Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:15:31.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rural Crime in Tsarist Russia: The Question of Hooliganism, 1905-1914

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Neil B. Weissman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The period of Russian history between 1905 and 1914 has been the subject of continuing controversy. Coming as it did before the traumatic shock of world war and revolution, the decade has been a battleground between those who see tsarist society as one that was undergoing a process of gradual but positive evolution in response to the revolutionary crisis of 1905 and those who insist that social tensions within the empire were moving it toward yet another revolutionary outbreak. Although initially concentrated on the urban sector of Russian society, attention in the debate has also been extended to rural areas of the empire. Here, as in the city, the question of the nature and direction of change is complex, and its resolution requires the investigation of a variety of phenomena, not the least of which is rural crime.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , June 1978 , pp. 228 - 240
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1978

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

1. Elpateevskii, S, “Bezchinstvo,” Russkoe bogatstvo, 1912, no. 5, p. 85.Google Scholar The term originated in London, apparently in reference to some Irish inhabitants of the city, not long before its introduction in the tsarist empire (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology [Oxford, 1966], p. 447). Russians variously described it as referring to an American criminal, an American Indian tribe (apparently a confusion with “apache,” which was being used in France at the time to refer to certain criminals), and what was believed to be the Irish verb to walk or be idle, “guli.” See, for example, the debates of the Russian Group of the International Union of Criminologists, Otchet X obshchago sobraniia russkoi gruppy mezhdunarodnago soiuza kriminalistov, 13-16 fevralia 1914 g. (Petrograd, 1916), pp. 132-33, 165.Google Scholar

2. Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv Leningrada (TsGIAL), fond 1276, opis’ 78, delo 116 (g. 1913), “Osoboe mezhduvedomstvennoe soveshchanie po voprosu o merakh bor'by s khuliganstvom v sel'skikh mestnostiakh” (hereafter cited as Lykoshin commission report, after its chairman, A. I. Lykoshin).

3. Ibid., pp. 22-23.

4. Otchet X obshchago sobraniia, p. 103.

5. Lykoshin commission report, p. 126.

6. Ibid., pp. 125-26. See also V. I., Gromov, “Bezmotivnoe prestuplenie,” Zhurnal ministerstva iustitsii, 1913, no. 5, pp. 50-79.Google Scholar

7. For use of these terms in connection with peasant rebellion, see Landsberger, H. A., “Peasant Unrest : Themes and Variations,” in H. A. Landsberger, comp., Rural Protest (New York, 1973), p. 21–22.Google Scholar

8. Lykoshin commission report, pp. 123-24.

9. Trudy VIII s“esda upolnomochennykh dvorianskikh obshchestv 32 gubernii, 1912 g. (St. Petersburg, 1913), p. 63.

10. Ibid., p. 68.

11. Lykoshin commission report, pp. 23-24, 129-30.

12. Otchet X obshchago sobraniia, pp. 103 ff.

13. Lykoshin commission report, pp. 123 and 23 ff.

14. TsGIAL, f. 1284, op. 185, d. 5a, “Po proektu uezdnoi reformy,” chapter 1, pp. 53-54; and Eason, W. W., “Population Changes,” in The Transformation of Russian Society, ed. C. Black (Cambridge, Mass., 1967), pp. 82-83.Google Scholar

15. See Minister of Internal Affairs N. A. Maklakov's note of November 15, 1913, in Lykoshin commission report, p. 2. The same point on social composition was made by opponents of the government. Fearing that hooliganism might be used as a pretext for repressive action against the lower classes, liberals and socialists took pains to emphasize that this type of deviance also was characteristic of the “privileged” (see, for example, A. Petrishchev in Russkoe bogatstvo, 1913, no. 1, pp. 334-40).

16. Elpateevskii, “Bezchinstvo,” pp. 85-89.

17. Lykoshin commission report, p. 126.

18. Ibid., pp. 25 and 128; and Trudy VIII s“eada, p. 86.

19. Lykoshin commission report, pp. 23 ff., and 123-28; Gromov, “Bezmotivnoe prestuplenie, “ p. 62; and A. V., Likhachev, “Ob usilenii nakazanii dlia khuliganov,” Zhurnal ministcrstva iustitsii, 1913, no. 5, p. 86.Google Scholar

20. Lykoshin commission report, p. 24.

21. Ibid.

22. The basic source of criminal statistics for tsarist Russia is the Si>od statisticheskikh svcdenii po dclam ngolovnym published annually by the Ministry of Justice. For a recent summary and analysis of the data, see Ostroumov, S. S., Prestupnost’ i cc prichiny v dorevoliatsionnoi Rossii (Moscow, 1969)Google Scholar. The figures for 1908-14 are found on pp. 168-75.

23. On the shortcomings of the official statistics in this regard, see S. S. Ostroumov, Prestupnost’ i ee prichiny, pp. 140-42, 161-63. For an insightful and sobering illustration of the difficulties in relying on any criminal statistics, see Tobias, J. J., Urban Crime in Victorian England (New York, 1972), p. 256–66.Google Scholar

24. Data quoted in Dubrovskii, S. M., Stolypinskaia semel'naia rcforma (Moscow, 1963), p. 527.Google Scholar

25. Ibid.

26. Fleksor, D. S., Okhrana scl'skokhoziaistivtuwi sobstvennosti (St. Petersburg, 1904), pp. 53-54.Google Scholar

27. Stenograficheskii otchet gosudarstvcnnoi dtimy, vol. 4, meeting 38 (April 29, 1913), p. 652 (hereafter cited as SOGD); and Lykoshin commission report, p. 130.

28. See Lykoshin commission report, pp. 130 ff. and 149 ff.; Trudy VIII s“ezda, p. 64; and I. Zhilkin in Vcstnik Evropy, 1912, no. 12, p. 348. It is worth noting that when Octobrists in the Duma introduced legislation to combat hooliganism it included removing many crimes from the jurisdiction of the volost courts (see SOGD, vol. 4, meeting 38 [April 29, 1913], pp. 620 ft.).

29. Trudy VIII s“csda, p. 88.

30. See report of Ekaterinoslav provincial zemstvo, in Lykoshin commission report, p. 149; and SOGD, vol. 4, meeting 29 (March 15, 1913), pp. 2283-84.

31. SOGD, vol. 4, meeting 38 (April 29, 1913), p. 622; and Lykoshin commission report, p. 2.

32. TsGIAL, f. 1217, op. 171, d. 2 (g. 1910), folder 2, pp. 392-94. On this and other steps taken by the various ministries, see Lykoshin commission report, pp. 5-6, 21 ff., 110-16.

33. Vestnik politsii, 1912, no. 43, p. 951.

34. See, for example, Zhilkin in Vestnik Evropy, pp. 341-43.

35. SOGD, vol. 4, meeting 27 (March 8, 1913), pp. 2112-13.

36. Ibid., meeting 38 (April 29, 1913), pp. 650-69. 37. Lykoshin commission report, pp. 125 and 142.

38. Ibid., pp. 127, 141-43.

39. On this factor in rural crime in the pre-1905 period, see Fleksor, Okhrana sel'skokhosiaistvennoi sobstvcnnosti, pp. 6-7, 12-21; Tenishev, V. V., Obshchiia nachala ugolovnago prava v ponimanii russkago krest'ianina (St. Petersburg, 1908), pp. 9–10 Google Scholar; and Semenov, S. T., Dvadtsat’ piaf let v derevne (Petrograd, 1915), pp. 36–40 Google Scholar. In regard to hooliganism, see, for example, the views of the Kazan’ provincial zemstvo in Lykoshin commission report, p. 146; or Rodichev's comments in SOGD, vol. 4, meeting 38 (April 29, 1913), pp. 627-31.

40. Vcstnik politsii, 1912, no. 43, p. 951. In the opinion of the Lykoshin commission, the general weakness of the police and of the judicial system had given the populace the idea that “all is possible” (vsc mozhiw) (see Lykoshin commission report, p. 25). On the tsarist police, see Ministerstvo vnutrennikh del, Istorichcskii ochcrk obrasovaniia i razvitiia politsciskikh uchrczhdenii v Rossii (St. Petersburg, 1913); and “Istoricheskii ocherk organizatsii i deiatel'nosti departamenta politsii,” in Tsentral'nyi gosudarstvennyi arkhiv Oktiabr'skoi revoliutsii (TsGAOR), fond DP, opis1 302, delo 707, chapter 2.

41. There is a wealth of evidence on this score. See, for example, land captain A., Novlkov, Zapiski zemskago nachal'nika (St. Petersburg, 1899), pp. 112–18 Google Scholar; Tenishev, V. V., Administrativnoe polozhenie russkago krest'ianina (St. Petersburg, 1908), pp. 54–58 Google Scholar; and even the Department of Police's own Vcstnik politsii, 1907, no. 3, pp. 8-9.

42. SOGD, vol. 4, meeting 38 (April 29, 1913), p. 651

43. Lykoshin commission report, pp. 5-6.

44. Ibid., pp. 43-44, 127, 141-43.

45. Elpateevskii, “Bezchinstvo,” pp. 108-9.

46. One statement of the traditional view is presented by M. B. Clinard and D. J. Abbott : “The urban way of life is characterized by extreme conflicts of norms and values, rapid social change, increased mobility of the population, emphasis on material goods and individualism, and an increase in the use of formal rather than informal social controls, “ all of which increase crime ( M. B., Clinard and D. J., Abbott, Crime in Developing Countries : A Comparative Perspective [New York, 1973], p. 85Google Scholar). For a critique of the assumption that urbanization magnifies crime, see Tilly, C. and Lodhi, A., “Urbanization, Crime and Collective Violence in Nineteenth-Century France,” American Journal of Sociology, 79, no. 2 (September 1973) : 296–318.Google Scholar

47. Otchet X obshchago sobraniia, p. 129; and Lykoshin commission report, p. 126.

48. Matcrialy po pcresmotrii iistanovlcnnykh dlia okhrany gosudarstvennago poriadka iskliuchitel'nykh sakonopoloshenii, vol. 11 (St. Petersburg, 1906), pp. 29-30.

49. Vestnik politsii, 1912, no. 43, p. 950.

50. Elpateevskii, “Bezchinstvo,” pp. 98-99, 108.

51. Vestnik politsii, 1912, no. 43, pp. 950-51; and Lykoshin commission report, p. 126.

52. Elpateevskii, “Bezchinstvo,” pp. 98-99. See also Otchet X obshchago sobraniia, pp. 134-35.

53. Gromov, “Bezmotivnoe prestuplenie,” p. 68.

54. Lenin, V. I., Collected Works, vol. 19 (Moscow, 1968), p. 193–94.Google Scholar

55. Vestnik politsii, 1912, no. 43, pp. 950-51; and 1912, no. 24, p. 543.

56. Lykoshin commission report, p. 25; and Semenov, Dvadtsat’ piat’ let v derevne, pp. 316-18.

57. Otchet X obshchago sobraniia, pp. 192-94.