Blood Libel and Judicial Reform: Comparing the Surami (1850-54) and Kutaisi Trials (1878-80)

• In Event: Legality and Justice in the Caucasus, 1850-1930

Abstract

By comparing two little-known cases of blood libel – one before, one after the Judicial Reform of 1864 – this paper explores not only the changes that the introduction of legal reform meant for the judiciary and the handling of court cases, but also the evolution of Russian colonization and imperial rule in the Caucasus. In the Surami case, which made few headlines inside and outside the Russian Empire, the Russian administration in Tbilisi and central authorities in St Petersburg played a major role in ensuring the conviction and exile of the Jewish suspects. Russian Jewish networks did little to support the defendants. In the Kutaisi case, by contrast, Georgian and Russian Jews formed an alliance that helped to build a strong defence team for the trial. These liberal lawyers – Russian, Jewish, and Georgian – ultimately persuaded the judges to acquit the suspects in open court. This time the Russian Viceroy of the Caucasus supported the defence, rather than the prosecution. The paper is based on an analysis of archival records from Tbilisi, Kutaisi, and St Petersburg, reports by the local authorities, and the coverage of the cases in newspapers inside and outside the Russian Empire.

Author

• Stefan B. Kirmse, Leibniz-Zentrum Moderner Orient (Germany)