Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:35:38.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law and Empire in Late Tsarist Russia: Muslim Tatars Go to Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Stefan B. Kirmse
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article combines an investigation of legal practice in late tsarist Russia with an analysis of imperial rule. The Judicial Reform of 1864 introduced new legal principles, institutions, and rules of court procedure into the empire. Focusing on legal interaction in the newly established circuit courts in Crimea and Kazan, this article explores the implications of Tatar legal involvement in state courts for both the empire's legal reform process and its policies toward ethnic and religious minorities. It discusses the courts as tools for the integration of these multiethnic regions with the imperial center and shows how legal unification developed in a context of dynamic, and locally specific, plural legal orders. It concludes that minority policies were characterized by the simultaneous pursuit of integration and the promotion of difference. The article draws mainly on court records from Kazan and Simferopol (Crimea), newspaper coverage, and on the reports and memoirs of jurists.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 72 , Issue 4 , Winter 2013 , pp. 778 - 801
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

In developing this article, I have benefited from the thoughtful comments and suggestions of several colleagues, especially Michael Khodarkovsky, Jane Burbank, Nathaniel Knight, Mark D. Steinberg, and Slavic Review’s anonymous reviewers, who have drawn my attention to various imbalances and omissions. Special thanks also go to the archival specialists in Crimea and Kazan whose help with finding (and sometimes deciphering) old court documents proved invaluable: Asie Zaripova, in Simferopol’, and Lialia Khasanshina, in Kazan. I am equally grateful to Iskander Giliazov in Kazan for his continuing support.

1. Natsional'nyi arkhiv Respubliki Tatarstana (NART), f. 390, op. 1, d. 381 (“0 Saifulline, obv. v razboinichem napadenii na Sabitovu,” 1896).

2. Ibid., 11. 7, 7ob.

3. “Ob uchrezhdenii sudebnykh ustanovlenii i o Sudebnykh Ustavakh” (20 November 1864), in Polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiiskoi imperii, ser. II (hereafter PSZII), vol. 39, pt. 2, no. 41473.

4. On its gradual expansion, see Baberowski, Jörg, Autokratie und Justiz: Zum Verhältnis von Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Rückständigkeit im ausgehenden Zarenreich, 1864-1914 (Frankfurt am Main, 1996), 339–427 Google Scholar.

5. Martin, Virginia, Law and Custom in the Steppe: The Kazakhs of the Middle Hordeand Russian Colonialism in the Nineteenth Century (Richmond, Surrey, 2001)Google Scholar; Jersild, Austin, Orientalism and Empire: North Caucasus Mountain Peoples and the Georgian Frontier, 1845-1917 (Montreal, 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. chap. 5; Auch, Eva-Maria, “Adat, Shari'a, Zakon: Zur Implementierung russischen Rechts in Kaukasien,” Rechtstheorie 35 (2004): 289–321 Google Scholar; and Kemper, Michael and Reinkowski, Maurus, eds., Rechtspluralismus in der Islamischen Welt (Berlin, 2005)Google Scholar.

6. On the former, see Kucherov, Samuel, Courts, Lawyers, and Trials under the LastThree Tsars (New York, 1953)Google Scholar; Wortman, Richard S., The Development of a Russian LegalConsciousness (Chicago, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wagner, William G., Marriage, Property, and Law in Late Imperial Russia (Oxford, 1994)Google Scholar. In Autokratie undjustiz, Baberowski limits his discussion of state law among non-Russians to distant borderlands. Studies of rural legal practice include Popkins, Gareth, “Code versus Custom? Norms and Tactics in Peasant Volost Court Appeals, 1889-1917,” Russian Review 59, no. 3 (July 2000): 408–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burbank, Jane, RussianPeasants Go to Court: Legal Culture in the Countryside, 1905-1917 (Indianapolis, 2004)Google Scholar; and Gaudin, Corinne, Ruling Peasants: Village and State in Late Imperial Russia (DeKalb, 2007)Google Scholar, chap. 3.

7. For a discussion of the concept of “interior Russia,” see Gorizontov, Leonid, “The 'Great Circle’ of Interior Russia: Representations of the Imperial Center in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,” in Burbank, Jane, von Hagen, Mark, and Remnev, Anatolii, eds., Russian Empire: Space, People, Power, 1700-1930 (Bloomington, 2007), 67–93 Google Scholar. The gradual appropriation of former frontier zones by the imperial core is also discussed in Khodarkovsky, Michael, Russia's Steppe Frontier: The Making of a Colonial Empire, 1500-1800 (Bloomington, 2002)Google Scholar; Sunderland, Willard, Taming the Wild Field: Colonization andEmpire on the Russian Steppe (Ithaca, 2004)Google Scholar; and Breyfogle, Nicholas B., Schrader, Abby, and Sunderland, Willard, eds., Peopling the Russian Periphery: Borderland Colonization inEurasian History (London, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8. Gorizontov, “The ‘Great Circle’ of Interior Russia,” 79-80.

9. Geraci, Robert, Window on the East: National and Imperial Identities in Late TsaristRussia (Ithaca, 2001), 8 Google Scholar.

10. “Sovremennaia letopis',” Russkii vestnik 164, no. 4 (1883): 853.

11. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv, St. Petersburg (RGIA), f. 1317, op. 1, d. 2 (“Izvlechenie iz vsepoddanneishego otcheta chlena Gosudarstennogo Soveta,“ 1881), 1.1.

12. Burbank, Jane and Cooper, Frederick, Empires in World History: Power and the Politicsof Difference (Princeton, 2010), 12 Google Scholar.

13. For the argument that the Volga-Kama region offers a vantage point from which to analyze the tensions between the empire's recognition of religious diversity and the promotion of Russian Orthodoxy, see Werth, Paul W., At the Margins of Orthodoxy: Mission, Governance, and Confessional Politics in Russia's Volga-Kama Region, 1827-1905 (Ithaca, 2002)Google Scholar.

14. Slocum, John W., “Who, and When, Were the Inorodtsy? The Evolution of the Category of ‘Aliens’ in Imperial Russia,” Russian Review 57, no. 2 (April 1998): 173–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15. Khäyrutdinov, Rämil, “The Tatar Ratusha of Kazan: National Self-Administration in Autocratic Russia, 1781-1855,” in Dudoignon, Stephane A. and Komatsu, Hisao, eds., Islam in Politics in Russia and Central Asia (London, 2001), 27–42 Google Scholar.

16. Ibid., 35-36.

17. Fisher, Alan W., “Enlightened Despotism and Islam under Catherine II,” SlavicReview 27, no. 4 (December 1968): 542–53Google Scholar.

18. Crews, Robert D., For Prophet and Tsar: Islam and Empire in Russia and Central Asia (Cambridge, Mass., 2006), 148 Google Scholar,154.

19. Werner, K. A., ed., Pamiatnaia knizhka Tavricheskoi gubernii (Simferopol', 1889), sec. II, 32–33 Google Scholar.

20. Ibid.

21. See the figures from the archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences presented in la. E. Bodarskii, 0.1. Eliseeva, and Kabuzan, V. M., Naselenie Kryma v kontse XVIII-kontseXX vekov: Chislennost', razmeshchenie, etnicheskii sostav (Moscow, 2003), 131 Google Scholar.

22. Martin, Terry, “The Empire's New Frontiers: New Russia's Path from Frontier to Okraina, 1774-1920,” Russian History 19, nos. 1-4 (1992): esp. 183–85Google Scholar; see also Sunderland, Taming the Wild Field, esp. 73-95,123-34.

23. Williams, Brian G., The Crimean Tatars: The Diaspora Experience and the Forging ofa Nation (Leiden, 2001), 86 Google Scholar; Jobst, Kerstin S., Die Perle des Imperiums: Der russische Krim-Diskurs im Zarenreich (Constance, 2007)Google Scholar; Kozelsky, Mara, Christianizing Crimea: ShapingSacred Space in the Russian Empire and Beyond (DeKalb, 2010)Google Scholar.

24. O'Neill, Kelly, “Constructing Russian Identity in the Imperial Borderland: Architecture, Islam, and the Transformation of the Crimean Landscape,” Ab imperio, no. 2 (2006): 163–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. See the chapters on Kazan and Taurida in Sudebno-statisticheskie svedeniia isoobrozheniia o vvedenii v deistvie sudebnykh ustavov 20-noiabria 1864 g. (St. Petersburg, 1866).

26. Studies of imperial rule in the Volga-Kama region include: Kappeler, Andreas, Ruβlands erste Nationalitäten: Das Zarenreich und die Völker der Mittleren Wolga vom 16.bis 19. Jahrhundert (Cologne, 1982)Google Scholar; Geraci, Window on the East; and Werth, At the Margins of Orthodoxy. On imperial Russia's rule in Crimea, see Fisher, Alan W., The Crimean Tatars (Stanford, 1978)Google Scholar; Williams, Crimean Tatars; and Kozelsky, Christianizing Crimea.

27. Fuks, Karl, Kazanskie Tatary v staticheskom i etnograficheskom otnosheniiakh (Kazan, 1844)Google Scholar; Shino, P. A., “Volzhskie Tatary,” Sovremennik, nos. 81 and 82 (1860): 255–90Google Scholar and 121-42; “Tatary,” in Materialy dlia geografii i statistiki Rossi, Sobranie ofitseramigeneral'nogo shtaba, Kazanskaiaguberniia, comp. M. Laptev (St. Petersburg, 1861), 214-32; Rittikh, A. F., Materialy dlia etnografii Rossii: Kazanskaia guberniia, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1870)Google Scholar; Gol'denberg, M., “Krym i krymskie Tatary,” VestnikEvropy, no. 11 (1883): 67–89 Google Scholar. For discussions of civil and criminal law among non-Russians, see N. N-ch, “Narodnye iuridicheskie obychai u Tatar Kazanskoi gubernii,” in Vecheslav, N. N., ed., Trudy Kazanskagogubernskago statisticheskago komiteta (Kazan, 1869), 3:21–42 Google Scholar; “Iuridicheskie obychai inorodtsev,” Zapiski imperatorskago russkago geograficheskago obshchestva (po otdeleniiuetnografii) 8 (1878): sec. 2; Solov'ev, E. T., “Prestupleniia i nakazaniia po poniatiam krest'ian Povol'zhiia,” Zapiski 18 (1900): 275–300 Google Scholar.

28. Among many others: Thaden, Edward C., ed., Russification in the Baltic Provincesand Finland, 1855-1914 (Princeton, 1981)Google Scholar; Kappeler, Andreas, Rujlland als Vielvolkerreich:Entstehung, Geschichte, Zerfall (Munich, 1992), 177–202 Google Scholar; Weeks, Theodore R., Nationand State in Late Imperial Russia: Nationalism and Russification on the Western Frontier, 1863-1914 (DeKalb, 1996)Google Scholar; “Forum Reinterpreting Russification in Late Imperial Russia,“ with articles by Mikhail Dolbilov, Darius Staliunas, and Andreas Kappeler, Kritika 5, no. 2 (Spring 2004): 245-97; Miller, Alexey, “'Russifications'? In Search for Adequate Analytical Categories,” in Hausmann, Guido and Rustemeyer, Angela, eds., Imperienvergleich:Beispiele und Ansätze aus osteuropäischer Perspektive: Festschrift für Andreas Kappeler (Wiesbaden, 2009), 123–43Google Scholar; and Remnev, Anatolii, “Colonization and ‘Russification’ in the Imperial Geography of Asiatic Russia: From the Nineteenth to the Early Twentieth Centuries,“ in Uyama, Tomohiko, ed., Asiatic Russia: Imperial Power in Regional and InternationalContexts (London, 2012), 102–28Google Scholar.

29. Broadly similar conclusions are drawn, for example, by N. I. Vorob'ev et al., IstoriiaTatarskoi ASSR (Kazan, 1955), 1:311; Rorlich, Azade-Ayse, The Volga Tatars: A Profile in National Resilience (Stanford, 1986)Google Scholar; Vozgrin, V. E., Istoricheskie sud'by krymskikh Tatar (Moscow, 1992)Google Scholar; and Williams, Crimean Tatars, 111-38.

30. Zagidullin, Il'dus K., Perepis 1897 goda i tatary Kazanskoi gubernii (Kazan, 2000), 8–9 Google Scholar.

31. Ibid., 88,105-6.

32. On Kazan, see Geraci, Window on the East; on Crimea, O'Neill, “Constructing Russian Identity.” Many post-Soviet works on “Russification” in other regions come to similar conclusions.

33. Geraci, Window on the East, 84,348; O'Neill, “Constructing Russian Identity,” 180.

34. Geraci, Window on the East; Yemelianova, Galina M., “Volga Tatars, Russians and the Russian State at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century: Relationships and Perceptions,“ Slavonic and East European Review 77, no. 3 (July 1999): 448–84Google Scholar; Romaniello, Matthew P., The Elusive Empire: Kazan and the Creation of Russia, 1552-1671 (Madison, 2012)Google Scholar.

35. Yemelianova, “Volga Tatars, Russians and the Russian State,” 484.

36. Crews, For Prophet and Tsar, 3.

37. Ibid., 20.

38. Ibid., 9,190,323.

39. Yaroshevski, Dov, “Empire and Citizenship,” in Brower, Daniel R. and Lazzerini, Edward J., eds., Russia's Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700-1917 (Bloomington, 1997), 58–79 Google Scholar.

40. Wortman, Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness; Lincoln, W. Bruce, In theVanguard of Reform: Russia's Enlightened Bureaucrats, 1825-1861 (DeKalb, 1982)Google Scholar.

41. Nebolsin, A. G., ed., Istoriko-statisticheskii ocherk obshchego i spetsial'nogo obrazovaniiav Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1883), 50 Google Scholar; Wortman, Development of a Russian LegalConsciousness, 222,264.

42. Vysochaishe uchrezhdennaia kommisiia dlia peresmotra zakonopolozhenii po sudebnoi chasti, Ob'iasnitel'naia zapiska: Kproektu novoi redaktsii ustava ugolovnago sudoproizvodstva (St. Petersburg, 1900), 3:164-65. On the prereform courts, see also LeDonne, John P., Absolutism and Ruling Class: The Formation of the Russian Political Order, 1700-1825 (Oxford, 1991), 181–99Google Scholar.

43. Baberowski, Jörg, “Law, the judicial system and the legal profession,” in Lieven, Dominic, ed., Cambridge History of Russia, vol. 2, Imperial Russia, 1689-1917 (Cambridge, Eng., 2006), 344 Google Scholar.

44. Wortman, Richard S., Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy, vol. 2 (Princeton, 2000)Google Scholar.

45. Zavadskii V. R., “V zale zasedanii s prisiazhnymi zasedatel'iami: Iz otchetov revizora,“ Zhurnal Ministerstva iustitsii 2, no. 3 (1896): 112–13.

46. For details, see Kirmse, Stefan B., “New Courts in Late Tsarist Russia: On Imperial Representation and Muslim Participation,” Journal of Modern European History 11, no. 2 (May 2013): 243–63Google Scholar.

47. The clash between the new class of bureaucrats and the governors is analyzed in Baberowski, Jörg, ” Vertrauen durch Anwesenheit: Vormoderne Herrschaft im späten Zarenreich,“ in Baberowski, Jörg, Feest, David, and Gumb, Christoph, eds., Imperiale Herrschaft inderProvinz: Repräsentationen politischerMacht im späten Zarenreich (Frankfurt am Main, 2008), 17–37 Google Scholar.

48. Examples of special provisions in the Criminal Code included the definition of crimes. Blasphemy, sacrilege, apostasy, and proselytism were criminal offenses only when they were carried out at the expense of Russian Orthodoxy (at least until 1905). For a discussion of specifications in the Civil Code, see Burbank, Jane, “An Imperial Rights Regime: Law and Citizenship in the Russian Empire,” Kritika 7, no. 3 (2006): 397–431 Google Scholar.

49. PSZ II, vol. 6, pt. 2, no. 5033 (“Polozhenie o Tavricheskom Magometanskom Dukhovenstve i podlezhashchikh vedeniiu ego delakh“), 23 December 1831, see esp. paras. 5, 77-78.

50. von Benda-Beckmann, Keebet, “Forum Shopping and Shopping Forums: Dispute Settlement in a Minangkabau Village in West Sumatra,” Journal of Legal Pluralism 19 (1981): 117–59Google Scholar.

51. For details, see Kirmse, “New Courts.“

52. Afanas'ev, Alexander K., “Sostav suda prisiazhnykh v Rossii (1862-1866 gg.),” Voprosy istorii 6 (1978): 201 Google Scholar.

53. RGIA, f. 1405, op. 73, d. 3656a (“Svedeniia o prisiazhnykh zasedatel'iakh,” 1884), 11.175, 192. There are no separate percentages for Muslims. In most of Kazan, however, Muslims formed the vast majority of non-Christians; in Crimea, both Jews and Muslims were strongly represented.

54. See, for example, NART, f. 1, op. 3, d. 1437 (“0 vvedenii v Kazanskoi gubernii mirovykh sudebnykh ustanovlenii,” 1868), 11. 41ob., 43, 111; or NART, f. 1. op. 3, d. 1481 (“Ob izbranii mirovykh sudei po Mamadyshskomu uezdu,” 1868), 11.7-8,17,19.

55. “Iz zapisnoi khnizhki prisiazhnogo zasedatel'ia,” Kamsko-Volzhskaia gazeta, no. 8 (28 January 1872).

56. RGIA, f. 1405, op. 73, d. 3656b (“Svedeniia o prisiazhnykh zasedatel'iakh,” 1884), 1. 351.

57. Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv v avtonomnoi respublike Krym, Simferopol’ (GAARK), f. 376, op. 1, d. 195 (“Perepiski o vyezdakh uezdnykh chlenov suda,” 1901).

58. GAARK, f. 376, op. 1, d. 229 (“0 vyezdakh uezdnykh chlenov suda,” 1902), 1.51.

59. GAARK, f. 376, op. 1, d. 195,11. 5-5ob.

60. GAARK, f. 376, op. 1, d. 229,1. 45.

61. In the Volga-Kama region, Tatar rural inhabitants were classified as krest'iane (peasants). In Crimea, most Tatar peasants were referred to asposeliane (settlers)—a broad category that was loosely applied to most residents of the southern steppes. In contrast, the term kolonisty (colonizers) tended to be reserved for foreign settlers and pereselentsy (resettlers) for internal, mostly Slavic migrants.

62. There was usually a note in the document indicating that testimony had been translated from Tatar, or that an oath had been administered by a mullah.

63. See the following annual reports by the Ministry of Justice: Svod statisticheskikhsvedeniipo delam ugolovnym, proizvodivshimsia v 1880 godu, pt. 2,135; and Svod statisticheskikhsvedeniipo delam ugolovnym,proizvodivshimsia v 1900godu, pt. 2,194.

64. Svod statisticheskikh svedeniipo delam ugolovnym, proizvodivshimsia v 1885godu, pt. 2,121; and Svod statisticheskikh svedeniipo delam ugolovnym, proizvodivshimsia v 1900godu, pt. 2,193.

65. Frierson, Cathy, “Crime and Punishment in the Russian Village: Rural Concepts of Criminality at the End of the Nineteenth Century,” Slavic Review 46, no. 1 (Spring 1987): 55–69 Google Scholar; on samosud in Kazan, see also Solov'ev, E. T., “Samosudy u krest'ian Chistopol'skogo uezda Kazanskoi gubernii,” Zapiski 8 (1878): 15–17 Google Scholar; and Solov'ev, “Prestupleniia i nakazaniia.“

66. In 1894, the records of the small administrative unit in which the villages of the accused and the victim were located showed 1,153 Russians and 9,809 Tatars: Liustritskii, V., Pamiatnaia knizhka Kazanskoi gubernii za 1893-94 gody (Kazan, 1894), 82 Google Scholar.

67. A classic study of law enforcement in the Australian colonies explains the authority of colonial policemen in terms of their appearance of power and distance. Postcolonial police, who are often staffed with locals and not perceived as neutral, have lost much of this authority. See Gordon, Robert J. and Meggitt, Mervyn J., Law and Order in the NewGuinea Highlands: Encounters with Enga (Hanover, N.H., 1985)Google Scholar.

68. Kazanskii Telegraf, no. 966 (15 March 1896). The case itself is not preserved in the court archives.

69. Crews, For Prophet and Tsar, 165.

70. For full coverage, see Kamsko-Volzhskaia gazeta, no. 78 (8 July 1873); and SanktPeterburgskie vedomosti, no. 179 (2 July 1873).

71. GAARK, f. 376, op. 6, d. 39 (“0 meshchanine Iag'ia Dzhelial’ oglu,” 1871).

72. Ibid., 1-2. The continuation of the case is not preserved in the records.

73. In other imperial contexts, these “legal lubricators,” to borrow a term from Gilbert loseph, have become a focus of recent research: Salvatore, Ricardo D., Aguirre, Carlos, and Joseph, Gilbert M., eds., Crime and Punishment in Latin America: Law and Society sinceLate Colonial Times (Durham, 2001), 22 Google Scholar; Macauley, Melissa, Social Power and Legal Culture:Litigation Masters in Late Imperial China (Stanford, 1998)Google Scholar; and Benton, Lauren, Law andColonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400-1900 (Cambridge, Eng., 2002), 10, 16–18 Google Scholar.

74. RGIA, f. 1356, op. 1, d. 30 (“Po delu kuptsa Sagadeeva,” 1880), 1. 4ob. This case concerns the Kazan-based merchant Shamsutdin Sagadeev who prepared numerous petitions and complaints on behalf of Tatars. Also see GAARK, f. 376, op. 5, d. 1 (“Po prosheniiu poverennogo,” 1869) for a case in which an honorary justice of the peace formulates a formal request (in rather basic Russian) and forwards it to the Simferopol’ circuit court on behalf of a Tatar village.

75. Volzhskii vestnik, no. 99 (23 August 1884).

76. On the jurisdictions of courts in the North Caucasus, see Vladimir 0. Bobrovnikov, “Sudebnaia reforma i obychnoe pravo v Dagestane (1860-1917),” in Gennadii V. Mal'tsev and D. Iu. Shapsugova, eds., Obychnoe pravo v Rossii: Problemy teorii, istorii i praktiki (Rostov-on-Don, 1999), 167.

77. GAARK, f. 376, op. 6, d. 55 (“0 poselianine Mengli Issa Suin oglu,” 1871).

78. Ibid., 11.1, 20.

79. Burbank, Russian Peasants Go to Court, 13.

80. For examples, see “Vooruzhennoe soprotivlenie vlasti,” Volzhskii vestnik, no. 56 (15 May 1884); and “Nanesenie tiazhkago uvech'ia,” Kazanskii Telegraf, no. 1021 (1 June 1896).

81. “Perepiska K. P. Pobedonostseva s preosviashchennym Nikanorom episkopom Ufimskim,” Russkii arkhiv 53, no. 4 (1915): 91.

82. GAARK, f. 376, op. 6, d. 70 (“0 meshchanine Ramazan Memet oglu,” 1872).

83. For detailed coverage, see “Iz zala suda,” Krymskii vestnik, no. 74 (3 April 1891).

84. GAARK, f. 376, op. 6, d. 49 (“0 meshchanine Konstantine Samodurove,” 1871).

85. Ibid., 1. 2.

86. Merry, Sally E., “Courts as Performances: Domestic Violence Hearings in a Hawai'i Family Court,” in Lazarus-Black, Mindie and Hirsch, Susan F., eds., Contested States: Law, Hegemony and Resistance (New York, 1994), 37–38 Google Scholar.

87. GAARK, f. 376, op. 5, d. 2808 (“Delo po isku zheny poselianina Aishe Sherifa,“ 1878), 1.18.

88. GAARK, f. 376, op. 5, d. 2808 (1878), 11. 7-7ob.

89. For the testimony, see ibid., 11.10-17ob.

90. Ibid., 1.12.

91. Ibid., 11.19ob.-20.

92. Ibid., 1.12ob.

93. GAARK, f. 849, op. 1, d. 17 (“Po isku docheri Khatipa Ubeidully Zeynepe,” 1894).

94. Svod zakonov rossiiskoi imperii (1900), vol. 11, pt. 1.

95. GAARK, f. 849, op. 1, d. 17,1.28.

96. Ibid., 11.34, 34ob.

97. NART, f. 41, op. 3, d. 46 (“Po sporu o podloge dokumenta,” 1871).

98. Ibid., 1.6.

99. Ibid., 1.7.

100. Ibid., 11.4-4ob.

101. NART, f. 41, op. 1, d. 557 (“Delo… o deistviiakh prisiazhnogo poverennogo M. G. Mering,” 1884).

102. Holleman, J. F., “Trouble-Cases and Trouble-Less Cases in the Study of Customary Law and Legal Reform,” Law and Society Review 7, no. 4 (Summer 1973): 592 Google Scholar; and Felstiner, William L. F., Abel, Richard L., and Sarat, Austin, “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming…,” Law and Society Review 15, no. 3/4 (1980-81): 651 Google Scholar.

103. Among many others, see Burbank, Russian Peasants Go to Court; Frierson, Cathy A., All Russia Is Burning! A Cultural History of Fire and Arson in Late Imperial Russia (Seattle, 2002)Google Scholar; and Gaudin, Ruling Peasants, 88-90.

104. Crews, For Prophet and Tsar; Burbank, “An Imperial Rights Regime.“

105. Ibid., esp. 418-19, 424.

106. See Ministry of Justice, Svod statisticheskikh svedenii po delam ugolovnym, proizvodivshimsiav 1881 godu, pt. 1,23.

107. One of the few Tatar sources is the newspaper Tarjuman, published in both Russian and Tatar, which regularly featured reports of circuit court trials from Crimea and Kazan, yet presented these in much the same manner as other press organs.

108. Zagidullin, Perepis’ 1897 goda, esp. 84-105; Geraci, Window on the East; Dowler, Wayne, Classroom and Empire: The Politics of Schooling Russia's Eastern Nationalities, 1860-1917 (Montreal, 2001)Google Scholar; and Werth, At the Margins of Orthodoxy.

109. Löwe, Heinz-Dietrich, “Poles, Jews, and Tartars: Religion, Ethnicity, and Social Structure in Tsarist Nationality Policies,” Jewish Social Studies 6, no. 3 (Spring-Summer 2000): esp. 77–78 Google Scholar; see also Zagidullin, Perepis’ 1897goda, 89-91.

110. Sunderland, Taming the Wild Field.

111. See the chapters on Taurida and Kazan in Sudebno-statisticheskie svedeniia and Baberowski's discussion of debates in the legal reform commission and State Council: Baberowski, Autokratie undjustiz, 343-44.