Law and the Culture of Debt in Moscow on the Eve of the Great Reforms, 1850-1870
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Law and the Culture of Debt in Moscow on the Eve of the Great Reforms, 1850-1870 Sergei Antonov Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2011 © 2011 Sergei Antonov All rights reserved ABSTRACT Law and the Culture of Debt in Moscow on the Eve of the Great Reforms, 1850-1870 Sergei Antonov This dissertation is a legal and cultural history of personal debt in mid-nineteenth-century Moscow region. Historians have shown how the judicial reform of 1864 dismantled an old legal apparatus that was vulnerable to administrative interference and ultimately depended upon the tsar’s personal authority, replacing it with independent judges, jury trials, and courtroom oratory. But as many legal scholars will agree, political rhetoric about law and high-profile appellate cases fail to capture the full diversity of legal phenomena. I therefore study imperial Russian law in transition from the perspective of individuals who used the courts and formed their legal strategies and attitudes about law long before the reform. I do so through close readings of previously unexamined materials from two major archives in Russia: the Central Historical Archive of Moscow and the State Archive of the Russian Federation, including the records of county- and province-level courts and administrative bodies, supplemented by the records of the charitable Imperial Prison Society. I also analyze the relevant legislation found in imperial Russia’s Complete Collection of the Laws. Specific topics covered in the study include the cultural and social profiles of creditors and debtors and of their relations, the connection between debt and kinship structures and strategies, the institution of debt imprisonment and its rituals, various aspects of court procedure, as well as the previously unstudied issue of white-collar crime in imperial Russia. I have found that debt was ubiquitous in Russian life, as in other pre-industrial societies in which cash was scarce, incomes erratic, and formal credit institutions insufficient. It was also overwhelmingly personal, relying heavily on kinship, acquaintance, and the reputations of borrowers and lenders. My research contradicts the conventional view of Russian society at mid- century as a system of predominantly separate and closed estates. The system of private credit centered in Moscow connected merchants, civil servants, and the landowning gentry, and even wealthy peasants, some of whom lived or owned property in far-away provinces (privately- owned serfs were of course subordinate to their landlords in matters involving property). The credit network was sufficiently extensive and diverse to place an additional burden on Russia’s already overworked legal system. The central theme of my study is the engagement of ordinary Russian lenders and borrowers of varying wealth and status, male and female, with each other and with the legal system (and through it with the state) during a crucial turning point in Russia's social and political history. My research also questions the dominant notion of a closed system of inquisitorial justice in pre-reform courts. The cases I examined reveal the pre-reform legal process as messy, incomplete, polyphonic, and open to extra-legal influences, including those of tsarist administrative officials. Private individuals retained significant discretion and initiative both according to the law and in practice, beginning with the way a debt transaction was formalized and ending with the decision to imprison a debtor or to commit an insolvent to a criminal trial. I therefore argue that pre-reform law with all its faults was a site of conflict, cooperation, and negotiation among diverse individuals seeking to protect and promote their property interests and between private persons and government officials. I show the law to be a key tool for Russia’s propertied classes for asserting their own rights against other private individuals and/or against the state. Thus, I reinterpret the relationship between individuals and the administration, modifying the commonly held view of the Nicholaevan bureaucracy as a monolith imposing itself on the tsar’s subjects. As the only study of imperial civil law in practice, this dissertation offers unique evidence on the operations of state and society in Russia at the key period of the Great Reforms, as well as establishes a basis for understanding subsequent legal developments. Table of Contents Introduction……………………………………………………………………..……………..………......1 Chapter 1. Russia’s Credit Network…….…………...…………………………………………….38 Chapter 2. The Culture of Lending…………………….......………………………………………87 Chapter 3. Debt and White Collar Crime……………….………………………………….……141 Chapter 4. Kinship and Family…………...………………………………..……………………..186 Chapter 5. Debt Imprisonment and Charity.………….…………….…...………………………225 Chapter 6. Russia’s Law of Debt………………………….……………………………................269 Chapter 7. Debtors and Creditors in Moscow Courts……….……….………………………….300 Chapter 8. Debt and Civil Procedure………………………….………………………….………365 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..……………………….…..405 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………..…………….…..409 Appendix A: Glossary of Russian Terms……………………………………..……………..…….…..425 Appendix B: The Table of Ranks…………………………………….……….………………………. 428 i List of Abbreviations GA RF Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Rossiiskoi Federatsii (The State Archive of the Russian Federation) PSZ Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii (The Complete Collection of the Laws of Russian Empire) SZ Svod Zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii (The Digest of the Laws of Russian Empire) TsIAM Tsentral’nyi Istoricheskii Arkhiv Moskvy (Central Historical Archive of Moscow) ii List of Tables Table 0.1 Russian Urban Population Table 0.2 Pre-reform Legal System Table 0.3 Court Caseload, 1858 Table 1.1 Moscow Board of Trustees Loans to serfowners (in silver rubles) Table 1.2 Debts of Liubov’ Pevnitskaia Table 1.3 Registered Loan Letters, 1852 Table 1.4 Urban Mortgages, 1855 Table 1.5 Rural Mortgages, 1862 Table 3.1 Selected Crime Statistics in St. Petersburg, 1841-1846 Table 5.1 The Causes of Release in Moscow and St. Petersburg Debtors’ Prisons in 1862 Table 5.2 “Snapshot” Statistics for Imprisoned Debtors in Moscow Table 5.3 Imprisoned Debtors in Moscow: total numbers for a given year Table 7.1 Joint hearings at Moscow Magistrate with invited members of the Moscow County Court (Moskovskii Uezdnyi Sud), 1860 Table 7.2 Legal practice based on powers of attorney (veriushchie pis’ma) registered at the Second Department of the Moscow Civil Chamber. Table 7.3 Russian legal practice by type of matter Table 7.4 Legal practice by rank and gender of agents Table 7.5 Legal practice by gender and kinship status of agents iii Acknowledgments This project incurred a hefty debt burden to a number of organizations and to numerous friends and colleagues. The following represents an attempt at an accurate inventory, without, however, claiming anything like a complete discharge of all of my obligations. Research for this dissertation was supported in part by a fellowship from IREX (International Research and Exchanges Board) with funds provided by the United States Department of State through the Title VIII Program and the IREX Scholar Support Fund. My research was also supported by a fellowship from the Title VIII Program for Research and Training on Eastern Europe and Eurasia (Independent States of the Former Soviet Union), which is funded by the U.S. Department of State, and administered by American Councils for International Education: ACTR/ACCELS. None of these organizations are responsible for the views expressed herein. I am particularly grateful to Sarah Krueger, Program Officer of Russian and Eurasian Outbound Programs, for her hard work in making my research trip as efficient as possible. This research could not have been carried out without the permission and good will of the archivists of the Central Historical Archive of Moscow (TsIAM) and, in particular, of its director Ye.G. Boldina. I am extremely grateful to N.A. Granenova, Ye.V. Borisova, and O.S. Timofeeva, the warmhearted and cheerful reading room archivists at TsIAM, for making my work there comfortable and almost home-like, as well as to TsIAM's document preservation staff, whose hard work with the documents that had never before been requested by researchers was less public but just as strongly appreciated. I am also grateful to the archivists at the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF) for providing an extremely professional and efficient iv work environment, and especially to the archive's director, S.V. Mironenko, for his encouragement and support. Many teachers, colleagues, and friends have supported me during my years at Columbia. Most importantly, I thank my advisor, Professor Richard Wortman, for generously sharing his wealth of knowledge about imperial Russia, for his support throughout the Ph.D. program, and for his hard work reading and commenting on my work quickly and insightfully. Professors Samuel Moyn, Madeleine Zelin, Irina Reyfman, Katharina Pistor, Mark von Hagen, Jane Burbank (NYU), Isser Woloch, Susan Pedersen, Victoria de Grazia, and Michael Stanislawski have supported and encouraged me in various ways at various stages of this project. Back in the early 2000s, Professor Benedict Kingsbury at NYU School of Law encouraged and developed my growing interest in graduate work in history long before I even considered applying to Ph.D. programs. I must