Slavery in Themiclesia

Slavery in Themiclesia (民臣, mring-gin) was practiced from Antiquity until it was restricted in successive acts and abolished in 1841; a limited form of penal slavery was restored in 1853 and abolished finally in 1911. There were multiples sources and forms of slavery; some voluntarily sold themselves as slaves, others were imported as merchandise or captured as prisoners in war, some entered service to discharge debt, while still others became unfree concubines to wealthy men and women. Various kinds of involuntary servitude were imposed as punishments for criminal offences, for either the criminal themselves or both them and their family. Slavery was generally a hereditary condition under Themiclesian law, unless explicitly excepted; however, the social status of unfree individuals was complex, and not all slaves were treated merely as property.

At least some slaves were treated as chattels during Antiquity and could be killed as grave goods and sacrificial victims at religious ceremonies, and their labours are thought to be important to the economies or management of some households. Under these systems, it was possible for a person to become highly influential while still being owned by another person. Chattel slavery was on the decline during the Middle Ages, while the depopulation of many provinces due to the Bubonic plague and warfare encouraged viceroys to set slaves free to re-populate them. The first step in the legal end of slavery was implicit, when the new regime in Kien-k'ang refused in 1533 to recover absconding slaves or recognize any use of force in private recoveries as lawful, instead encouraging them to settle and re-open wasted land.

After the 16th century, laws enacted improved the condition of remaining slaves and to impose limitations on the criteria in which a person may become a slave and increase those in which they were liberated. Chattel slaves became legally recognized as persons by the 11th century and could not be arbitrarily maimed or killed by their owners, though they retained the power to discipline misbehaving slaves with considerable latitutde.

Concubinage

Concubinage (嬖臣妾) was a special status that, according to Malmot, was "compounded on other conditions of servitude". In general, a concubine was a female slave who is publicly recognized as a sexual partner of her male owner and, for this concession, can sometimes acquire a share in her owner's estate. From the 6th century onwards, government authorities generally demanded to some sort of proof that the concubine had personally assented to becoming a concubine, though this initially applied to a free woman becoming a concubine. After the 8th century, a slavewoman becoming a concubine ("called to the chamber" in contemporary terminology) was given the same treatment, being required to present herself to the authorities attesting to her willingness.

Though some have emphasized the matter of a slavewoman's choice in becoming a concubine to her owner, Malmot says that a slaveowner could always access their slaves sexually, and so if a slavewoman should refuse to be a concubine, she does not thereby prevent her being sexually accessed. Moreover, a child borne of a concubine will be free and, in the default of a legitimate heir though the slaveowner's consort, have a chance of inheriting some part of his estate by courtesy of the rightful successor. Thus, with the prospect of acquiring a legitimate share in her owner's wealth and a child born into liberty, a slavewoman would have a strong incentive to being a concubine, except those who wished to make a strong statement against their enslavement in any way.

A female slaveowner had the right sexually to access her male slaves for the same reason a male slaveowner could sexually access his female slaves; however, there is no concubinage status for male slaves called to the chamber of a female slaveowner. He cannot acquire a share in his female owner's properties, either during her life or in the event of her decease. There may be several reasons why such gendered discrepancy exists, not less moralistic ones, but the situation of married female slaveholders may differ from unmarried ones. On the other hand, it is very unusual for male concubines to become important members of the households of their female owners, since they were not legally entitled to anything from the latter and also because such a male person was held in lower regard than a female person who similarly made herself available.

The status of concubinage does not appear to abrogate a person's underlying enslaved status in the law. A slave becoming a concubine was still expected to adhere to their owner's commands as though their were still slaves, and so Malmot says it is fair to consider concubines who were originally slaves still to be slaves, though owners may restrain themselves in a manner they deem appropriate, by their own volition and sanctioned by broader society, for a member of their household with an acknowledged status. Since the 700s, an owner may not sell a concubine except for misbehaviour. Allegations of misbehaviour are subject to official investigation, and perjurious allegations against one's own concubine are punishable in law.

There is also some restriction on concubinage on the grounds of social status and wealth. It is known, for example, soldiers on expedition were forbidden to take female prisoners as concubines but could take them as slavewomen instead. Not only out of a concern for the army's effectiveness, sexual mores, and logistical footprint, but, of their status, ordinary soldiers should not be permitted concubines. Chancellor Ghwang did not punish soldiers that, according to contemporaries committed rape in consequence of the war in 791, but did punish those taking concubines. His reasons were detailed in an account he wrote for the imperial court after his conduct was challenged by his rivals as awful and impossible to justify.