Lieven D. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Russia, Volume 2: Imperial Russia, 1689-1917
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Russian society, law and economy
legal norms and gender conventions thus laid the foundation in Russia for a
social order that prescribed increasingly rigid gender roles for both sexes and
intensified male domination in the family.
61
In short, by exempting women from corporal punishment, authorities
deemed them incapable of responsibility for their actions and, by implication,
undermined their potential for full citizenship. Although reformers acted out
of a genuine desire to protect women from abuse, they also deprived women
of agency, reinforcing their subordination to their husbands and excluding
them from the civic order. By contrast, a far more even-handed and inclusive
approach to gender difference persisted in the law of property. During debates
over the introduction of the income tax at the turn of the century, members of
the State Council argued that women, as owners of property and wage earn-
ers, should be taxed along with their male counterparts. Taxation, by treating
women as individuals, would serve as their ‘introduction to civic life’.
62
Conclusion
Over the course of the imperial era, Russian women’s legal status continued to
be distinguished far more by disabilities than privileges. In the law of property,
women’s standing remained secure. Lawmakers persevered in their defence of
women’s control of their fortunes, insisting that ‘not only does the property of
a wife not become the property of her husband, but he does not even acquire
through marriage the right to use or manage it’. Yet gender neutrality proved
an elusive goal even in property law. Early in the twentieth century, members
of a commission for a new codification of the law reiterated the responsibility
of men to provide for their wives, while stating that a wife ‘is not obligated
to seek independent earnings to support [her] husband’. Legal reformers also
fell short of granting women equal inheritance rights in the revised law of
succession in 1912.
63
In other respects as well, the position of women failed to
improve or even deteriorated. Until 1917 women remained personally subject
to male authority: the Orthodox Church resisted attempts on the part of the
state to introduce more liberal divorce legislation, although growing numbers
of women gained separation from their husbands through the office of the
61 For an account of changing gender relations in Western Europe, see Isabel Hull, Sexuality,
State, and Civil Society in Germany, 1700–1815 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996).
62 Y. Kotsonis, ‘“Face-to-Face”: The State, the Individual, and the Citizen in Russian Taxa-
tion, 1863–1917’, SR 63, 2 (2004): 231.
63 Wagner, Marriage, Property, and Law,pp.207, 164, 364–71.
342
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Gender and the legal order in Imperial Russia
Imperial Chancellery for the Receipt of Petitions, which granted separate
passports to women at the emperor’s discretion.
64
Most striking, however, was the trend in legal codes to highlight gender
difference and to locate women firmly in the domestic sphere. Although legis-
lators did not succeed completely in abolishing sexual asymmetry in property
relations, the distinction between women and men in the law of property
remained minimal. Women continued to control their fortunes independently,
to litigate against kin and neighbours, and were afforded little protection on
the grounds of ‘feminine weakness’. At the same time, gender hierarchies in
family and criminal law became increasingly pronounced. From the end of
the eighteenth century, women’s ‘unlimited obedience’ to their husbands was
enshrined in written law, while women’s dependence on their husbands for the
right to work or travel and for sustenance was articulated in legal codes. Even
the willingness of legal reformers to support marital separation was predicated
on the ‘presumed natural weakness of a wife’, since the courts made separation
contingent upon a husband’s failure to fulfil his marital obligations.
65
Finally,
criminal law accentuated sexual difference to the greatest degree, making con-
cessions to female frailty, but at the same time situating women on the margins
of civic life. In short, far from fostering women’s equality with men, the efforts
of imperial authorities to create a more progressive legal order served only to
underscore women’s precarious standing in the law.
64 Freeze, ‘Bringing Order to the Russian Family’, p. 744.
65 Wagner, Marriage, Property, and the Law,pp.217–20.
343
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
17
Law, the judicial system and the
legal profession
jorg baberowski
Reform
The 1864 judicial reform created Russia’s first constitution. When Alexander
II signed the decree for the introduction of the judicial reform in November
1864, he delivered the death-blow to the autocracy. Although the tsar did not
immediately recognise these consequences, educated public opinion certainly
entertained no doubts in this regard. The judicial reform limited the author-
ity of the monarch, since it separated the judiciary from the legislative and
executive institutions, and confirmed the principle of judicial independence
and tenure as a matter of law. But the reform of course went even further. It
broke with the estate-based system of justice, as it had been promulgated by
Catharine II at the end of the eighteenth century and set forth the equality of
all subjects before the law. At least de jure, Russia was transformed into a state
under the rule of law on the European model. For nothing remained either of
the secret and inquisitorial methods which had been practised by lay judges in
the estate-based courts.
1
The long-familiar practices of Western Europe now
came to Russia as well. No one was any longer to be punished for an action
which the Criminal Code did not identify as a crime (‘nullum crimen sine lege’),
and in civil proceedings, the principle of ‘where there is no plaintiff, neither
shall there be a judge’ thenceforth applied.
Not the leastof the evils of the oldsystem of justice was the secretand inquisi-
torial procedure which accorded no rights to the accused. The judges delivered
1 On the justice system before the reforms, see N. M. Kolmakov, ‘Staryi sud’, Russkaia
Starina 52, 12 (1886): 511–44; V. Bochkarev, ‘Doreformennyi sud’, in N. V. Davydov, and
N. N. Polianskii (eds.), Sudebnaia reforma (Moscow: Ob’edinenie, 1915), vol. I, pp. 205–41;
I. A. Blinov, ‘Sudebnyi stroi i sudebnye poriadki pered reformoi 1864 goda’, in Sudebnye
ustavy20 noiabria 1864g, za piat’desiat let (Petrograd, 1914), vol.I, pp. 3–101; J. LeDonne, ‘The
Judicial Reform of 1775 in Central Russia’, JfGO 21 (1973): 29–45; J. Baberowski, Autokratie
und Justiz. Zum Verh
¨
altnis von R
¨
uckst
¨
andigkeit und Rechtsstaatlichkeit im ausgehenden Zarenre-
ich 1864–1914(Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 1996), pp. 11–38; F. B. Kaiser, Die Russische
Justizreform von 1864. Zur Geschichte der russischen Justiz von Katharina II bis 1917 (Leiden:
Brill, 1972), pp. 1–89.
344
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Law, the judicial system and the legal profession
their verdicts on the basis of police investigation files and in the absence of the
defendant. And because the official evidentiary proceedings demanded that
confessions be forced, the police could use physical and emotional pressure at
their own discretion. Winning in civil proceedings depended on the ability to
bribe the chambers clerks who drew up the final verdicts and presented them
to the judges for their signatures. In order to remedy this evil, the reformed
rules of procedure stipulated oral argumentation and public trials. What the
police had determined in their inquiries had to be proven once more in open
court. The burden of proof no longer lay with the defendant but with the state
prosecutor, who had to publicly prove the correctness of his accusations. Thus
was the criminal proceeding transformed from a dialogue between the police
and the judges into a dispute between the prosecutor and the defendant. This
conflict had to be decided by an impartial court, for the protection of society
from crime could only succeed if the rights of the individuals who constituted
society were not violated. In the Judiciary Statutes the reformers therefore
not only confirmed the independence of the judges, but also introduced the
participation of lawyers into criminal and civil proceedings.
In the view of the reformers, the reformed court was primarily a societal
court in which not only the judges of the Crown, but also the subjects decided
on the application of law. For this reason, they introduced the office of justice
of the peace (mirovoi sud’ia) on the British model, for the trial of trivial offences.
This officer was elected by the local self-government for the duration of three
years. The declared belief in ‘democratic’ justice was demonstrated by the
adoption of trial by jury as the standard procedure in the District Court, in
other words the first judicial instance (okruzhnyi sud), and the participation
of estate representatives (soslovnye predstaviteli) in proceedings against ‘state
criminals’, which were conducted in the Judicial Chambers (sudebnaia palata).
Verdicts of the justices of the peace and the district jury courts were final, for
the voice of the people was to have the last word in judgement. Such verdicts
could only be contested by way of a complaint to the Cassation Department
of the Senate. The Senate then ruled not on the essence of the matter at issue,
but only examined the verdicts of the first instance for procedural errors. If
the senators found such errors, they referred the civil or criminal case back to
the court of first instance.
The symbolic meaning of these innovations could hardly have been greater,
for when had there ever before been an attempt in Russia not only to pro-
tect subjects from the arbitrariness of the authorities, but also to let them
decide on their own destiny? Unlike in some European states, the principle
of the separation of powers did not regulate only the relationship between
345
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Russian society, law and economy
the judiciary and the administration. It was even established within the judi-
ciary itself: judges were freed from the influence of the minister of justice,
and lawyers were given a self-administration of their own, independent of the
courts.
With the judicial reforms, the functions of the prosecuting attorney’s office,
the ‘eyes and ears of the Tsar’, also changed. As officials of the Ministry of
Justice, the public prosecutors (prokurory) lost their directive authority over
judges and attorneys but received control over the preliminary proceedings
of the police. The law nevertheless did not restrict the activity of the public
prosecutors to the presentation of the charges. It also assigned to them the
legal supervision over the administration; the Ministry of Justice thus grew
into the role of a supervisory authority which monitored the compliance of
the ministries with the laws of the empire. At least de jure, the autocracy had
gone out of existence.
2
Contemporaries, too, now understood that the court
statutes of 1864 were more than an attempt to replace the system of estate-
based justice by modern methods of jurisprudence. The culture within which
rulers and subjects operated was shaken. No one saw this more clearly than
the liberal jurist Vladimir Nabokov, when in 1914 he recalled the beginnings
of the judicial reform. Nowhere in Europe, he wrote, had the discussion about
the legal system kindled such passions as in Russia. While some had idolised
the legislation, others had abhorred it.
3
Admittedly such passions could only
be ignited because supporters and opponents of the judicial reform alike held
an instrumental attitude towards the law. For them, the law was primarily an
instrument of social and cultural change. What issued from the courts was,
in their view, not only justice, but also the ‘spirit of the people’. And since the
omnipotence of the tsar had not formally been limited, the courts assumed the
function of substitute parliaments, in which liberals and conservatives debated
Russia’s political future.
4
However, the reformed judicial system was not only a political anomaly;
it was a stillbirth, because it expressed neither the executive needs of the
2 For the text of the judiciary statutes (sudebnye ustavy), see B. V. Vilenskii (ed.), Sudeb-
naia reforma. Rossiiskoe zakonodatel’stvo X–XX vekov (Moscow: Iuridicheskaia literatura,
1991), vol. IX. For the results of the judicial reform, see Baberowski, Autokratie,pp.
61–93; I. Ia. Foinitskii, Kurs ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva (St Petersburg: AI’fa, 1996; orig.
St Petersburg 1910), vol. I, pp. 59–44; F. Gredinger, ‘Prokurorskii nadzor za piat’desiat let,
istekshikh so vremeni ego preobrazovaniia po Sudebnym Ustavam Imperatora Aleksan-
dra II’, in Sudebnye ustavy, vol. II, pp. 197–249; S. M. Kazantsev, Istoriia tsarskoi prokuratury
(St Petersburg: Izd. SPbu, 1993).
3 V. Nabokov, ‘Raboty po sostavleniiu sudebnykh organov’, in Davydov and Polianskii,
Sudebnaia reforma,pp.344–5.
4 Perceptive contemporaries already observed this: B. Kistiakovskii, ‘V zashchitu prava’, in
Vekhi. Sbornik statei o russkoi intelligentsii (Moscow: Sablin, 1909), pp. 125–55.
346
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Law, the judicial system and the legal profession
administration nor the feeling of justice of the population. Certainly, Zarud-
nyi and other reformers referred continually to ‘Russian’ traditions and the
will of the autocrat, in order to convince the political elite of their plans for
restructuring the judicial system. Viewed by daylight, however, the ‘traditions’
also drew upon the imaginations of a Europeanised elite which, while it spoke
constantly of the will of the people, had no idea what that will might be. The
reformed judicial system and the spirit from which it emerged were rooted
in the realm of the European enlightenment, where the reformers dwelt, but
their subjects did not. In this realm, faith in the power of reason held sway.
5
The old system of justice had reflected the heterogeneity of the empire;
the new one was designed to overcome it. To this end, the reformers took the
latest achievements of European jurisprudence and its application techniques,
in order to achieve by procedural means what reality would not deliver. ‘A
reasonable law can never cause evil’ – so spoke the spiritus rector of judicial
reform, Zarudnyi.
6
For the reform commission of the State Chancellery, which
was appointed by the tsar in October 1861 to reorganise the judicial system,
it thus remained only to design such laws as corresponded to the reasoned
concepts of enlightened officials. This is also the reason why the reformers
needed only a few months to complete their legislative draft. Once they had
convinced the tsar of the necessity of the reform, there was no one left who
could have impeded the fulfilment of their plans.
7
The task of the judicial reform was to make universal the legal consciousness
of the enlightened officials. Another way of putting it would be: the European
rule of law as the reformers understood it amounted to the levelling of the
empire and its cultures. It was to transform a multiethnic society based on
estates into a society of European citizens, and to transform peasants into
law-abiding subjects. Europe’s present was to be Russia’s future. And as a
late-comer, the empire could learn from the mistakes of Europe.
8
5 A. F. Koni, Ottsy i deti sudebnoi reformy. K piatidesiatiletiiu sudebnykh ustavov (Moscow: Sytin,
1914); R. Wortman, The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1976), pp. 197–234; W. B. Lincoln, In the Vanguard of Reform: Russia’s
Enlightened Bureaucrats 1825–1861 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1982), pp.
102–38.
6 RGIA, Fond 1149,op.6 (1865), d. 42,l.19.
7 On the judicial reform, see Baberowski, Autokratie,pp.39–60; Kaiser, Die russische Justizre-
form,pp.269–406; I. V. Gessen, Sudebnaia reforma (St Petersburg: Izd. P. P. Gershunina,
1905), pp. 31–129;Nabokov,‘Raboty po sostavleniiu’, pp. 303–53; I. A. Blinov, ‘Khod sudebnoi
reformy’, in Sudebnye ustavy, vol. I, pp. 102–232.
8 J. Baberowski, ‘Auf der Suche nach Eindeutigkeit: Kolonialismus und zivilisatorische
Mission im Zarenreich und in der Sowjetunion’, JfGO 47 (1999): 482–504; D. Yaroshevsky,
‘Empire and Citizenship’, in D. Brower and E. Lazzerini (eds.), Russia’s Orient: Imperial
Borderlandsand Peoples,1700–1917(Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1997), pp. 58–79.
347
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Russian society, law and economy
In matters of law, in its institutions and in symbolic remarks, the tsarist elites
represented themselves as conquerors arriving from afar and forcing a strange
culture of discourse upon the people. However, the striving for homogeneity
under the law was to remain an unfulfilled ideal. Justice which does not arise
by consensus can be imposed, but it cannot be permanently installed. Russian
law was imported from abroad, with no consideration taken for home-grown
traditions. Its concepts addressed judges and officials, but not the population,
for whom the law was either unattainable or impossible to understand. What
the reformers considered modern was, in the experience of the population, a
negation of their habits. It was deadly. To persist, under these circumstances,
in maintaining the validity of standards which could not be fulfilled meant to
undermine respect for the law.
9
The judicial reform reinforced the legal dualism which separated the elites
from their subjects,rather than overcomingit, as the programme of the reform-
ers had intended. Why? Because it was unable to produce any uniform system
of laws. For the ordering function of law consists in imparting knowledge of
what one can expect of others and of oneself, and which expectations will win
societal support and which will not. As Niklas Luhmann has put it, uncertainty
of expectation is much more unbearable than the experience of surprises.
10
Wherever the state’s writ runs, its standards must be unconditionally accessi-
ble and enforceable; the legal claims of the state and the expectations of justice
on the part of the population must converge, for justice to prevail. If the law is
no longer respected or implemented, it will be replaced by immediate forms
of confidence confirmation. And so it was everywhere in the empire, wher-
ever varying possibilities of providing meaning for one’s life did not come
into touch with one another, wherever the state’s law and its system of justice
either were not articulated or else were rejected. In short, the judicial reform
met the expectations of the urban upper strata but had nothing to say to the
lower classes of the empire.
The reformed judicial system and the peasants
The creators of the judicial reform believed in the power of institutions. There
was no doubt that good institutions would develop the appreciation of law
9 C. Schmidt, Sozialkontrolle in Moskau. Justiz, Kriminalit
¨
at und Leibeigenschaft 1649–1785
(Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag, 1996), pp. 394–406; R. Wortman, Scenarios of Power: Myth and
Ceremony in Russian Monarchy, vol. I: From Peter the Great to NicholasI (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1995), pp. 42–83.
10 N. Luhmann, Das Recht der Gesellschaft (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1995), pp. 131–2, 151.
348
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Law, the judicial system and the legal profession
and order in the people. No institution embodied the hopes of the reformers
as thoroughly as did trial by jury (sud prisiazhnykh). The jury court was, they
believed, a characteristic of ‘civilised nations’, an ‘ornament’ (ukrashenie)of
the court system. It was the ‘palladium of the personal liberty and political
independence of the people’, as the legal scholar Ivan Foinitskii formulated it in
his textbook on the law of criminal proceedings published in 1910.
11
The Russian
reformers too had devoted themselves to this ideal of political liberalism. The
jury court was, they believed, a vehicle for the political mobilisation of the
subjects. Wherever citizens sat in judgement over their peers, they set limits
to the capriciousness of the absolutist state. Jury courts and democracy were
synonymous. In Russia, however, the jury court was primarily an instrument
for educating and civilising the peasants. The reformers dreamt of overcoming
the cultural dualism which characterised the system of serfdom. Now, former
serfs should not only share the jury box with their former lords, they were to
be allowed to sit in judgement over them in court as well. ‘All were to serve a
common cause, both the poor and the rich’: thus Senator Berendts recalled the
first steps of the new courts. Anatolii Koni, Russia’s most well-known jurist,
saw the jury court as a place where the upper strata would not only come into
contact with the peasants, that ‘mysterious unknown’, but where the peasants
too would learn to respect the rights of their fellow men and the laws of the
state.
12
This was primarily of importance because the government had left the
handling of trivial civil and criminal cases in the hands of rural village justice.
The reformers hoped that the juryman would carry enlightened justice even
to the village, and so contribute to the disappearance of legal dualism from
Russian reality. In short: the ideal of the jury court, like that of the conscript
army, was to turn peasants into citizens.
At first, the expectations of the reformers seemed to be fulfilled in the large
towns, not least perhaps because the urban population actually did assemble
in the jury boxes. However, beyond the major cities, the peasants remained
among their peers, because the educated and those of means declined civic
duties. For being called to jury duty meant being present in court until the end
of the proceeding, which might drag on for as long as two weeks. However, by
11 Foinitskii, Kurs, vol. I, p. 359; J. Baberowski, ‘Europa in Russland: Justizreformen im
ausgehenden Zarenreich am Beispiel der Geschworenengerichte1864–1914’, in D. Beyrau
and M. Stolleis (eds.), Reformen im Russland des 19.und20. Jahrhunderts. Westliche Modelle
und russische Erfahrungen (Frankfurt: Vittorio Klostermann, 1996), pp. 151–74.
12 A. F. Koni, Za poslednye gody (St Petersburg: Suvorin, 1898), p. 337; E. N. Berendts, ‘Vliianie
sudebnoi reforme 1864 g. na gosudarstvennyi i obshchestvennyi byt’ Rossii’, in Sudebnye
ustavy, vol. II, pp. 728–30; I. G. Shcheglovitov, ‘Novyia popytki izmenit’ postanovku
prisiazhnago suda v zapadnoi Evrope’, in Sudebnye ustavy, vol. II, p. 162.
349
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Russian society, law and economy
holding its sessions in remote provincial towns, in dilapidated buildings with
unbearable hygienic conditions, the court placed an unreasonable imposition
on members of the higher strata, which they tried to escape at all costs. Such
shirking of duty was admittedly only possible because the autonomous local
administration did not prevent it. On the contrary: the zemstvo (local elected
assembly) commissions responsible for drawing up the jury registers released
many privileged persons from the rosters, while others were not entered on
them in the first place. The zemstvo usually left the preparation of the lists
to the clerks of the marshals of the nobility. These did their best to ‘free, as
far as possible, the most highly developed and most educated persons from
the practice of jury duty’, as Minister of Justice Dmitrii Nabokov reported
indignantly to the State Council in 1884.
13
Thus it came about that numer-
ous mentally ill people, ‘dead souls’, blind men, deaf-mutes and foreigners
appeared in the juror lists in the District of St Petersburg at the end of the
1870s. In one district of Tver, the autonomous local administration did not
even shrink from entering persons onto the lists who had already died in 1858,
eight years before the opening of the first courts. And because the privileged
classes turned a deaf ear to the call of the courts, the peasants were forced
to shoulder the entire burden of this civic duty. In the rural regions, the jury
courts became peasant assemblies, with 85 per cent of the jurors illiterate. To
hope for an ‘enlightening effect’ of jurisprudence was in effect to trust in the
peasants to ‘civilise’ themselves in the courts.
14
Yet to be called to jury duty was to be pressed into corv
´
ee service – or
so at any rate it seemed to the peasants, who were unable to escape the
civic duty which the reformers demanded of them. Although the district
courts ‘travelled’ from one district town to another to reduce the sizes of
the areas covered, this was cold comfort for the peasants, who still had to
trudge as much as 50 kilometres, or even more, to reach the town where
the court was located. There, their real problems started, for the impover-
ished peasants could usually pay neither for their accommodation nor for
their food. In some places, they would take jobs as woodcutters, construction
workers or gardeners during court session recesses, they would beg in the
streets for alms, and if the judges did not provide them with accommoda-
tions, sleep in the open. Often judges were forced to release emaciated jurors
13 RGIA, Fond 1149,op.10 (1884), d. 58,l.10; S. S. Khrulev, ‘O sposobe i poriadke sostavleniia
spiskov prisiazhnykh zasedatelei’, Iuridicheskii vestnik 16, 5/6 (1884): 212.
14 RGIA, Fond 1405,op.73, delo 3655b, l. 15,d.3656a, ll. 23, 189; A. F. Koni, ‘Prisiazhnye
zasedateli’, in A. F. Koni, Sobranie sochinenii (Moscow: Iuridicheskaia literatura, 1966),
vol. I, p. 334.
350
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Law, the judicial system and the legal profession
from their duties, especially if the sessions of the court coincided with harvest
time.
15
But it was not only the poverty of the peasants which was a heavy burden
on the jury courts. Different worlds met in court – that of the jury and that
of the jurists. Public prosecutors, lawyers and judges spoke a language which
the rural jury did not understand. They understood nothing, and yet were
to decide everything: not only the question of whether the defendant had
committed the deed, but also whether he was to be found guilty as charged.
The public prosecutor of the Kherson District Court complained about this
as early as 1869, immediately after the introduction of the reformed judicial
system in that province. The jurors, he wrote, were not only incapable of
judging the evidence, they could not even understand ‘what was going on in
their presence before the court’.
16
As a result, rural juries acquitted defendants
if they were unsure whether they had understood the facts correctly, or if they
had fallen asleep in the courtroom from exhaustion. And where they had to
share the jury box with members of the privileged classes, they usually did
what these asked of them. At the Moscow District Court, a professor regularly
forced the rural jurors with whom he sat in the jury box to find the defendants
guilty; otherwise, he threatened the peasants, the court would inflict ‘terrible
punishments’ on them. The rural jurors stated that they had ‘been afraid of
the uniformed jurists and of the gentlemen’ who had sat in the jury box with
them. They had, a municipal juror recalled, viewed the call of the court not
as a service of honour, but as forced recruitment.
17
Wherever the peasants composed the entire jury, rural customary law pre-
vailed. From the jury boxes of the tsarist courts, the rural jurors waged a legal
battle against the law of the state. They not only rejected the written laws
and thus paralysed the execution of jurisprudence, but also raised customary
law to the level of the standard of justice. The state laws, to them, expressed
an understanding of conflict resolution of a strange world to which they did
not want to submit. The law of the peasants was personalised, not abstract; it
referred to the morals, not to the deeds, of the perpetrator. The social status
of a perpetrator, his past and its way of life often were of greater importance
15 N.Timofeev, SudprisiazhnykhvRossii (Moscow, 1881), pp. 134–5, 152–5; N.I. Astrov, Vospom-
inaniia (Paris: Panin, 1940), pp. 211–12; S. P. Mokrinskii, ‘Sud prisiazhnykh’, in Sudebnye
ustavy, vol. II, p. 136; V. R. Zavadskii, ‘V zale zasedanii s prisiazhnymi zasedateliami. Iz
otchetov revizora’, ZMI 2, 3 (1896): 114.
16 Svod zamechanii o priminenii na praktike sudebnykh ustavov (1869–70), pp. 22–3.
17 Timofeev, Sud prisiazhnykh,pp.86, 301–8; N. Tsukhanov, ‘O nedostatkakh nashego suda
prisiazhnykh’, ZGUP 11, 2 (1882): 94, 99–100; Zavadskii, ‘V zale’, 120–1, 125–7; V. F. Deitrikh,
‘O sude prisiazhnykh’, ZMI 1, 6 (1895): 3–4, 7; Mokrinskii, ‘Sud prisiazhnykh’, p. 148.
351