitude. Even before the 1st Sudebnik, full certificates were written for those being sold into slavery (from the expression: “bought at full price”) with the participation of governors and clerks, before whom those being sold were “placed.” This presentation to the authorities of those being sold into servitude to certify the correctness of the transaction became known as a report, and certificates of servitude - reports. By name, records and slaves were called full and report. Although it is impossible to distinguish between these types of servitude either by the method of occurrence or by substance, these names have been preserved in the Code of Laws and the Code.

By the name of the transactions (in-line, spiritual wills, deeds of sale), which transferred rights over slaves to other persons, slaves were also called dowry, spiritual, purchased. The Code of Laws also defines the competence of regional rulers in cases of servitude. According to Code 1, only governors with a boyar court could issue rights and vacation pay to slaves; but the release note, signed in the slave owner’s own hand, was valid even without a report to the governor. According to Sudebnik 2, governors with the boyar court had the right to issue only full and reported ones, but they issued right and fugitive ones only with a report to Moscow; certificates of leave were issued only in Moscow, Novgorod and Pskov and without a report, even if signed by the gentlemen with their own hands, they had no meaning. WITH half XVI V. notebooks are also mentioned in which fortresses for slaves were to be entered; but this practice became mandatory only at the end of the century.

In connection with education different groups among slaves, the rights of master over full and bonded slaves turned out to be unequal. The lifetime of indentured servitude, established by decrees and lords, excluded de jure the right to dispose of indentured servants, while in relation to complete serfs this right was not limited in any way. In practice, before the aforementioned decrees, the masters not only released enslaved people, considering them unfree, although legally they were not yet such, but also disposed of them, at least under the fiction of transferring the enslaved debt to other hands. The same practice is observed in the 17th century, contrary to the decree norms.

Attempts to limit the master's arbitrariness

In general, in Moscow law there is a noticeable tendency to limit the master's arbitrariness and impose a number of obligations on slave owners in relation to slaves. Thus, the right to life of one’s own slaves, timidly recognized by the Dvina Charter, was later completely rejected. The Code prescribes, when handing over the fugitive people to the masters, “to firmly order that he does not kill that fugitive man of his to death, or mutilate him, or starve him to death” (XX, 92); when handing over debtors before redemption, a guarantee was taken from those to whom they were handed over with a note stating “that they would not be killed or mutilated” (X, 266). In this one cannot fail to recognize the triumph of church preaching against cruel slave owners. And in Moscow time this sermon did not stop. For example, Joseph Volotsky taught that the Divine Scriptures command “not to have slaves, but to show mercy to the brethren, and to feed and clothe them sufficiently, and to take care of their souls.” He indicated that it was necessary to marry a boy at the age of 15, and to marry a girl at 12 years old, if they did not want to cut their hair.

Some went even further. The rationalist Bashkin recognized the very institution of servitude as inconsistent with the foundations of Christianity, and therefore he released all his slaves and kept people with him of his own free will. Sylvester, the author of Domostroy, did the same. Such teachings had a serious influence on minds.

Legislation also did not turn a deaf ear to church preaching. For the first time under Boris Godunov, by decree of the city, the masters were entrusted with the responsibility of feeding their servants. It was a difficult year of hunger, when many gentlemen sent their slaves out of their households, forcing them to earn food on their own, but the slaves did not have the opportunity to settle somewhere, since no one would accept them without vacation pay and without fortresses. Therefore, the decree ordered such slaves to issue vacation pay from the order in addition to the masters. This rule was also preserved by the Code with its generalization for all times, and not just for famine years, subject to the interrogation of the masters in the order about the justice of the petitions of slaves. If the latter were not confirmed, then the slaves were given back to the masters, who were at the same time ordered “to feed them in times of hunger, but not to starve them; and because they beat them with their foreheads, they did not do any harm to them” (XX, 41 and 42).

Classes of serfs

The entire mass of the unfree population - not excluding the indentured servants who later primarily filled this environment - occupied an unequal position in the master's economy and was divided into categories.

"Big" slaves

A small part, enjoying the special trust of the masters, carried out the duties of tiuns, housekeepers and clerks, that is, they managed certain branches of the master's farms. Another small part, since the inception of compulsory service, accompanied their masters on campaigns. These so-called “big” slaves stood completely apart from the other “lesser” ones. If in pre-Moscow times they occupied a very independent position, then in the Moscow period it became even more strengthened.

These primarily include indications from monuments that the slaves had real estate, donated to them by their masters and even acquired with their own funds; that they had their own slaves, were engaged in trade, and lent capital on the security of their yards and shops. The Code introduced some restrictions on this practice: slaves were ordered not to buy estates and shops and not to accept mortgages; sell the shops they have, do not keep anyone under bondage, but only under the records for the lesson years.

The law recognizes personal honor for serfs, which among “good” serfs is valued five times higher than peasant honor. But the advantages of this situation were not legally guaranteed and were completely dependent on the mercy of the masters. The Code even prohibits the trial of claims of freedmen against the wives and children of their deceased masters regarding property, “due to the fact that they were released without bellies” (XX, 65).

"Lesser" slaves

The rest, the most significant group of slaves, constituted the unskilled labor force on the farm, with the help of which the simple, but sometimes extensive needs of the subsistence economy in large and medium-sized boyar households were largely satisfied. These were grooms, huntsmen, cooks, bakers and all kinds of domestic servants, then blacksmiths, carpenters, hamovniks, table-makers, fine weavers and other craft people. Assigned to various current affairs, they were usually called business people. Among them and along with them, beekeepers, shepherds, cowsheds and ordinary farmers are mentioned under the name of suffering people or sufferers.

Organization of labor of slaves

Organization of labor of slaves in agriculture was quite diverse: they could cultivate the boyars' arable land as working servants, under the supervision of a housekeeper or clerk, at the full expense of the master, living in special servants' yards; or they could live in the master’s or people’s courtyards specially allocated to them, receiving a monthly wage or even a salary; or, finally, they were supported not at the master’s expense, but on their own, on plots of land allocated for their use, working in the master’s plowing and serving other types of corvee labor, often together with the peasants.

Private acts and land inventories of the late 15th and especially 16th centuries. they mention all these forms of settlement and economy of rural servants: they list servants' yards, master's yards in which the servants lived, and special people's yards; it speaks of human arable land, human livestock given to slaves for use, or livestock granted by the master, or purchased by slaves with their own funds; contains references to slaves-obrochniks and to the obrok cattle that were in the use of the slaves. Which of the listed forms of serf farming was more common or predominant in the 16th century? - cannot be determined; one can only point out that the number of households in different counties fluctuated significantly, not exceeding 3-5% in some, rising in others to 7-17% and reaching 25-30% in the Kashira and Tula counties as part of the peasant and bobyl population.

Impact of tax reforms

The number of rural serfs was closely related to general conditions land-owning economy and depended both on the size of the boyars' arable land and on the available number of peasant workers. Under the prevailing system of plow taxation, when boyar plowing was included in the salary on an equal basis with peasant plowing, an increase in the size of the former could not bring special benefits to landowners; therefore, they did not have direct incentives to expand it and at the same time to increase the rural servants. Its numbers could, however, increase in the second half of the 16th century, as is observed for some areas due to the outflow of the tax population from the center and northwestern outskirts to areas that became accessible to colonization. In such cases, direct benefit forced slaves to settle in empty peasant households on abandoned plots, so as not to pay taxes on the empty land for at least the time until it was possible to obtain a tax exemption or remove the empty plots from existing arable land.

Backyard people

In connection with this change in the order of taxation, there is an increasingly noticeable increase in the composition rural population local and patrimonial farms in the backyard and business people. The first of the mentioned terms is found already in the monuments of the last third of the 16th century, along with the terms “Lutsk arable land in the backyard”, “backyard yards”. Under what conditions did this backyard smell arise, whether and how exactly the backyard people differed from the suffering people in the 16th century. - these questions remain open. For the first time, by decree of the city, a legal distinction was made between backyard and courtyard people: the former were independently financially responsible for the offenses they committed, while their masters were responsible for the latter.

According to census books of the half of the 17th century. one can already study the composition of the backyard population: it included complete and enslaved slaves, foreign immigrants and all sorts of commoners who lived among the backyard people voluntarily or without bondage, including elements of the tax environment who had escaped from their position - impoverished peasants and peasants or their children and orphans. As a result of this census, the household population could attract the attention of the government from a fiscal point of view, since according to the census books and from the household population, a new salary of polonyanichny money began to be collected.

The disappearance of servitude

Links

• Political history of Russia. Feudal estates. Serfs Dictionary Ushakova
• 
  

The slave is in bondage to the master, and the master is in bondage with his own plans.

Proverb

[ Khrushchov:] So, our sovereign father. We are your zealous, persecuted slaves.

Pushkin, Boris Godunov.

He casually blew his heel into the teeth of the exemplary servant, the faithful Yakov. Nekrasov.

“I apologize that you are all slaves and slaves! What kind of slave am I to you? What kind of word is this? »

Mikhail Bulgakov. Ivan Vasilievich

It turns out that the painting “Ivan the Terrible Kills His Son” was painted

after the films “The Son Came Drunk,” “The Son Didn’t Come to Spend the Night” and “The Son Married a Serf.”

Serfdom as a personality quality – a tendency to grovel before someone, to be ready to do anything out of servility and sycophancy.

A young gentleman rides around the estate in a carriage. Suddenly the gaze stops at a peasant in the field, who is like two peas in a pod like the youngest gentleman. - Whoops! Hey, slave! Come here. Well, say: “Didn’t your mother once work on my father’s estate?” - No, no, sir, I didn’t work... But my father, yes! I worked as a groom for you...

Serfdom will flourish as long as there are many people with slavish souls in society. Slavery cannot be eradicated; it will exist everywhere if society is lenient towards servility and sycophancy.

Arriving in St. Petersburg, Suvorov wanted to see the sovereign, but did not have the strength to go to the palace and asked the emperor to honor him with a visit. Irritated Paul sent in his place - who? vile Turk, Kutaisov. Suvorov was greatly offended by this. They reported that someone had arrived from the sovereign. “Ask,” said Suvorov; not having the strength to get up, he accepted it while lying in bed. Kutaisov entered in a red Maltese uniform with a blue ribbon over his shoulder. - Who are you, sir? - Suvorov asked him. - Count Kutaisov. - Count Kutaisov? Kutaisov? I haven't heard. There is Count Panin, Count Vorontsov, Count Stroganov, but I have not heard of Count Kutaisov. What is your job? - Chief of the Horse. - And before they were? - Chief Jägermeister. - And before? Kutaisov hesitated. - Yes, speak up. - Valet. - That is, you scratched and shaved your master. - Exactly so, sir. - Proshka! - Suvorov shouted to his famous valet Prokofy. - Come here, you scoundrel! Look at this gentleman in a red caftan with a blue ribbon. He was the same serf, fershel, just like you, but he is not Turkish, so he is not a drunkard. Look where you've landed! And they send him to Suvorov. And you, brute, are always drunk, and you will be of no use. Take his example and you will be a great master. Kutaisov left Suvorov not himself and, returning, reported to the emperor that the prince was unconscious.

In “The Social Structure of Ancient Rus'” serfs — people whose masters’ right of ownership was not limited in any way (in fact, they were slaves in Russian feudal society). Known in Rus' since the 10th century. Serfs did not have their own property and could be sold or given to any person at any time. The master was responsible for the actions of the slave. At the same time, unlike ancient slaves, slaves could be “planted” on the land as serfs. They became serfs as a result of captivity, self-sale, sale for debts or for a crime, through marriage to a serf or servant. IN real life the serfs consisted of two categories: the servants of the feudal lord, who were part of his personal servants and squad (from among them came the princely administration and even prominent representatives of the ruling class)); the second category consisted of plowed serfs (“sufferers”), serfs-artisans. Throughout the 16th century, due to the spread of serfdom, the role of serfs decreased. Since the 17th century, “service” servitude has become the most widespread. Part of him, receiving conditional holding of land for his “service,” joined the ruling stratum, becoming, as it were, slaves of the Grand Duke. Another part in the 17th – 18th centuries. was “put into tax” (i.e. taxes, taxes in kind or duties of peasants and townspeople in the 15th – 18th centuries), merging with the mass of serfs.

Serfdom is an ordinary part of society that does not have honor, conscience, duty, dignity and the desire to think independently. The master often allows his slaves to steal from the state treasury. For this they serve their master and remain loyal for the time being. In practice, servitude is genderless, for in its nature there is nothing either male or female. Pisemsky in “People of the Forties” writes: “But he still slave at heart“Twenty years (of his previous activities) could not pass with impunity for him: they would certainly teach him to think petty and not feel quite noble.”

Serfdom is a readiness for any humiliation in order to maintain one’s place, one’s status.

Tell me, slave, can you eat an apple without hands? -Sssssssss I can! -Okay...cut off his hands!

Master (early in the morning, still in bed, plaintively): - Oh! Parsley! Pe-tru-shka-ah! Oh! I feel bad! I'm under pressure! Serf Petrushka (gloomily pulling off his pants): - Oh, master, you should get married, or something.

The master and the noblewoman are making love. And the slave holds a candle. Well, the master doesn't succeed. He to the slave: - Well, stand on this side (nothing comes of it). - Well, stand to the side (nothing again). - Well, let’s switch places (we swapped). Master to serf (holding a candle): - Well, how? (X) - Oh, okay master. (B) - So, as a slave, learn to hold a candle.

The wife left her husband and son at home. Calls her husband from work: “How are you, my men?” - The king is sleeping, the slave is collecting toys!

Serfdom is a talent for opportunism. Adaptability as a personality quality is a tendency to double-deal, to change one’s views and beliefs depending on the situation, the circumstances to which the opportunist adapts, in order to disguise his vicious personality traits, his opinions and assessments, in order to hit some jackpot, to benefit.

During house parties, Stalin often asked the following question: “Well, should we shoot Nikita to hell or let the hopaka dance?” Serf Nikita Khrushchev, having drunk a glass, began to dance. So he became a loyal Leninist, First Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, leader of a powerful state.

Petr Kovalev 2015

SLAVE

husband. (khalupnik?) strong to the land and master, a servant, a serf, or a purchased one, a slave. Serfs, serfs, serfs cf., collected. servant, abusive In general, a servant, a submissive, unrequited servant, why in the old days every subject was written as a serf in requests to the king. Complete serf, obelny (i.e. obly, round?), report, Russian Pravda. serf; enslaved slave, in the same place, enslaved, having sold himself for years or death. The bondage of the slave, the will of the master. All are slaves before God. The slave is drunk, the king is to blame. God forbid the priest be a slave, and the slave be a slave! The slave did not listen to the boyar (that is, he was not a witness). Listen to slave after slave. For a husband there is a slave, and for a slave there is a slave (old about marriages between freemen and serfs). He swaggers like a slave on a governor's chair. Old serf, old dog: out of the yard or under the bench (useless). The master himself, the slave himself, plows himself, yells himself, takes rent from the peasants himself, a single-lord.

| Serf or khlap, in cards, jack.

| Servant, Vaska, take off shoes, a kind of slanting bench for taking off boots.

| ·factory an iron bar placed into the eye of the anvil when forging an anchor to hold worn parts during welding. Slave, slack. serf, courtyard woman. Kholopov and Kholopkin, which is theirs personally; slaves related to them. Slave, characteristic of serfs, which is in their customs. Our business is a slave, we are not free in ourselves. Serf order, old. for the sake of justice between masters and their slaves. He has some kind of servile touch. Boasting is not a servile (but a noble) thing. Serve someone, old. to be and serve as a slave. Otherwise, he and his son did not serve anyone. Acts.

| - whom to turn into slaves, enslave and assign to the fortress for yourself. And now they have enslaved people to themselves by appropriating them. Slave, servant, action according to Ch. To become hungry, to become a slave, to move to this rank;

| adopt lackey habits. Serfdom cf. this condition is slavery, serfdom;

| collected slaves, slaves. All the servility and lackeys have gathered. Take it out of servility - they will laugh. -to fight, to be or to serve as a slave.

| - to whom, before whom, servilely, servilely please, be mean; servile. - nichanye, action according to ch. He came out to the people as a servitor. Serf, ration, abusive servant, maid.

• - see Serf...
• - a person who sold himself into slavery from the report and was invested in the foundation and D. letters. Legal status of D. serf in ancient Rus' was the same as the position of complete slaves, or whitewashed...

  Encyclopedic Dictionary Brockhaus and Euphron

• - see: the godmen are fighting - the Chubais are at home...

  Dictionary of Russian argot

• - ; pl. singles, R....

  Spelling dictionary of the Russian language

• - husband. strong to the land and master, servant, serf, or purchased, slave. Slaves, serfs, serfs cf., collect...

  Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

• - SLAVE, husband. 1. In Ancient Rus': a dependent person is close to slavery; in feudal Russia: serf peasant, servant. 2. transfer A man who is ready to do anything out of servility, sycophancy, lackey...

  Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

• - SLAVE, serf, plural. serfs, serfs, and serfs, serfs, as well as serfs, serfs, husband. 1. In ancient Rus' - a slave. Bonded slave. Complete serf. || serf peasant, serf servant...

  Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

• Explanatory Dictionary by Efremova

• - serf I m. 1. One who was in feudal dependence, in a form close to slavery. Ott. A subject of the king who was in complete dependence from him. 2. Serf servant. 3. transfer...

  Explanatory Dictionary by Efremova

• - cool "...

  Russian spelling dictionary

• - slave born p. -a, ay "lazy", Ukrainian. serf, blr. serf, other Russian ъ, them. p.m. h. -i, gen. p.m. h.-ey, Russian...

  Etymological dictionary Vasmera

• - a servile person, a person with servile, lackey-like views and manners Wed. But he is still in his soul - twenty years could not pass with impunity for him: they will certainly teach him to think petty and not entirely noble...

  Mikhelson Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary

• - a slave, a person with servile, lackey looks, manners...

  Michelson Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary (orig. orf.)

• - See YOURS -...

  V.I. Dahl. Proverbs of the Russian people

• - Zharg. they say Joking. Appeal to a friend, comrade. Maksimov, 463...

  Large dictionary of Russian sayings

• - ...

  Word forms

"SLAVE" in books