Kirmse , Stefan B. The Lawful Empire: Legal Change and Cultural Diversity in Late Tsarist Russia (review)

REVIEWS 777 Despite this, Ammon’s account of the historical facts and events of Georgian history is generally accurate, and is supported by rich and diverse bibliographic material. The multiple sources in four different languages Ammon has drawn upon in his research include more than 200 books and magazine articles, as well as dozens of dictionaries, encyclopaedias, websites and other reference works in a wide range of areas directly or indirectly connected with the subject of his book. One of the main advantages of Philipp Ammon’s book is that it not only describes the important historical events but also examines the significant processes that have fuelled the political, cultural and military clashes between Russia and Georgia. This makes it an asset for a wide-ranging readership, from students of Georgian history to diplomats and politicians who seek a balanced perspective and objective information on the background to the long-lasting conflict in one of the most sensitive regions of the world. The significance of Ammon’s book is further magnified by the fact that the history of Georgia still remains an under-studied and under-researched field, as there is still not enough scholarly literature on this subject available in the West in general and even less so in German-speaking countries. University of Calgary Andrew Andersen Kirmse, Stefan B. The Lawful Empire: Legal Change and Cultural Diversity in Late Tsarist Russia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 2019. xiii + 341 pp. Maps. Illustrations. Notes. Bibliography. Index.£75.00. Drawing on exhaustive research, Stefan B. Kirmse develops case studies on late-tsarist judicial reform’s implementation in Kazan´ and the Crimea. His focus is ‘the ways in which ethnic and religious minorities interacted with the courts and related institutions’ and how they related to their Russian neighbours (p. 31). Chapter one provides context. Jurists in the new courts were sticklers for procedure. Individual legal responsibility and the presumption of innocence were paramount concepts. Legal authorities encouraged jurors to judge based on conscience. Thus, even confessed criminals could be seen as ‘not guilty’. This approach won popular support but also led to high acquittal rates — higher in urban than rural areas. Social, economic and cultural background on the Crimea and Kazan´ is given in chapter two. Infrastructure and cultural institutions were much less developed in the Crimea (though things started to change after the imperial family bought a palace outside Yalta in 1860). In chapter three, Kirmse argues that the judicial reform created a tension between zealous, procedurally meticulous jurists and administrative officials SEER, 98, 4, OCTOBER 2020 778 who persisted in the belief that their word should be law. This attitude was well captured in the bewildered ejaculation of the governor of Kazan´ province, Nikolai Skariatin: ‘I should work for Mr. Prosecutor? What sort of head of the province can I be after this?’ (p. 128). Yet even vehement administrative resistance could not undermine the reform’s success, though fiscal constraints were another matter. Despite claims of earlier scholars, only a minority of jurors were peasants and peasant jurors tended toward greater harshness than did urban dwellers. The following chapter focuses on the pageantry of the court. Unlike in the pre-reform era, the government spared little expense on court houses, so as to inspire reverence. Portraits of the emperor and religious symbols were held crucial. Religious authorities — mostly Russian Orthodox, even in majority Muslim areas — heightened the sanctity of the proceedings. Nevertheless, many Muslims participated as informal legal practitioners, jurors, defendants and plaintiffs. Moreover, ordinary people gained status, as even nobles had to rise when jurors entered the courtroom. The remainder of the book deals with interactions of Muslims in the Crimea and Kazan´ with the new court system. Although they ‘did not necessarily hold the imperial state and its local representatives in high esteem’ (p. 210), they made extensive use of the court system, primarily when informal and local means of adjudication seemed unlikely to yield desired results. As the state grew more concerned with registering and controlling persons and property, people’s interactions with the state grew more frequent. Kirmse concludes that negotiation and persuasion were the main approaches the authorities took. ‘Violence did occur...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.