Finnish Nobility Between Nation and Empire 1

the eastern,Finnishprovinces.By18 in theearlymodernperiod,leavingonlytwocore areas,theSwedenproperand in 1809) (The SwedishlegacyandtheDietofPorvoo Finnish nobilitybetweennationandempire M. Vuorinen den easternprovinceasan independentnationprotectedbyRussia. 1790 KingGustav’sWar designedamorepeaceful futureforthehithertowar-rid- Swedish-patriotic-minded Finnish19 men weretheAnjalaconspirators —ortraitors,astheywouldbecalledbythe more fought themhands-on,anddealtwiththeirconsequences. the FinnishsideexperiencedwarsbetweenRussia andSwedenontheirownsoil, terial cultureandenthusingaboutnewwarcampaigns —whereasthenobilityon and engaginginparliamentarydebates,reapingthebeneﬁ no doubtsometimesseemedremote,spendingitstime enjoyingpoliticalfreedoms heightened focusonthelocalconcerns.For them,thenobilityofmainlandSweden of theGulfBothniahadstartedtodevelopsomething ofadistinctidentity, witha By 1721,theSwedishempirehadlostmostofBaltic provincesithadacquired The primeexampleofthe earlylocalisingattitudeamongtheFinnishnoble- and itsloyaltywassworntotheSwedishcrown. and culturaltraditionshadbeendevelopedwithintheSwedishcontext integral partoftheSwedishnobilitysinceMiddleAges.Itspolitical ralised familieswithoriginselsewhereinEurope.Ithadfunctionedasan some oflocal,mainland-Swedishorigin,addedwithafewnatu- sisted mostlyofcreationsbytheSwedishcrown,bothancientandrecent, Finnish nobilityatthebeginningofAutonomyera(1809–1917)con- th centuryauthors—whoduring the1788– th century, thenobilityon theFinnishside УДК 94(47).072+94(480) ts ofawell-developed ma-

Rehabilitating

Saint-Petersburg Historical JournalN 4 (2015) Петербургский исторический журнал № 4 (2015) from positionsofpoliticalandculturalpower more roomatthetoplevelofsociety, theyactively strovetoremovethenobility self-evidently entitledtothepopularmandateformodernpoliticalpower. To gain ciety. Astheself-proclaimedchampions andenlightenersofthemasses,theyalsofelt developing bourgeoisintelligentsiaincreasinglytookoverastheoverseersofso- industrialisation, monetaryeconomyandincreasingprofessionalization—thefast- sation —theexpansionofhighereducation,bureaucratisation,urbanisation,early ic movementsandprintmediaindustry. Surfi among thosewhostillsawthemasdisloyalwithintheSwedishcontext was oneofthefi the remaining Anjalamen,andreinstatingtheirfamiliesamongthelocalnobility, 100 speaking majority, withasetofnewlyfoundedstateinstitutionsherown. mental contextshifted.For thefi state pensionsweregrantedtotheretiringgenerationofnoblemilitaries. the FinnishnobilitytoRussiancrown,aswelleasetransitionalperiod, of thewaylifetheyhadbeenaccustomedto.To ensurethenear-future loyaltyof nobility ofthecontinuitytheirpoliticalpositionandeconomiclegalbasis By promisingtokeeptheprivilegesofestatesintact,emperorassured dance withheroldlaws,allowingthecontinuingpracticeofLutheranreligion. voo guaranteedtokeeptheconstitutionunchangedandgovernFinlandinaccor- the Russianempire.ThesovereignpledgegivenbyEmperorAlexanderIinPor- shift frommilitarytowardscivilianmodeoflivelihood,and alifestylethatwentwithit way tomorepeacefulprofessionswithinthestateandlocal government,markingageneral wars foughtbetweenthecountries.Themilitarycalling asapillarofnobleidentitygave emperors, whomtheyoriginallyviewedwithacertainsuspicion, largelyduetothemany giance, replacingtheformerloyaltytoSwedishkings withanewloyaltytotheRussian lated consequences.Thebeginningoftheautonomyperiod broughtwithitashiftofalle- 3 2 1 Seee.g. Vuorinen M Peltonen M nykykulttuurin tutkimusyksikkö, 1989. Buregeoisie: Aspectsofthe Peculiarity oftheFinnish.Jyväskylä:Jyväskylänyliopiston the beginningofperiod autonomy»//Peltonen,Matti(ed.),State,Culture&the Suomessa. Helsinki:SKS,2011. Helsinki, 2014. The 19 After 1809,thepositionoflocalnobilitychangedaspoliticalandgovern- Nobility attheageofbourgeoisnationalism As aresultoftheWar of1808–1809,Finlandbecameanautonomousstatewithin For theFinnishnobility, theestablishmentofGrandDuchyhadseveral interre- th centuryturnedouttobetheageofnationalism,progressivedemocrat- Snellman A . «Abouregeoisbureaucracy? ThenewmentalityoftheFinnisharistocracyat . Kuviteltu aatelismies:aateluusviholliskuvanajaitseymmärryksenä 1800-luvun rst tasksofthenewgovernment.Itcausedconsiderableresentment . Suomen aateli:yhteiskunnanhuipultauusiinrooleihin1809–1939. rst time,therewasapoliticalunitwithFinnish- 2 . ng onthecarrierwaveofmoderni- Finnish nobility between nation and empire 1. 3 . mained ineff resentatives that representationbyfamilyshouldbereplaceda smallernumberofelectedrep- by theoriginal in 1818.ItsorganisationwasbasedontheSwedish M. Vuorinen ing competitionforpositionsandstatuswiththeacademically educatedcommoner the modelfornewloyalty loyalty toanimaginedcollective.Theolderabstractconceptofpatriotismservedas meant ashiftawayfromtangibleloyaltytopersonalruler, towardsanabstract allegedly cosmopolitannobilityhadtofi four-estate parliamentintheearly1860s.TheFinnishHouseofNobility estate intoalegalandpoliticalunit—and,lateron,inthemodellingofFinnish in theformofpoliticaltradition,integralreorganisationFinnishnoble ture, theywerealientohome-grownculturalstrivingsandnationalisticendeavour. transnational aristocraticsphere,withmultinationaloriginsandaninternationalcul- Crown, theywerealientolocalprogressiveanddemocraticstrivings.Asmembersofa oppressor, theywere alientotheethnicFinns.AselitistcreationsofSwedish a tonguethatwasalientotheFinnish-speakingmajorityandreminderofold rightful representativesofthenation,lookedonnobilityasatriplyalienelement. tide. Meanwhile,thebourgeoisprogressives,whoconsideredthemselvesassole ism anddemocracy, nobilityclearlyworkedagainst boththetimeandpolitical more dominatedbyacommonerstratumthatembracedthenewidealsofnational- to developingintoamodernpoliticalunit,nation-state. in 1863,thenationasaculturalentityhadalreadybeenestablished,wellonitsway to introduceabillforthedissolutionofwhole estate ment, butalsofromamongitsownranks.Severalmembers ofthenobleestatesought ity’s righttopoliticalpowerwascontestednotonly bytheliberalmediaestablish- separately, withamajorityoftwoagainstonedefi including thedivision,abolishedin1869,intothreeclassesofunequalsizethatvoted had importantcorollariesforthenobleestatewithinFinnishFour-estate Diet, 7 6 5 4 Forfurtherdiscussion,see Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II.P. 635–642;Nobility.1867.Vol.III.P.391–392. ProtocolsoftheNobleestate (laterNobility).1863–1864.Vol.II.P.421–451,607; IV. Finlands Riddarhus By thelatterhalfof19 P. 53–63,396–411,567–572. ja suomalaisenisänmaanrakentuminen autonomian.Helsinki:UniversityofHelsinki,2008. With theonsetofnationalismasprimemotiveforceinsociety, eventhe The Swedishheritage,apartfrombloodtiesandculturallegacy, waspresentalso As descendantsand/or‘henchmen’ofethnicallySwedishconquerors,speaking Operating inanincreasinglyliberal-progressivepoliticalatmosphere,moreand Interestingly, bythetimeDietassembledforfi 7 ect until1906,whenitwasreplacedbyaunicameralparliament. . However, thefour-estatesystem,withnobilityasfi Riddarhusordning , literally‘houseofknights’. Katajisto K th 4 . Bythetimeoffi century, nobilityhada hardtimesurvivinginagrow- given by King Gustav II Adolf in 1626. This in turn givenbyKingGustavIIAdolfin1626.Thisturn . Isänmaamme Keisari: eliitin kansallisen identiteetin murros Isänmaamme Keisari:eliitin kansallisenidentiteetinmurros . nd ways torelatementallythenation.It ning thevoteofwholeestate. rst assemblyoftheFinnishDiet Riddarhus rst timein1863,thenobil- 6 , whileotherssuggested institution established institutionestablished rst estate,re- 5 was founded wasfounded 101

Saint-Petersburg Historical JournalN 4 (2015) Петербургский исторический журнал № 4 (2015) who hadbeencaughttryingtopurchasevotes(35§) majority ofthemeventuallyvotedfortheabolitionfour-estatesystem The developmentwasacceptedevenbythemembersofestatethemselves,and 1906 parliamentaryreform,thetimeofnobilityasapoliticalestatewasoffi intelligentsia increasinglyrecruitedfromtheFinnish-speakingpopulation.After 102 tested tobeaFinnishcitizen,withresidence,andtaxable, inthecountry. years, beforehehasappliedforaseatandvoteinthe HouseofNobles,hasbeenat- from thecountry, untilhehasmovedbacktoFinlandandwhooverthreeprevious for reasonsotherthanservicetheFinnishstate, oversixyearshasbeenaway tion toaforeignpower, orwhoinsomeotherrespectobeysthantheFinnishlaw. general criteriaforexclusion.Accordingtothebill, eventually settledbypracticalreasoningand partly motivatedbyamistrusttowardsthetsaristRussianpoliticalculture.Itwas had arighttorepresenthisfamilyandestateontheFinnishDiet.Thedebatewas focused onthequestionofwhetherornotaFinnishnoblemanwhoservedinRussia The latterwasdiscussedinfull to thefi preparation ofthe discuss andsettlethematteronceforall.Anopportunitythisopenedwith bourgeois progressives.Therepresentativesofthenobleestatenodoubtwantedto nation, wasbecominganestablishedelementofthecriticismaimedatnobilityby (9 § ) ordinary circumstancesanddishonourabledeedspreventedonefromrepresenting titled torepresentanoblefamilyincaseitsheadwasincapacitated(8§ ) 12 11 10 9 8 Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II. P. 518–535,667–679,687–711,759–777. Fordetailsabouttheshift,see Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II.P. 526;Nobility.1867.Vol.III.P.269–270. Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II.P. 518–519,759–762. Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II.P. 518–520. 5: oAnobleman,whohasmovedhishomeandresidence outofFinlandandwho, 4: oAnobleman,whobyswearingloyaltyandallegiange hascommittedhisobliga- From therighttoseat,speechandvoteinHouse ofNoblesisexcluded<…> The debateaboutwhoisaFinnishnoblemanandnotfocusedonthemore The debateabouttheallegedcosmopolitanismand/orloyaltytoaforeigncrown Mistrust basedonallegedcosmopolitanism,andaconsequentialdisloyaltytothe The 1863–1864trilemmaofloyalty The lessexplosiveissuesintheActwereeasilysettled,includingwhowasen- 11 rst, 1863–1864Diet,acceptedbythe1867 andbecomeeff , andthroughwhatkindofproceduretheestatecouldexpelarepresentative Parliament Act Snellman A. 9 onlybythenobleestatewhomitdirectlyconcerned. andthe Op. cit. House ofNobilityAct Realpolitik.

2014. P.198–202. Finnish nobility between nation and empire 12 . . Bothwerepresented ective in1869. cially over. 8 10 . , what M. Vuorinen the debatecontinued process. Afteralongdiscussionthedocumentswereshelvedforweek,afterwhich making process the oneswhoservedathome,andshouldnotbeexcludedfromnationaldecision- him, thesonsofFinlandwhoservedonRussiansoilwereatheartfullyaspatriotic a mixtureof person stillhadtaxablepropertyinFinland.BaronMunckjustifi they sawit,serviceinthemother-countrywasnotalegalobstacle,particularlyif members oftheselectcomitteeexpressedprovisionsagainstthisinterpretation.As even thoughthosewhoservedthefatherlandabroadusuallyhadright.Three in thedecision-making.ThosewhoservedRussiawereautomaticallyexcluded, meant thatonewhowasnotresident,andtaxable,inthelandcouldtakepart cumstance, anddefi out, thatmilitaryserviceinRussiawasnotoptional,butrelatedtogeopoliticalcir- temporary servicefrompermanentemigration,whileBaronvonKothenpointed exactly a‘foreignpower’.J.F. S. Gripenberg stressedtheimportanceofseparating own countrylateron.Besides,theEmperor, astheGrand-DukeofFinland,wasnot to seekpositionsabroad,learnfromforeignpracticesinorderbetterservetheir reminded theestateofgoodolddays,whennoblemenwereactuallyprompted lose hisrightofrepresentation.K.A.vonBorn,quotingthenobleprivileges1723, army alsocontributedtotheprotectionofhisnativeFinland,wouldasarecompense able thatanoblemanofthetraditionalmilitarycalling,whobyservinginRussian ability andlegalityprinciples.Theproponentsofthefi themselves thanwaspossibletoachieveinFinland interested inservinganystate,butmakingamore gloriousmilitarycareerfor serving inRussia(ashesaid),thoughtthese‘eager Vikingwarriors’werenot estate toremainstern.Without wantingtocastdoubtuponthe Finnish militaries cow newspaperthatapparentlyhadaccusedtheFinns ofdireseparatism,toldthe such laws,ashewouldpersonallyhavetoobey. Von Willebrand, referringtoaMos- the axiomonly:apersonshouldparticipateindecision-making processonlyof stances suchasalinkageofstatesshouldbeignored, andtheformulationbasedon infl into thesacrednessofconstitution,buttheirbasicmotivationwasafearbad 16 15 14 13 Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II.P. 646–647,656–658,660–662. Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II.P. 644–656,658–660. Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II.P. 662–664. Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II.P. 518–519,530–532,535–539. uences fl uences The constitutionalrightofthepeopletodecideabouthowtheywerebetaxed The twoopposingmentalitiesmight,forwantofbetterwords,benamedreason- The earlyproponentsofthelegalityprinciplecarefullywrappedtheirattitude owing infromRussia.J.U. S. Gripenberg saidthatoccasionalcircum- Realpolitik 13 . Theimportanceoftheissueisevidentintwistsdebate nitely notanexpressionofantipatrioticsentiment 14 . , loyaltytotheruler, patriotismandobligation.Accordingto 16 . rst didnotconsideritreason- ed hisprovisionby 15 . 103

Saint-Petersburg Historical JournalN 4 (2015) Петербургский исторический журнал № 4 (2015) Count Creutzfi up allkindsofharmfulforeignhabits! a FinnishnoblemanmightseeklivelihoodinEnglandortheUnitedStates,picking fl them participation.C. W. Spåre wantedtoforgeaheadandbantheinfl process fromanamelessthreat,blessingthecourageoftheircountrymenwhodenied would gladlyforgotheirrightofrepresentation,inordertoprotecttheFinnishlegal pressing histrustintheself-sacrifi criterion wasliftedfromFinnswhoservedtheEmperor inRussia of bothFinnishnoblemenservinginRussiaandRussian-born noblemen.Thetax 1867 versionthe9§ had beencompletelyreformulated, strengtheningtheposition 104 the ruler, whomanobleoffi They hadlefttheirhomesandfamiliesbehindonlybecauseofordersreceivedfrom himself, livedabroad—thelandoftheirchildhoodandforefathers’graves. buy oneatickettotheDiet.Homelandwasdearandsacredeventhosewho,like lived inFinland.Hewasopposedtotheideathatpayinglandpropertytaxeswould homeland there.Norwastheirknowledgeaboutitanyless,comparedtothosewho who residedinthemothercountryandwereusedtopromotinginterestsoftheir patriotism andinterestintheaff theless, hewouldnotexpectanysinisterattemptsfrom‘ourboys’.Quitethecontrary: one mustbereadytosacrifi far moresacredties.Comparedtothefatherland,individualconcernsweresmall,and love andobligationtowardsfatherlanddidnotgrowfromriches,butwasbasedon every noblemanregardlessofhiswhereabouts.Notallpossessedlandsorriches,yet ing one’sfamilyandestateintheDietappearedasadutyratherthanright,binding vious speakershadusedtodecoratetheiranti-Russiansentiments.To him, represent- to theRussianLawofSuccession a foreignlaw, astheGrand-DukeofFinlandwassetonhisthroneinaccordancewith rhetoric, J.A.vonBornandSchatelovitzdemonstrated,thattheFinnsalreadyobeyed in thecountry. ThoseservinginRussiawereallowedtoparticipate of representationonlyfromthosewhodidnotobeyFinnish law, norownedproperty 22 21 20 19 18 17 uences forallposterity. Thegeopoliticalsituationscouldchange,andinthefuture, Nobility.1867.Vol.III.P.250–275, 391–393. Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II.P. 752–758. Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II.P. 747–752. Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II.P. 743–744. Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II.P.713–721,725–727.BothCreutz andC. W. Spåre apparently Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II.P.713–759. spoke inearnest,eventhoughtheir choiceofwordsmayseemironictous. The opposingviewwasdefendedwithevenmoreeloquence.Mixinghumour During thesecondphase,suspicionagainstRussiawasventedmorefreely The nobleestateeventuallysettledonthebroaderformulation, denyingtheright nished hisotherwiseformality-basedargumentwithafl cer hadtoobey withoutquestioning ce oneselfforone’scountryasamatterofcourse.Never- airs backhomewereoftenstrongestamongthose 19 cing, patrioticFinnishnoblemeninRussia.They . W.Spåre cunninglyrecycledtherhetoricpre- 18 Finnish nobility between nation and empire 20 . 22 . 21 ux ofbadin- . Inthefi ourish, ex- ourish, nal, 17 . larly thelatterwasfreelyinuseonVyborg province donations array ofkeywords—slavery, humandignity, whipping, cane—statingthatparticu- of cruellybeatingthepeasants.RepresentativeKumpulainenpiledonanimpressive right ofamastertopunishservant,thedonationownerswereinpassingaccused the localjudgeswereaccusedoffavouringlandowners therefore, treatedtheirtenantsbadly, exacting higherandpayments,whereas as itwasassumed,inlinewithnobilitygeneral—wereselfi M. Vuorinen ous tones and totheplightofEstonianpeasants,describedbyFinnishpressinscandal- moner estatesoftenreferredtoahistoricalcaseofnobleoppression,thefeudalperiod, lands tothestateandthensellthemtillersforatokenprice. wards, untilannexedbackinto‘NewFinland’in1812.Theplanwastoredeemthe so-called ‘OldFinland’,apartofRussiafromthepeacetreaties1721and1743on- sian masters,oflandedpropertysituatedintheVyborg andMikkeliprovinces,inthe for them The tenants’paymentswerehighandrudelycollected, andnojusticewasavailable ble, wastingresourcesbymismanagementandleaving thestatereceivablesunpaid. Peasants estate,theRussianmasterswerenotonly greedy butalsogrosslyincapa- and off continued, onandoff pation ofCatholicandparticularlyOrthodoxChristians plicitly denied,whichwasinitselfanemptydecree,implicitlyallowingthepartici- the passagewascompletelyremodelled.TheaccessofotherthanChristiansex- prevent ‘aliens’fromentering.Inthefi tional banforotherthanLutheranChristiansshouldbereinstated,asameansto Russian connectionsfocusedonreligion.Itwasoriginallysuggestedthatthetradi- 27 26 25 24 23 Peasants.1877–1878.P.373–380, 775–776,868–869,2019–2021;1882.P.209–211;1885. Peasants.1863–1864.Vol.II. P. 525. ProtocolsoftheLandedPeasants estate(later—Peasants).1863–1864.Vol.I,N7 1. P.227– See Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.II.P.642–643;1867. III.P.254–255. Debating thesituationofdonationpeasants,membersthreecom- The allegedlymiserableconditionofthedonation peasantsweredebated,on P. 661;1904–1905.995. P. 628,1107–1120;1888.1065; 1891.P.602;1897.287–290,1222,1287–1289;1900. 228; Vol.II.P.735–744. The seconddebatefocusingontheimageofdisloyal,anti-nationalisticnobility Russian donationownersas‘badalienmasters’ Another pointofthedebateconcerninginclusion/exclusionnobilitywith Vuorinen M. , untilaftertheturnofcentury. According tothemembersofLanded 27 24 . . Thedebatewasdominatedbytheassumptionthatdonation-owners— Op. cit.P.244–248. , fordecades.Itconcernedthe18 nalversion,presentedandacceptedin1867, th -century donations,toRus- 23 . 25 . Whiledebatingthe sh andgreedyand, 26 . 105

Saint-Petersburg Historical JournalN 4 (2015) Петербургский исторический журнал № 4 (2015) dent anyway living andworkingconditionspaidlowtaxes,butpreferredtobecomeindepen- the tenantsofAnjalaestate,ownedbyFinnishWrede family, whohadgood as ‘socialism’.Thesuff On theotherhand,givinglandstopeasantsforatokenpricewascriticised ed populationfromtheyokethatresemblesslaveryandhaslastedforcenturies». ric founditswaythere,whenredeemingthelandswasarguedto«savemistreat- tenants iftheirworkonlybenefi are betternow, buttheystilllack thefi occasionally evenmurdered,andtheperpetratorshavereceivednopunishment.Thetimes tenants havesuff 106 income. AvastamountofFinnishsoilhad,through historicalcircumstance,ended form ofabsenteeism,atoddswiththenationalisticethos asitreducedthenational lord andhiscruelbailiff interpretation. ReverendBoreniusrevivedthenarrative ofanabsenteefeudalland- actual yieldoftheestateswasnotalwaysthatbig The representativeswerealsoinpossessionofrelatedeconomicfacts,i.e.thatthe out abouttheactualconditionsandthenproceedtomakejusticebothparties. lands werequestioned,butnotdirectlycontested.Thetypicalsuggestionwastofi donation peasantswereconsideredtosuff erty rightsoftheowners,andworriedaboutreal costoftheredemptionplan justice systemequallylow. Nevertheless,mostspeakerswantedtorespect theprop- velopment wasarrested;theirlegalprotectionnon-existentandrespectforthe and misery. Thetenantsdidnottrust themasters.Theirspiritualandmaterialde- ship hadbeenoverruledandtaxationblownoutofallproportion,begettingpoverty sentiment andarathershallowhuman-interest.The‘ancient’peasantlandowner- debating thedonations Russian noblemasterswasoccasionallyputtouseasasentimentalargument,while 32 31 30 29 28 ProtocolsoftheClergy.1863–1864. Vol.I.P.43,257–259,304,431–432,629–651:Clergy. Bourgeoisie.1897.P.257–259, 1173–1177andMotion.Nr70(quotation). Bourgeoisie.1872.P.172. ProtocolsoftheBourgeoisestate(later—Bourgeoisie).1863–1864. Vol.I.P.75–78;IV. Peasants.1904–1905.P.1015. Everyone whoisfamiliarwiththesituationinVyborg provinceknowshowbadlythe Several speakersdepartedfromthegeneralconsensus towardsamoreextreme 1867. P.238–266,273–296:1877–1878. P.299–300. P. 796–802;1885.360–361, 1052–1070. P. 255–269,443–450;1867. 255–270;1877–1878.P.780–781;1882.863–864;1888. In theeconomy-orientedBourgeoisieattitudewaslessblack-and-white.The In theClergy, theoveralldiscourseondonations wastintedwithasermon-style Even intheBourgeoisestatesuff 31 . ered fromthedonationmasters’oppression.Asslavestheyhavebeenbeaten, ering-based masternarrativewasrefutedbyadescriptionof s. Accordingtohim,donationownershipwasaninstitutional 30 . Particularly inthe1890sPeasant-estate-stylerheto- ts theirlordsandmasters nal compensation;<…>itisagreatinjusticeforthe eringofthepeasantsinhandscruel erunjustlyandthemasters’rightsto Finnish nobility between nation and empire 29 . 28 . 32 nd . wards theturnofcentury, asdidthecruelbailiff the ownershipofsuchpredators people, inthenameofcivilisation,fatherlandandhumanity, oneshouldnottolerate agents alsolikedtogetrichonthepeasants’expense.To protecttheinterestsof inheritors, withevenlesstiestotheproperty, insistedonevenbiggeryields.The cal people,theirlanguageandcustoms.Aftertheoriginalownerspassedaway, their Their landagentswereoftenofRussianorigin,withlittleknowledgeaboutthelo- up inalienhands,afewtensofRussianlandowners,manythemlivingelsewhere. M. Vuorinen ethnically foreignboyar, greatlyharmingourland. their land.[Ifthiscontinues,]thewholeareamayeasily fallpreytoabothpoliticallyand master [hovinherra]topesteratwill,andabout60otherfamilies hadbeenexpelled<…>from ing inthesurroundingcountryside. the fancylifestyleoflandownerstomiserable conditionsofthepeasantsliv- liff he hadreceivedfromthepeasants,movinglyaskingforhelp.Theproverbialevilbai- and nationalfeelingoftheclergytostopdevelopment.Hequotedseveralletters embittered peasantsandthecruellandownersalike,appealedtopastoralcalling bailiff the peasantswhosuff who atthispointoftimeheldahighoffi gave waytosheernationalism,boostedbyahatredtowardsRussians.ReverendLyra, later astheoverallpoliticalsituationgrewtenser. Thesocialconscienceargument the donationstosuppresspeasants,wasreferredinpassingbyreverendLyra payments, alandownermayrisethesumsatwill.Thehorse-whip,allegedlyusedon image ofanoblemanpredator, pointingoutthatwhilethestateexactsonlylawful the process—anotherretellingofgreednarrative.ProfessorForsman revivedthe appeared asbenevolentmasters.Thenagain,theywerealsofearedtomakemoneyin a never-endingdebttotheCrown,comparedwhichdonationownerssuddenly the liberation,peasantsmightlandinanevenworseeconomicsituation,repaying the situationofliberatedserfs,reportedextensivelyinFinnishpress.Following 36 35 34 33 Clergy.1882.P.768–782(Forsman: 775);1885.P.895–900,942–964(Lyra:942),996–999. Clergy.1863–1864.Vol.III.P. 635;1867.P.239,294. Clergy.1863–1864.Vol.III.P. 633–634. wasmentionedtimeandagainalsoduringthe1867 debate Clergy. 1888.P. 493–494,941–946;1894.P. 686–687(Lyra); 1897.P. 1398–1405,1471–1479 Later Blomberg,quotingpressreportsabouttheEstonian situation,compared 16 bigtenantfarmsandfamiliesweresubordinated,perhaps, toasingleboastingcourtier Reverend Hackzell,worriedaboutthedisintegratingmoralsofkowtowing, In theearly1890s,allwasquietondonationfront,butdebatere-enfl The second, 1880s wave of the debate closely followed the Russian discussion on The second,1880swaveofthedebatecloselyfollowedRussiandiscussionon (Blomberg: 1472and1476);1900.P. 87–90,1242–1256(whipandbailiffs: 1242–1243). s, etc.,whilereverendBlombergdescribedthedonations systemasfollows: eredundertheabsenteelandlords,bleddrybytheirheartless 33 .

The pitilesslywieldedwhipsurfacedagainto- ce inthechurchadministration,stillpitied s 36 . 34 . amed 107 35 .

Saint-Petersburg Historical JournalN 4 (2015) Петербургский исторический журнал № 4 (2015) egantly pointingoutthediff derline oftwo,forhistoricalreasonsquitediff the particularproblemscausedbyfactthatdonations weresituatedonthebor- detailed knowledgeaboutlandownershipduringseveral centuries.Theyalsodiscussed not havebeenrobbedfromthepeasants of thedonationshadbeenownedbynoblefamiliesinfi their estatesquitewell.IntheBourgeoisieaspeakerremindedestate,thatsome 108 then wouldhavetobeexpelled,duethelackofanylegalcontract that itwouldbindthemtoserfdom.Whenthepreviouscontracthadexpired,they clergy (!),hadrefusedtosignaninitselfquiteprofi he hadpersonallywitnessed.Sometenants,possiblyduetowarningsfromthelocal interests shouldbeprotected.In1867,vice-pastorPutkonendescribedasituation tenants justlyandwithkindness,eventhoughsomedidnot,theowners’lawful nation systemhadnotbeenaimedtocreateoppression.Manymasterstreatedtheir who hadlivedintheEasternFinlandfor14years,remindedClergythatdo- the oppression-focusedmainstreamdiscourse.Duringfi the beginningof20 claiming anoffi the donationpeasantswerecriticallylabelledfavouredchildrenofstate, culture foundedonthepremises,werementioned1882aspositiveexamples.In1885 hand, buttheownersalsohadlegitimaterights. viciously asintheotherestates.Thepeasantswerethought tohavethemoralupper obvious exceptionthatnobleRussiandonationowners wereneverdescribedquiteas estate. Thediscussionfollowedthesamelinesasin threeotherestates,withthe ing landedpropertyandwasthereforeclosetothehearts ofthemembersnoble The Donationsdebaterelatedtothediscussionabout thenobleprivilegesconcern- the subject,oftenbasedonpersonaland/orfamilyexperiencelandownership. argued againsttheoppression-focusseddiscourse. erate speakers,ontheotherhand,typicallyreferredtofactualdetailsandstrongly were spokenoffromhighabove,inanopenlysentimentalfashion.Themoremod- and tokenobjects,oftenborrowedfrommucholdersemioticcontexts.Thepeasants they madeuseoftraditionalthemesandimageries,emotionallychargedexpressions their argumentsonactualknowledgeaboutthelifeofdonationpeasants.Instead, 39 38 37 Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.V.P. 491–555. Peasants.1882.P.240–245; 1885.P.1116;1904–1905.207;Bourgeoisie. Clergy.1867.P.630; 243. P. 305–310. The moremoderatespeakerstypicallyreferredtofactualdetails,arguingagainst In thePeasantestate,Kurkĳ The speakersjustifi Meanwhile, thenobleestatesoughttoproduceanimpartial,balancedviewon The mostcriticalspeakersinallthreecommonerestatesseemnottohavebased cial victimstatus,apparentlyentitledtorenewedcompensations.In ed their opinionswithtechnicalandlegalinformation,refl th century, theownersweresaidtohaveactuallymanaged erences betweenFinnishand Russianestateowners oki donations,particularlytheschoolforagri- 38 . erentadministrationalcultures,thusel- Finnish nobility between nation and empire table 25-yearcontract,forfearing rst Diet,reverendBergh, rst place,andthuscould 37 . ecting ecting 39 . donation peasantsstillgavecauseforconcern Later on,theconfl had alreadypassedintopeasanthands longed topeasantfamiliesshouldnotberedeemedamongtherest,northosewho Duchy. Healsostressedanotherimportantlegalpoint:thelandsthathadneverbe- not revokethedonationsnow, whenthelandsweresituatedinFinnishGrand how theemperorhaddonatedlandsinaccordancetoRussianlaw, butcould tionally cosmopolitannoblemensidedwiththebiglandownersandfellownobles landowners onanethnicbasis,wasclearlytherise.Meanwhile,moretradi- situation. Apro-peasantprogressive-nationalistfraction,suspectingtheRussian that thepeasantswerealsotoblame,others,theyhadbeencorruptedby ism, malpracticeandsuff M. Vuorinen homesteads next see thesamephenomenonincentralandsouthernFinlandaroundtheirown To endhisargument,heaskedfellownobleman,whethertheywere prepared to lands wasquiteunderstandable,butithadalsobeenenhancedbythelocalclergy. planation simplydidnotringtrue.Thewishofthepeasantstogainpossession owners’ incompetence,negligenceandlackoflocalknowledgeasthestandardex- To him,thecomplaintslist—risingtaxes,illegalexpulsions,andoppression —orthe accusing thedonationownersofdespotismwithoutactuallyinvestigatingcase. vided thattheywereapproacheddiplomatically. Schatelovitzcriticisedthestatefor owners wouldsoongiveuptheirlandsastheRussianserf-ownershaddone—pro- nation, vis-a-vistothenewmother-countryandits ruler. To serveornottoserve? the debateconcernedobligationsowedbyFinnish nobilitytothedeveloping debated atechnicalityconcerninganindividual’sright ofrepresentation.Implicitly, necessarily followthelocallaw peasants andasthemasterswerenotfamiliarwithlocalcustoms,theywould and justice.K.F. vonBornstatedthattherewasevidenceaboutbadtreatmentofthe 44 43 42 41 40 Nobility.1885.Vol.I.P.280–283, 393–397,458–460;Vol.III.P,1002–1023,1303,1306;1888. Nobility.1867.Vol.I.P.282–303. Nobility.1863–1864.P.496–501, 516–517. Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.V.P. 509–516. Nobility.1863–1864.Vol.V.P.506–509,517–524. In 1867,severalspeakersstillspokeinmoderatetones,butdespotism,absentee- J.U.S. Gripenberg,whohadrentedadonationfor16years,believedthatthe Vol. I.P.515–516;II.873–878. When debatingthe9§ of theHouseNobilityAct,nobleestateexplicitly Conclusion Several speakersspokefortheredeemingoflandsinnamecompassion 42 ict graduallymellowed, eventhoughtheeconomicsituationof . ering peasantswerementionedmoreoften.Somethought, 40 . J.A.vonBornexplainedtheoriginallegalprocess: 41 . 44 . 109 43 . Saint-Petersburg Historical JournalN 4 (2015) Петербургский исторический журнал № 4 (2015) tuurin tutkimusyksikkö,1989. geoisie: AspectsofthePeculiarity oftheFinnish.Jyväskylä:Jyväskylänyliopistonnykykult- the beginningofperiod autonomy»//Peltonen M. (ed.)State,Culture &theBure- this respect proved loyal,nolongerdeservingsuspiciousremarksfromthecommonerestatesin In theeyesoftheirco-parliamentarians,atleast,Finnishnobilityapparentlyhad cast totheFinnishnobility, wasincreasinglyshifted totheirRussiancounterparts. the home-grownnoblesintonation.Theroleof‘evilaliennoblemen’,originally all threeloyaltiesseemedmergedintoasinglesystem,andeverybodywashappy. ity’s willingnesstoloyallyservetheRussianEmperorslikewiseattested.Eventually Swedish traditionswererememberedandappropriatelyhonoured—thenobil- and/or alienfi argument. Theexistenceofpatrioticfeelingsthroughouttheallegedlycosmopolitan ciples timeandagainreferredtopatrioticethoswhenjustifyingtheirangleofthe countrymen —couldtheybetrusted? nation? Intheendofday, werethosewhoservedtheemperorstillloyal totheir the point,couldthosewhoservedemperorbeincludedintoFinnishpolitical the Russianemperor, orwastheformeractuallyanobstacletolatter?More Could theoldloyaltytowardsaSwedishkingbetranslatedinto 110 hearts loyaltyalsotowardstheirRussiancounterparts. within theNobleestateseemstoimply, thattheFinnishnobilityfoundintheir alist confl democracy-related confl between FinnishtenantsandRussianlandowners,retelling alsothesagaabout used togiveformareligiouslyenhancednationalistconfl thirdly abouttherealproblemsofactualpeople.Theireconomicdiffi sian landowner—twoseparate,politicallymotivatedoppressorimagesandonly bate wasfi only afterthegeneralpoliticalsituationbetweencountriesgottense.Thede- the matterfromarationalpointofview, engagingintheheatednationalisticdebate the beginningheavilylacedwithsentiment,whileBourgeoisiefi ing anewsetof‘alienbaddies’. isänmaan rakentuminenautonomian.Helsinki:University ofHelsinki,2008. 45 Inothercontextstherewereplenty, see The decades-longDonationsdebateclearlyillustratedtheongoinginclusionof During thedebate,proponentsofbothreasonabilityandlegalityprin- At thesametime,morebenevolentattitudetowards thedonationowners Particularly amongthePeasantestateandClergy, theattitudeswerefrom Peltonen M. Katajisto K. References ict betweentwonations. rstly abouttheimageofevilnobleman,secondlyalienRus- 45 . Yet thechange,initselfbenign,couldonlybeaccomplishedbycreat- «Abouregeoisbureaucracy? ThenewmentalityoftheFinnisharistocracyat Isänmaamme Keisari:eliitinkansallisenidentiteetinmurrosjasuomalaisen rst estatewasthusdefi ict between thenobilityandpeople,aboutanation- nitely madeclear. Simultaneously, theage-old Vuorinen

M. Op.cit.P.258–309. Finnish nobility between nation and empire ict, seeminglysituated rst discussed rst culties were culties vun Suomessa.Helsinki:SKS,2011. 2014. M. Vuorinen Vuorinen M. Snellman A. Suomenaateli:yhteiskunnanhuipultauusiinrooleihin1809–1939.Helsinki, Kuviteltu aatelismies:aateluusviholliskuvanajaitseymmärryksenä 1800-lu- 111

Saint-Petersburg Historical JournalN 4 (2015)