98 Orientalism and EmpireRussian view, possessed unlimited potential for further development
and growth, at least if they had the benefit of imperial rule. The codi-
fication of mountaineer customary law, Russians believed, illustrated
this benevolence. It also allowed the regime to regulate and limit the
perpetuation of the blood feud (krovomshchenie). One murder suspect
was enough, unless “the victim received several wounds; then two
[people could be accused], but not more.”^52 The regime feared the ini-
tiation of several different and potentially interminable blood feuds.
Apparently not all customs were historically progressive and wor-
thy of preservation. And clearly the blood feud, the “beginning and
end of banditry,” as General Mikheev of Terek oblast warned in the
early twentieth century, was deeply woven into the very fabric of
mountaineer society and remained impervious to the decree of 18 59
by Viceroy Bariatinskii that declared it illegal.^53 Officials were well
aware that the traditions of the blood feud carried on through the
generations and usually predated Russian rule. The district court that
investigated the murder of Ramazan Kirkhliar by Magomed-Ragim
Gasan, for example, discovered that fifteen years previous to the 18 68
event, when the Kiurin area (the Dargin area of Dagestan) was ruled
by local khans, Ramazan and his brother had assaulted the brother of
Magomed-Ragim in retaliation for what they supposed was an affair
with the wife of Ramazan’s brother.^54 The traditions of the blood feud
represented a virtual shadow government, dispensing justice and re-
solving disputes according to terms and traditions mysterious to re-
gime officials. Frequently the very relatives of the murder victim hid
the circumstances of the case from the authorities because they ex-
pected and wanted to be recompensed according to the terms of the
blood feud.^55 Was this not “custom” itself, the very basis of custom-
ary law?
There was an alternative view. “Within the character of the moun-
taineer and the conditions of his existence,” wrote Lilov, “there are
characteristics that sooner or later will lead, if not to the collapse of
his society, at least to the weakening of its bonds.”^56 The “character”
of a people was more promising than the “character” of the individ-
ual mountaineer. “Peoples” remained pure; they were inhibited only
by the character defects of the individual mountaineer. “These
Circassians have got thieving in their blood,” pronounced Lermon-
tov’s Maksim Maksimych of Bela.^57 Sometimes responsibility lay
with their “military spirit” and “unrestrained passion,” as
E.P.Kovalevskii suggested, or their “inclination toward arguments,
bravery, and shortness of temper,” in the words of K. Borisevich.^58 In
the Russian view, these character defects were magnified and encour-
aged by the unfortunate recent history of the North Caucasus, which