The Criminality in Kyiv in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

This article explores the practices of crime investigation in the Russian Empire and outlines the interplay of different actors during the process. By showing the intersections of various levels of detective work, the article argues about the significance of local Kyiv residents in investigations and proposes a methodology for addressing crime investigation in historical science.

The research was developed during the “Rethinking Ukrainian Studies in a Global Context” course at the Invisible University for Ukraine, guided by Ostap Sereda (UCU and CEU), and prepared for publication in collaboration with Kateryna Lysenko (University of Leipzig). The research was supported by the Open Society University Network (OSUN) and the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD)

The Criminality in Kyiv in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century

In 1840, the retired soldier Aleksey Boloshin, who came to Kyiv from Tambov to worship the holy relics, turned to the Kyiv police with a report of theft. When Boloshin left the Lavra Hotel, someone stole his suitcase containing his belongings and passport. Although the police conducted an investigation, it did not yield results, so the victim have a new document issued. The report on this incident was published in the official newspaper Kievskie Gubernskie Vedomosti “for the observation and detention of criminals […] in a universal announcement.”1

Such a situation was not a rarity in Kyiv during the first half of the nineteenth century. In the 1790’s, it was situated on the frontier, while in the nineteenth century, Kyiv turned into a trading center with developed river traffic. During the same period, fortifications were built in the city, and the military presence had significantly increased.2 It is worth noting that in the early modern period, Kyiv also gained notoriety as the famous Orthodox Christian center that attracted pilgrims from the different corners of the Russian Empire.3 The city became a platform of permanent multi-ethnic and multi-social communication between local residents. Not only was the society of Kyiv heterogeneous, but the city’s authority figures were likewise. The government was presented by a general-governor, appointed by the emperor, but, until 1834, a part of the city named Podil had self-governance in the form of an elected magistrate.4 Thus, Kyiv is a successful example for studying the specifics of crime and methods of investigation in cities in the Russian Empire at the regional level. 

Criminal investigations in the Russian Empire were closely tied to communication with local residents; the practices of communication and their significance during the course of cases are illuminated by sources. For instance, reports on certain crimes are reflected in the pages of the newspaper Kievskie Gubernskie Vedomosti, published by the provincial administration. Simultaneously, methods of investigation are documented in archival police cases. In my opinion, reports on violations undoubtedly reflect an incomplete picture of reality and rather reflect the government’s information policy. Therefore, I am interested in the conditions and purposes under which the municipal administration communicated with the residents of Kyiv. I believe that answering this question is possible by focusing on the specificity of crimes that occurred in the city. To do this, I emphasize the local dimension of Kyiv through a micro historical approach, paying attention to specific cases and the social context. 

Crime in the Russian Empire has been examined through various lenses in historiography.5 However, a common feature of these studies is a focus on the regions of Central Russia. Therefore, it is important to draw attention to the local differences because the particularity of the Russian Empire (amongst other empires, as well) might be described through a combination of particular cases with an absence of integrity on any issue.((Il’ia Gerasimov, Sergey Glebov, Jan Kusber, Marina Mogilner, and Aleksandr Semenov, “New Imperial History and the Challenges of Empire,” in Empire Speaks Out. Languages of Rationalization and Self-Description in the Russian Empire, eds. Ilya Gerasimov, Jan Kusber, and Alexander Semyonov (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 23-24.)) 

A Vision of Crime in the Russian Empire

At the end of the eighteenth century, there was an attempt to codify laws in the Russian Empire, which marked a qualitative change in the approach to crimes. While at the beginning of the century, they were primarily defined as offenses against the will of the monarch, in the Decree issued by Catherine II: a crime was seen as an action that contradicted the general and private good.6 This view is close to European philosophical thinking about “natural law,” which creates a space for the “common good” of society through laws implemented by a just ruler.7 A similar emphasis on the top-down creation of a just system that supports harmonious order in the country can be seen in the first collection of criminal legislation in the Russian Empire, the Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments from 1845. In it, a crime is characterized as “any violation of the law committed with the aim of encroaching upon the inviolability of supreme power and its established authority, or upon the rights and safety of the population or individuals.”8

However, according to Mark Raeff, rationalism and an appeal to the social good were the ideological justification for a “well-ordered police state”—a model of political systems that emerged following the decline of the “Christian universe” after the Reformation and the “military revolution” of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, which led to the concentration of power in the hands of secular monarchs.9 The main task of power in such states was the organization of all spheres of public life through the creation of a clear administrative hierarchy and the establishment of laws that allowed for the most efficient use of resources.10 In the case of crime, the expression of state control was establishing a centralized structure for investigation: police. 

In the first half of the nineteenth century, the main act regulating the activities of the police in the Russian Empire remained the Ustav Blagochiniya adopted in 1782. According to the document, the scope of authority of this structure was defined quite broadly and was not limited to exclusively criminal offenses. Law enforcement officers were tasked with overseeing economic life, preventing the importation of illegal goods, and inspecting weights and measures. They were also responsible for ensuring sanitary and hygienic conditions in the city and monitoring aspects of urban development, such as maintaining proper road conditions. Amendments to the Ustav took the form of specific situational orders from the police, addressing areas of primary state interest, such as controlling internal trade or monitoring population records.11

Thus, the police’s fight against different offenses in the Russian Empire primarily served as a means of implementing state policy at various levels. This scheme appears to align with Foucault’s concept of the connection between power and the definition of norms, as well as with Raeff’s above theory. However, Raeff proposed a theoretical model of the functioning of early modern states in his text. Meanwhile, the practical implementation of these provisions at the local level is of great interest. Analyzing the procedure for investigating criminal offenses, which required significant interaction between the police and local residents, is relevant for such a research, as it shows the specifics of crimes, the politics of government towards criminal violations, and the role of Kyiv residents in the investigation. Therefore, examination of detective work allows for an evaluation of the positions of both officials and the local population.

Amount and Nature of Crimes in Kyiv

A notable example for studying local interactions is Kyiv. According to Matvey Shter’s statistical data from 1825, its population numbered around 24,000.12 However, according to the “police data” provided by Tetiana Slyudikova, as early as 1806, approximately 46,000 people were living in the center of the Kyiv Governorate.13 Therefore, it is likely that Shter’s calculations included only the permanent population, excluding the seasonal fluctuations characteristic of Kyiv, which serve as a vivid example of urban demographic processes during the period of modernization.

In the eighteenth century, Kyiv was marked on the mental map of the Russian Empire as the ancient capital of Rus’ and its sacred center, the “second Jerusalem,”14 an essential pilgrimage destination for Orthodox subjects of the empire. Starting from 1797, the city hosted an annual winter fair15 that attracted residents from the right bank of Dnipro, who came to Kyiv to negotiate trade agreements, known as “contracts.” In 1838, the Dnipro Navigation Company was established,16 employing seasonal workers. In the nineteenth century, Kyiv became a destination for education and medical treatment; in 1825, 15 educational institutions were operating there, and in 1834, Saint Vladimir University was opened, followed by a hydrotherapy facility the following year.17

The temporary population constituted a significant portion of the city. According to the Statistical Description of the Kiev Governorate prepared for the civil governor Ivan Fundukley, during the summer months, taking into account seasonal movements, the number of residents could reach 104,000.18 The urban specificity was reflected in the palette of local crime. According to the same document, the most common type of offenses recorded in Kyiv during the period of 1834-1844 was the lack of “written documents,” meaning passports, which served as a means of controlling population movements by authorities. In total, 4,779 such cases were recorded over the decade. The second most frequent category was theft with 988 cases. In comparison, the proportion of serious criminal offenses was minuscule with only 17 murder cases.19

The picture painted by the Kievskie Gubernskie Vedomosti—the official printed organ of the regional government—is somewhat different but generally similar. According to my calculations, from 1838, when the newspaper began publication, to 1858, a total of 131 mentions of crimes committed in the city were published. Among them, 83 reports, or 63.8% of all mentioned cases, were thefts. In 26 publications (20%), there were mentions of detained vagrants. The rest of the reports concerned the arrests of criminals, the discovery of dead bodies, and cases of sudden deaths. There is also one report of a house attack and an abandoned infant (see the appendix). However, mentions of murders, counterfeiting, or other criminal offenses are absent.

Nevertheless, such crimes did occur in the city. For example, in the records of the Kyiv Magistrate from 1817 to 1855, eight murder cases were documented, and three of them were investigated during the period when the Kievskie Gubernskie Vedomosti was already being published regularly.20 A significant murder case involving Nikifor Deminsky was investigated from 1849 to 1853, which coincided with the period of regular newspaper publications.21

The small number of mentions of serious criminal offenses committed in Kyiv may be attributed to the peculiarities of case management and the imperfection of statistics. Due to the large number of responsibilities, the police constantly received a significant number of cases, not all of which could be processed promptly. According to publications in the Kievskie Gubernskie Vedomosti, by early August 1843, the Kyiv police had 1,726 unresolved cases; during the month, an additional 2,828 cases were added for consideration, and by the end of August, there were still 1,890 unresolved cases.22 The same pattern occurred in September of the same year when the police began with 1,890 cases unresolved from August, added 2,716 during the month, and had 2,058 cases remaining unresolved by October.23 In 1848, civil governor Ivan Fundukley wrote to the governor-general Dmitry Bibikov with proposals regarding the reorganization of the police force, considering that the city’s population had grown over the last decade, which increased paperwork and negatively affected the work of the police officers.24

I would also like to emphasize that, although the statistics collected for Ivan Fundukley and the newspaper publications seem to shed light on the types of offenses that were prevalent in Kyiv in the second quarter of the nineteenth century, their numbers differ significantly. The number of cases mentioned in the pages over twenty years accounts for only 2% of the offenses recorded over ten years. The events that took place from 1838 to 1844 overlap in time, so if all episodes were recorded in the newspaper, they should have been included. For example, in the Statistical Description for 1844, there were 361 arrests of vagrants and 52 thefts documented,25 but in the gazette we see only five (sic!) mentions of crimes, including two thefts, one arrest of a woman without documents, an arrest of a criminal, and an episode of sudden death (see the appendix). Therefore, the publications were related to a minimal number of crime cases.

The published information, of course, does not indicate the actual number of cases but rather certain tendencies, particularly the activities of the authorities.26 Considering the small number of murders recorded in the city, their cases appeared extraordinary compared to other crimes. As I shall detail later on, Kievskie Gubernskie Vedomosti could become a searching tool, as it was used in cases of thefts. Thus, I argue that the absence of mentions in the newspaper is a manifestation of a deliberate information policy on the part of the government. Starting from 1845, Kievskie Gubernskie Vedomosti was divided into two parts, namely the Official and Unofficial sections. The Official section, in particular, was supposed to publish reports on detained vagrants “with descriptions of their characteristics,” found dead bodies “also with descriptions of their characteristics,” or announcements of lost documents.27 Therefore, such reports served as a means of governmental migration policy as they facilitated the search for connections with relatives or owners of vagrants or unidentified, deceased individuals.

Despite the fact that this list did not mention reports of thefts, their significance also lay in informing the audience, which could help in solving the cases. The descriptions of stolen items were often detailed, presumably in the hope that someone would be able to recognize the property. Occasionally, descriptions and hypothetical characteristics of the criminals were provided, such as in 1856 when Praskovia Pirozhenkova accused a woman, Magdalina, of theft and provided her characteristics to the newspaper: “about 30 years old, freckled face, dark complexion; dressed in a black homespun coat with black lamb fur; speaks Russian and Polish.”28

As we can see, the Kyiv newspaper serves as a medium that reflects both the government’s information policy and a platform for the regional authorities to address the residents. Unlike British broadsides,29 the crime reports in Kievskie Gubernskie Vedomosti in the first half of the nineteenth century had a practical rather than entertaining purpose. It is likely that this fact can explain the lack of references to serious offenses in them. However, this raises questions about the practices of their investigation. In 1845, the newspaper published a notice about the search for Kyiv townsman Mikhail Sakev, who was suspected of molesting seven-year-old Praskovia Stelmakhova (see the appendix). A notice was published in the newspaper to widely circulate the search for the potential offender, even though this episode involved an intimate incident, and sexual crimes in general accounted for a small portion of the criminal statistics of the Russian Empire, as they were rarely reported to the official judicial authorities.30 However, over the course of twenty years, the printed publication was never used to solve a murder case. To explain this situation, I will analyze the procedure for investigating murders in Kyiv in the first half of the nineteenth century.

Investigation of Homicides in Kyiv

In May 1817, the nobleman Bruievich approached the Kyiv police with a report of the murder of his worker, Lavrentiy Medvedsky. The next document in the case is the protocol of the examination of the deceased’s body, compiled by staff physician Semen Rozlich.31 It is likely that the examinations were conducted specifically to confirm or refute the fact of violent death and, consequently, to classify the case. Such examinations were also conducted during the investigation of the death of Ustiniya, Friedrich Venikh’s wife.32

Similar medical examinations were used in cases of other complaints related to bodily harm. For example, after the complaint of Kyiv townsman Kondrat Yevtushevsky in January 1817 about the rape of his sister Yevdokia, the girl was examined by Inspector Eberkain of the Kyiv Medical Administration, who confirmed that she had indeed been violated.33 And when the official Aleksiyev accused soldiers of the Poltava Infantry Regiment of attacking him but refused to show his wound, it became the basis for closing the case since he was suspected of dishonesty.34

The practice of conducting examinations ultimately suggests that the “found dead bodies”  mentioned in Kievskie Gubernskie Vedomosti belonged to individuals who died from natural causes. The seriousness of this procedure was confirmed by the requirement for the examining physician to take an oath, as it was done in the cases of the examination of Lavrentiy Medvedsky’s and Ustiniya Venikh’s bodies. Despite the possibility of corruption and falsification of medical conclusions by doctors, I have not found any such episodes so far.

If the examination deemed the episode a criminal offense, an investigation would commence. According to the Ustav Blagochiniya, the inquiry began with an “oral examination,” which involved questioning witnesses or interrogating suspects by the official.35 In the case of Lavrentiy Medvedsky, the investigation started with the testimony of the victim’s younger brother, Martin, who informed Bruievich about the worker’s death, prompting him to contact the police. Martin told the officials that on the day of his brother’s death, they went for a walk to the hill where they encountered Lavrentiy’s acquaintances. Specifically, Martin named the clerk Osip Moshenko, as well as the townspeople Sava Tokarenko and David Kovalenko, who became key witnesses in the case.

They all confirmed that they were on the hill and drinking alcohol on the day of Medvedsky’s demise. Later, Moshenko and Kovalenko went to the market, where they played “orlyanka” (a Russian gambling game that was prohibited in the Russian empire.)36 Nevertheless, they decided to confess to their violation of the law. Perhaps their confession would be seen as a “lesser evil” under the circumstances, as it positioned them as direct witnesses who could portray a situation that would divert suspicion away from themselves.

Moshenko and Tokarenko claimed they were not present when Medvedsky died. However, Kovalenko stated that he witnessed Lavrentiy playing with Unter-Officer Mirov. When Mirov lost 20 kopecks to the young man, he refused to give them back and instead struck Medvedsky several times in the chest, causing him to fall to the ground and froth at the mouth. David Kovalenko stated that he moved him to another location with the help of townsman Artem Rogutsky. I should note that, presumably, this is why the police also questioned Rogutsky, although his name did not initially appear in the case based on the testimony of Martin Medvedsky. Since it emerged from the overall testimonies of all the boys that Unter-Officer Grigory Mirov was the culprit, he was apprehended and later handed over for punishment to a military court.31

Criminal investigations in the first half of the nineteenth century still relied on a system of formal evidence. The most persuasive evidences were considered to be confessions on one hand, and reports from direct witnesses on the other.37 The presence of direct witnesses also played a leading role in resolving the murder of Medvedsky. They were involved in the resolution of other criminal cases as well. For example, within the case of Ustinia Venikh’s murder by her husband, neighbors of the couple were interrogated.32 During the investigation of the alleged rape of Yevdokia Yevtushenkova, they also approached residents of nearby houses.33 In each of these cases, gathering testimonies yielded results as they pertained to episodes that occurred compactly and involved local residents. Therefore, as we see, direct communication with the residents played a significant role. However, in cases where one of the defendants originated from outside the locus, the typical scheme worked much less effectively. 

In 1839, the body of official Nikifor Deminsky was found in Pechersk. The police began the investigation with the usual questioning of neighbors and acquaintances but did not obtain any leads on the criminal. Subsequently, law enforcement officers used the formula cui prodest and checked the alibis of possible suspects, including those individuals who borrowed money from the wealthy Deminsky. However, this also failed to reveal anything “suspicious,” and the investigation reached a dead end. The culprit was found rather accidentally as a result of the arrest of deserter Potap Voynov, who was found in possession of items stolen from Deminsky’s residence.21 Voynov was not a representative of the local community; he was unknown, and therefore the residents of the police station or the neighborhood could not suspect him. Generally, the local and neighborhood-specific nature of serious crimes may explain the lack of newspaper reports, as the cases were primarily solved through on-site questioning.  However, appeals to the public likely only pertained to cases where the criminals had fled, which does not seem to be a common occurrence in Kyiv.

The significant role of oral testimonies likely allowed for manipulation. The main suspects in the case of the rape of Yevdokia Yevtushenkova were named Sava Tokarenko and Osip Moschenko, who also appeared as witnesses in the case of the murder of Lavrentiy Medvedsky. The rape case occurred only six months prior to the murder investigation. However, in the first case, Tokarenko and Moschenko stated during the interrogation that they were 16 and 17 years old, respectively, while in the second case, they claimed to be 19 and 20.38 Apparently, in the early nineteenth century, people may not have known the pair’s exact age, but in the context of an investigation, it is more likely that the young men were trying to avoid the punishment. It should be noted that the testimonies in both cases were recorded by the same police officer, indicated by the same handwriting. 

Perhaps the lack of attention to the significant age discrepancy (and thus the falsification of testimonies) indicates a high workload for the police. However, considering that within a short period Tokarenko and Moschenko were implicated in multiple criminal cases and were spending time in circles where gambling was prevalent, I assume that they are examples of the marginal youth of Kyiv in the first half of the nineteenth century. Therefore, they may have had previous encounters with representatives of the police. In this context, the local scale of the investigations takes on a new dimension and may involve direct agreements between residents and officials, and corruption. 

One of the factors that could have influenced the behavior of the accused as well as the practice of investigation in general was the palette of power that was preserved in Kyiv at that time. The imperial administration was represented by the governor, but until 1834, there was a magistrate functioning in the city who had judicial authority over the townspeople.39 Sometimes conflicts over jurisdiction arose between the magistracy and other structures. For example, in 1815, there was a conflict between the tsehmeyster of the fishermen, Kolyada, and the sub-ensign Anton Sahnovsky, who had struck one of the fish sellers at the market. Kolyada turned to the magistrate for help, but the police chief, whom Sahnovsky managed to approach, intervened and pointed out that such “petitions beyond authority” were a violation.40 Perhaps the young men relied on the leniency of the magistrate, particularly due to the animosity between the self-government and the police. 

My article demonstrates that in the Russian Empire during the first half of the nineteenth century, crime was primarily perceived by the authorities as a disruption of “public order.” As part of the rationalization policy of a “well-organized police state,” a special structure was introduced with the responsibility of combating violations. The government’s perspective also influenced the information policy, which was carried out in Kyiv through the newspaper Kievskie Gubernskie Vedomosti in the second quarter of the nineteenth century. Reports of committed crimes had practical significance rather than entertainment value and were primarily intended to assist in solving cases, particularly in identifying vagrants, fugitives, sudden deaths, or stolen property. 

At the local level, in the investigation of certain crimes, especially murders, the police heavily relied on local residents. This dependence was explained by the investigative practice, which mainly involved oral interrogations, as well as the nature of the crimes, as the majority of homicides occurred within neighboring communities. If the perpetrators could not be immediately identified through questioning, the officials were almost powerless. 

Since the investigation relied on oral testimonies, local residents could manipulate it for their own purposes by answering questions in a way that benefited them. It is possible that the judicial processes were also influenced by the presence of multiple jurisdictions, which was a characteristic feature of urban life in Kyiv during the first half of the nineteenth century.

  1. In original: “для наблюдения и задержания преступников […] во всеобщее известие.” “O pokhishchennom dokumente.” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, November 22, 1840. [↩]
  2. Vladimir Ikonnikov, Kiev v 1654-1855. Istoricheskiy ocherk (Kyiv: Tipografiia imperatorskogo Universiteta imeni sviatogo Vladimira, Aktsionernogo obshchestva pechati i izdatel’skogo dela N.T. Korchak-Novitskogo, 1904), 157. [↩]
  3. Ievheniia Sarapina, “Formuvannia mis’koho uiavnoho: kyivs’ki mifolohemy zlamu storich,” in Zhyvuchy v modernomu misti: Kyiv kintsia XIX – seredyny XX st, eds. Olena Betlii and Kateryna Dysa (Kyiv: Dukh i Litera, 2016), 68. [↩]
  4. Nikolay Zakrevskiy, Opisanie Kieva. Tom 2 (Moscow: Tipografiia V. Gracheva i Ko, 1868), 104. [↩]
  5. For example, Sergey Ostroumov, Prestupnost’ i Ee Prichiny v Dorevoliutsionnoy Rossii (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo moskovskogo universiteta, 1980); Stephen P. Frank, Crime, Conflict, and Justice in Rural Russia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999); Nancy S. Kollmann, Crime and Punishment in Early Modern Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012); Jonathan Daly, Crime and Punishment in Russia. A Comparative History from Peter the Great to Vladimir Putin (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2018); Louise McReynolds, Murder Most Russian. True Crime and Punishment in Late Imperial Russia (Ithaca – London: Cornell University Press, 2013). [↩]
  6. Vasiliy Latkin, Uchebnik istorii russkogo prava perioda imperii (St Petersburg: Tipografia S-Peterbutgskoy Tiurmy, 1900), 303-304. [↩]
  7. Michel Troper. „Sovereignty and Natural Law in the Legal Discourse of the Ancien Régime.” Theoretical Inquiries in Law, no 16, (2015): 327-328. https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2015-103 [↩]
  8. Ulozhenie o nakazaniiakh ugolovnykh i ispravitel’nykh (St Petersburg: V tipografii Vtorogo Otdeleniia Sobstvennoy Ego Imperatorskogo Velichestva Kantseliarii, 1845), 1. [↩]
  9. Marc Raeff, “The Well-Ordered Police State and the Development of Modernity in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth Europe: An Attempt at a Comparative Approach.” The American Historical Review, Vol. 80, no 5 (1975): 1222-1223, 1229-1231. [↩]
  10. Ibid, 1229-1231. [↩]
  11. Olha Krasinko, “Profesiyna diial’nist’ politsii Kyieva u 1803-1859 rr.,” bachelor’s thesis, (National University of “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy,” 2022), 21, 24. [↩]
  12. Matvey Shter, Statisticheskoe izobrazhenie gorodov i posadov Rossiyskoy imperii po 1825 god (St Petersburg: Pechatano v tip. Ivana Glazunova, 1829), 33. [↩]
  13. Tetiana Sliudikova, “Zabudova i blahoustriy mista Kyieva v XIX-XX st. (za materialamy kyivs’kykh derzharkhiviv)”, Arkhivy Ukrainy, no 3-4 (2009): 63. [↩]
  14. Volodymyr Rychka, “Kyiv—druhyy Yerusalym” (z istorii politychnoi dumky ta ideolohii seredn’ovichnoi Rusi) (Kyiv: Instytut istorii Ukrainy NAN Ukrainy, 2005), 240. [↩]
  15. Maksim Berlinskiy, Kratkoe opisanie Kieva (St Petersburg: Tipografiia Departamenta Narodnogo prosveshcheniia, 1820), 30.  [↩]
  16. Istoriia Kieva. Kiev perioda pozdnego feodalizma i kapitalizma, edited by Yurii Kondufor (Kiev: Naukova dumka, 1984), 125. [↩]
  17. Matvey Shter, Statisticheskoe izobrazhenie gorodov i posadov za 1825 god, 33; Istoriia Kieva. Kiev perioda pozdnego feodalizma i kapitalizma, 129, 132. [↩]
  18. Ivan Fundukley, Statisticheskoe opisanie Kievskoy gubernii (St Petersburg: v Tipografii Ministerstva Vnutrennikh del, 1852), 356 [↩]
  19. Ibid, 394. [↩]
  20. Delo po obvineniiu dvorianina Bruevicha za ubiystvo rabotnika ego, kievskogo meshchanina Lavrentiia Medvedskogo (1817), 241, Kievskiy magistrat, Derzhavnyy arkhiv m. Kyieva, Kyiv; Delo ob ubiystve zheny Fridrikhom Venikhom (1818), 264, Kievskiy magistrat, Derzhavnyy arkhiv m. Kyieva, Kyiv; Delo ob ubiystve meshchanina Kuz’my Nikolenka (1821), 294, Kievskiy magistrat, Derzhavnyy arkhiv m. Kyieva, Kyiv; Delo ob ubiystve nezakonnorozhdennogo rebenka Anny Pisanki (1824), 326, Kievskiy magistrat, Derzhavnyy arkhiv m. Kyieva, Kyiv; Delo ob ubiystve kievskogo meshchanina Grigoriia Evtushevskogo (1828), 389, Kievskiy magistrat, Derzhavnyy arkhiv m. Kyieva, Kyiv; Delo ob ubiystve Efima Shpachenka kievskim meshchaninom Aleksandrom Kryzhanovskim (1838), 567, Kievskiy magistrat, Derzhavnyy arkhiv m. Kyieva, Kyiv; Delo ob ubiystve zakonnorozhdennogo rebenka Ustiny Luchinskoy (1838), 568, Kievskiy magistrat, Derzhavnyy arkhiv m. Kyieva, Kyiv; Delo o meshchanke Pelagee Grekovoy, sudimoy za unos shestinedel’nogo rebenka i o nadvornoy sovetnitse Marfe Liubovoy, kotoraia upotrebliala v pishchu malen’kikh detey (1855), 826, Kievskiy magistrat, Derzhavnyy arkhiv m. Kyieva, Kyiv. [↩]
  21. Delo ob ubiystve s tsel’iu ogrableniia zhitelia g. Kieva tituliarnogo sovetnika Deminskogo N. voennym dezertirom Voynovym P. (1849-1853), 8093, Kantseliariia kyivs’koho, podil’s’koho i volyns’koho heneral-hubernatora, Tsentral’nyy derzhavnyy istorychnyy arkhiv mista Kyieva, Kyiv. [↩] [↩]
  22. Vedomost’ o khode del uezdnykh prisutstvennykh mest Kievskoy gubernii v techenie avgusta mesiatsa 1843 goda.” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, October 15, 1843. [↩]
  23. Vedomost’ o khode del uezdnykh prisutstvennykh mest Kievskoy gubernii v techenie sentiabria mesiatsa 1843 goda.” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, October 20, 1843. [↩]
  24. Pro uvelichenie shtata i denezhnykh assignatsiy na uderzhanie kievskoy gradskoy politsii (1848-1854), 7447, Kantseliariia kyivs’koho, podil’s’koho i volyns’koho heneral-hubernatora, Tsentral’nyy derzhavnyy istorychnyy arkhiv mista Kyieva, Kyiv. [↩]
  25. Ivan Fundukley, Statisticheskoe opisanie Kievskoy gubernii, 394. [↩]
  26. Yuriy Voloshyn, “Krymiinal’na zlochynnist’ u Het’manshchyni druhoi polovyny XVIII st. (za materialamy Poltavs’koho grods’koho sudu)” in Povsiakdennia rann’omodernoi Ukrainy. Istorychni studii v 2-kh tomakh. T. 1: Praktyky, kazusy ta deviatsii povsiakdennia, ed. Viktor Horobets (Kyiv: Instytut istorii Ukrainy NAN Ukrainy, 2012): 288. [↩]
  27. “Ob’iavlenie,”Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, December 8, 1844. [↩]
  28. “Krazhi,” Kievskie gubernskie vedomosti, January 21, 1856. [↩]
  29. Kate Bates, “Empathy or Entertainment? The Form and Functioning of Violent Crime Narratives in Early-Nineteenth Century Broadsides.” Law, Crime and History, no 2 (2014): 4. [↩]
  30. Marianna G. Muravyeva, “Between Law and Morality: Violence against 209 Women in Nineteenth-Century Russia.” in Women in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Lives and Culture, eds. Wendy Rosslyn and Alessandra Tosi, 212. [↩]
  31. Delo po obvineniiu dvorianina Bruevicha za ubiystvo rabotnika ego, kievskogo meshchanina Lavrentiia Medvedskogo (1817), 241, Kievskiy magistrat, Derzhavnyy arkhiv m. Kyieva, Kyiv. [↩] [↩]
  32. Delo ob ubiystve zheny Fridrikhom Venikhom (1818), 264, Kievskiy magistrat, Derzhavnyy arkhiv m. Kyieva, Kyiv. [↩] [↩]
  33. Delo o nasilii sestry kievskogo meshchanina Kondrata Evtushevskogo devitsy Evdokii Evtushevskoy i lishenii devstva kantseliaristom Osipom Moshchenkom i meshchanskimi synami Savoiu Tokarenkom i Naumom Krupnichenkom (1817), 246, Kievskiy magistrat, Derzhavnyy arkhiv m. Kyieva, Kyiv. [↩] [↩]
  34. Delo o napadenii soldat Poltavskogo pekhotnogo polka, raskvartirovannogo v g. Kieve, na dom chinovnika Alekseeva i nanesenii emu raneniia (1839), 3082, Kantseliariia kyivs’koho, podil’s’koho i volyns’koho heneral-hubernatora, Tsentral’nyy derzhavnyy istorychnyy arkhiv mista Kyieva, Kyiv. [↩]
  35. Olha Krasinko, “Profesiyna diial’nist’ politsii Kyieva u 1803-1859 rr.,” bachelor’s thesis, (National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, 2022), 37. [↩]
  36. Viacheslav Shevtsov, Kartochnaia igra v Rossii (konets XVI – nachalo XX v.): Istoriia igry i istoriia obshchestva (Tomsk: Tomsk state university, 2005), 62. [↩]
  37. Jonathan Daly, Crime and Punishment in Russia. A Comparative History from Peter the Great to Vladimir Putin, 49. [↩]
  38. Delo po obvineniiu dvorianina Bruevicha za ubiystvo rabotnika ego, kievskogo meshchanina Lavrentiia Medvedskogo (1817), 241, Kievskiy magistrat, Derzhavnyy arkhiv m. Kyieva, Kyiv; Delo o nasilii sestry kievskogo meshchanina Kondrata Evtushevskogo devitsy Evdokii Evtushevskoy i lishenii devstva kantseliaristom Osipom Moshchenkom i meshchanskimi synami Savoiu Tokarenkom i Naumom Krupnichenkom (1817), 246, Kievskiy magistrat, Derzhavnyy arkhiv m. Kyieva, Kyiv. [↩]
  39. Olena Kokhan, Ekonomichne ta pravove stanovyshche kyivs’koho mishchanstva u 1782 – 1870 rr. (Kyiv: Kyivs’kyy universytet imeni Borysa Hrinchenka, 2021), 70, 103. [↩]
  40. Delo o nanesenii obidy pristavom rybil’skomu tsekhmeysteru Koliade (1815), 196, Kievskiy magistrat, Derzhavnyy arkhiv m. Kyieva, Kyiv. [↩]