{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023880597014925373, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011940298507462687, 'mean_word_length': 4.812138728323699, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
REPRESENTATION, STRUCTURE AND AGENCY: DIVORCE IN THE FRENCH SOUDAN DURING THE EARLY TWENTIETH CENTURY

On 5 October 1905, Baia Bari of Gassin village went before the tribunal de province of Segu seeking a divorce from her husband, Tiemoko Boaré of Koila. Both Baia Bari and Tiemoko Boaré were Muslims. Baia Bari claimed that Tiemoko Boaré had mistreated her and that she was prepared to return the bridewealth. In addition, Baia Bari sought the return of 27,000 cowries she claimed Tiemoko Boaré had taken from her, although she did not present any ‘proof’. Tiemoko Boaré agreed to the divorce but denied having taken the money. The court pronounced the divorce and called for Tiemoko Boaré to recover the bridewealth he and his kin had provided to Baia Bari's kin. The court dismissed Baia Bari's claim for the return of 27,000 cowries, because she had failed to produce evidence of the alleged ‘loan’. Neither Baia Bari nor Tiemoko Boaré appealed the court's verdict. How Baia Bari came to bring suit for divorce against her husband for mistreatment and how the provincial court, presided over by the leading African notables of Segu, saw fit to intervene in the domestic affairs of the Boaré household is the subject of this article. The data provided in the ‘Register of Civil and Commercial Judgements Rendered by the Provincial Court of Segu during the Third Quarter of 1905’ are not detailed enough for us to ‘hear’ Baia Bari's complaints about marital mistreatment. Nor does the register tell us anything about how the members of the court understood the evidence of mistreatment, which they accepted, and Baia Bari's claim for the return of 27,000 cowries, which they rejected. Despite the sparse annotation of this case, Baia Bari's legal action raises at least two questions. First, from where did the provincial court ‘receive’ the authority to intervene in the domestic affairs of the Boaré household? Second, why did Baia Bari turn to the provincial court to seek the dissolution of her marriage?