This article was downloaded by: [Newcastle University]On: 20 December 2014, At: 08:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Baltic StudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbal20

Vestnik Evropy and the Finnishquestion, 1885–1904Alexis E. Pogorelskin aa St. Hilda's College , OxfordPublished online: 28 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Alexis E. Pogorelskin (1980) Vestnik Evropy and theFinnish question, 1885–1904, Journal of Baltic Studies, 11:2, 127-141, DOI:10.1080/01629778000000141

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01629778000000141

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

VESTNIK E V R O P Y A N D T H E F I N N I S H Q U E S T I O N , 1885-1904

Alexis E. Pogorelskin, St. Hilda's College, Oxford

I With the accession of Alexander II to the Russian throne in 1855, Finland

entered a period of cultural and economic growth. The Finnish language, pro- scribed since 1850 for all but religious and agricultural publications, again became a medium of literary expression. I The Russo-Finnish tariff of 1858, in keeping with a general Russian policy of free trade at that time, significantly increased the number of Finnish goods allowed into Russia duty free 2

Despite a clear shift in government policy and several major legislative innova- tions, not until 1863 did Finland capture the attention of the Russian press. In September of that year, the Emperor permitted the Finnish Diet to meet for the first time in decades. 3

For the most part the Russian press regarded the sitting of the Finnish Diet with favor. 4 Only the influential Moskovskie vedomosti, edited by M.N. Katkov, advanced a wholly negative view, warning that convoking the Diet encouraged separatism. 5 Katkov was unable to alarm the government nor arouse public opinion as he had so recently done with Poland. The newly founded Gobs, a liberal newspaper in St. Petersburg, echoed both official and popular sentiment in offering its readership laudatory accounts of the Finnish Diet and condemning Katkov's warnings as groundless. 6

For nearly two decades, following the 1863 convocation of the Diet, Finland, as a question or problem, largely disappeared from the Russian press. At the end of the t 870s, however, the Russian government began to modify its liberal trade policies and initiated a limited form of industrial protectionism. Not surprising- ly, Finland with its separate customs, lower tariff, and relatively advanced indus- trial growth attracted the attention of those in the Russian government concern- ed with Russia's trade and industrial development. 7

JBS, Vol. XI, No. 2 (Summer 1980) 127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

128 Journal of Baltic Studies

Shortly thereafter the Finnish question once again appeared in the Russian press. The discussion in the press was different from what had previously occurred because the government's attitude toward Finland had changed. The press mir- rored the debate within the St. Petersburg bureaucracy, but also raised issues peculiar to journalism. Its coverage of the Finnish question was significant. For the next twenty years, Russian journalists educated a generation of their com- patriots, in one direction or another about Finland.

Journalists were less concerned with the actual form of policy than with justifying a critical examination o f Finnish privileges or, on the contrary, urging tnat the government allow Finland to continue to enjoy the measure of auton- omy it had possessed since entering the Russian Empire in 1809. Moreover, at least in the early stages of the debate, there seemed to be ignorance on the part of the press as to just what government policy consisted of. Vestnik Evropy, St. Petersburg's leading liberal journal and soon to be one of the primary defenders o f Finland in the Russian press, had begun to appear in 1866, and so had little experience with Finland as an issue. Nor could it hope to find support or encour- agement from Golos. That paper, with its special editorial department devoted to Finland, 8 was proscribed in 1884, shortly after Finnish customs privileges came under critical review. Even subsequently, Vestnik Evropy, like the Finns themselves, appeared naive about the government's intentions when official policy became more explicit.

Ignorance of the government's intentions was not always a handicap, how- ever. The antagonisms over Finland evoked other issues which had long preoc- cupied the journal. Vestnik Evropy defended Finland because it regarded the attacks against the Grand Duchy as symptomatic of "a halt or a regressive turn in the internal life of our state. ' '9 Always concerned about a model on which Russia could base its reform, by 1891 Vestnik Evropy began to see Finland as an example in certain areas of social legislation for the Empire as a whole. Finland also helped to school the liberals themselves. Russian liberalism in the second half of the nineteenth century was eclectic, uncertain, and ambiguous in its definitions. Finland, "so near and yet so little known, ' '1° as Vestnik Evropy characterized it, in the 1890s helped enforce the lessons acquired in rural zemstvos and the few municipal dumas. Like the Finnish seim, elective, respon- sive institutions could function in Russia and had a place in the Russian tradi- tion.

Moskovskie vedomosti, the primary antagonist of Finnish privileges, also placed the Finnish question in a larger context. To the annoyance of Vestnik Evropy, the Moscow nespaper compared Finnish social antagonisms to conflicts over noble privileges in the Baltic provinces. As it had once inveighed against Polish separatism, Moskovskie vedomosti saw symptoms of the same disease in Finland. It described Finnish autonomy as a threat which only the inculcation o f Russian patriotism, language, and culture could remove. Vestnik Evropy opposed that policy in Finland as elsewhere because it would breed antagonism and encourage the very separatism it was designed to eliminate.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Vestnik Evropy & Finland 129

Despite the support Vestnik Evropy offered the Finns, relations between the journal and prominent Finnish Swedes, Leo Michelin, for instance, were some- times strained. Vestnik Evropy would not take on the cause of Finland whole- sale. It also provided its own brand of argumentation, not always so forceful as the Finns wanted, against the attacks ofMoskovskie vedomosti and its St, Peters- burg ally, Alekse Suvorin's Novoe vrema. Still, Vestnik Evropy, like the liberal Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti and one or two lesser known publications, pro- vided the Finns with needed support in dark hours.

The primary spokesman for Vestnik Evropy on the Finnish question was K.K. Arsen'ev. As a member of the journal's inner circle, Arsen'ev set the tone for most of the commentary on Finland which appeared in Vestnik evropy starting in 1885.

By training he was a jurist, pursuing a career in the law with some renown; yet even during his most active years as a barrister he had combined journalism and legal work. The association began in 1859, within a few years of his gradua- tion from the Imperial School of Jurisprudence when he assumed the position of assistant to the editor of the Journal o f the Ministry o f Justice. While working in that capacity he met V.D. Spasovi6, like himself, a young jurist of promise and a regular contributor to the Ministry's Journal. 1 a Both men devoted themselves to the reformed judiciary after its establishment in 1864. Arsen'ev's Sametok o rus- skom advokature became a handbook for courtroom procedures. 12

Arsen'ev and Spasovich developed a close relationship through their work together on the St. Petersburg Council of Barristers. 13 Another bond was their shared interest in journalism. In the early 1860s Arsen'ev contributed both to Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti and to Ostedestvennye zapiski. When Spasovich joined the editorial staff of Vestnik Evropy at its inception in 1866, he urged the editor and publisher, M. M. Stasjulevic to invite Arsen 'ev to participate in the new venture. Arsen'ev, however, contributed only intermittently devoting himself to work as a barrister and then as an Assistant Procurator with the Imperial Senate. Neither position in the end satisfied him. In 1880 he returned to journalism and assumed responsibility for the two most widely read sections of Vestnik Evropy: the Domestic Survey and the Social Chronicle. The Domestic Survey had been a regular feature since 1868. Arsen'ev himself established the Social Chronicle where most of his pieces on Finland appeared. 14

Arsen'ev's first essays on the Finnish question began to fill the Social Chron- icle in the autumn of 1885. He was initially slow to respond to the issue when it began to appear in the Russian press. He was also at first condescending and ill- informed about the Grand Duchy.

In contrast, Katkov at the beginning of the decade had made himself the spokesman for the industrialists of the Moscow region threatened by the import of Finnish manufactured goods. 1 s In 1883 he commented on the government's examination of Finnish customs privileges with a detailed statistical analysis attempting to provide evidence of the harm which the tariff of 1858 inflicted on Russian industry and balance of trade. 16 A year later he chided a government

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

130 Journal of Baltic Studies

commission for its slowness in suggesting changes in the Finnish customs law. 17 Even in 1885 when the Russian government promulgated a new tariff for Fin- land which placed a duty on more than 80% of the goods which the Finns normally exported into Russia, 18 Vestnik Evropy was silent on the matter. Only in September of that year, following Katkov's disparagement of Finnish loyalty during the Afghanistan crisis between Russia and Britain, did Arsen'ev reply, expressing disgust for the abuse and hostility directed against Finland in the Russian press.

Novoe vrema, the successful St. Petersburg daily of Aleksej Suvorin, which had echoed Katkov's strictures for the past two years, 19 maintained that Fin- land was "only a magnanimous caprice of Russia which had placed it on a cer- tain cultural level." Arsen'ev agreed that Finland owed Russia a cultural debt. "The Finnish race, examined as a whole, is unarguably less gifted than the Slavic, but why remind the Finns about t h i s . . . ?" he asked. 2°

Toward the end of the decade, Arsen'ev's commentaries on Finland acquired a new sophistication, largely the result of two events which occurred in 1887 and caused a shift in the nature of argumentation over Finnish privileges. That year saw the Russian translation by F.M. Ordin, a writer for Novce vremia, of Leo Mechelin's Prdcis du droit publique de Grand Duchd de Finlande. In the summer of the same year, with the death of Katkov, conservative opinion in Russia lost one of its most articulate and frequent spokesmen. There was no diminution of the Finnish question as an issue in the Russian press; instead, Ordin became the leading antagonist of Finnish privileges and inspired argu- mentation which was legal and historical in nature, far more encouraging to the participation of someone of Arsen'ev's training and background.

Mechelin, formerly a professor of law at the University of Helsinki, then a member of the Finnish Senate, with his Precis du droit publique, had composed an historical essay which emphasized "everything testifying to the independence of Finland. ''21 Ordin appended an essay to his translation designed to refute Mechelin's arguments. Arsen'ev soon joined the controversy.

Ordin denied the legitimacy of the Borgo seim, which Alexander I called the summer of 1809. In August 1809 Sweden had yet to relinquish its sovereignty over the Grand Duchy; therefore, Finland still belonged to Sweden, whose king alone had the right to convene a legitimate seim. Arsen'ev argued, like Mechelin, that in calling the seim at which Alexander confirmed Finnish rights and pri- vileges, the Tsar "considered himself the heir to all rights belonging to the Swe- dish king . . . . " Arsen'ev also argued the legitimacy of Finland's status on the basis of several later documents in which Alexander confirmed the promises made at Borgo. 22

Arsen'ev's arguments were really no more than a restatement of Mechelin's. Perhaps for that reason the essay attracted the attention of the Svecoman leader, who initiated contact with the editorship of Vestnik Evropy. Because the identi- ty of the anonymous author of the Domestic Survey and the Social Chronicle was one of the journal's best kept secrets, all subsequent correspondence took

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Vestnik Evropy & Finland 131

place with M. M. Stasjulevi~, editor and publisher of the journal. Shortly after Arsen'ev's review appeared, a friend of Mechelin, a Finnish Swede named Lager- borg, asked Stasjulevi6 if Mechelin might also write a rejoinder to Ordin. 2a Stasjulevid agreed.

Mechelin took the occasion to explain why he had omitted certain documents in his book, just the ones which Ordin maintained emphasized "the rights of Russia." To give one example, Ordin had insisted on the importance of a letter from Alexander I to Napoleon in which the Tsar referred to Finland as a Swe- dish province. Mechelin argued that the letter merely revealed Alexander's initial uncertainty concerning "the arragement of annexation," and could not be used to overturn Finland's special regional status. By and large Mechelin got the bet- ter of the argument by showing the irrelevance of documents Ordin claimed had been suppressed. 24

In the following year, 1889, Moskovskie vedomosti maintained a barrage of articles against Finland. Arsen'ev noted that in May alone his rival had produced "two lead articles, four feuilletons, and eleven [news] stories" on the Grand Duchy. a5 Arsen'ev's complaint was an old one. For years Vestnik Evropy had been handicapped in its exchanges with Moskovskie vedomosti because the news- paper was a daily. It could afford to maintain correspondents in areas of particu- lar concern, like Helsinki, to supply it regularly with news. Vestnik Evropy, on the contrary, appeared once a month. Its content was not geared toward news as such nor the satires and pasquinades which were the staple of Russian daily journalism. Arsen'ev countered the attacks of Moskovskie vedomosti in the sober, often scholarly manner of a Russian thick journal. Mechelin's work was of great help for such an approach. Arsen'ev frequently cited the documents which Mechelin's research had uncovered and wrote commentaries on them, a method no doubt congenial to Arsen'ev's legal training.

By comparison to the rest of the decade, the amount of discussion devoted to the Finnish question in 1889 was extraordinary. Yet for all the space the press gave it, the exchanges rarely touched on the official policies, largely economic, which served as background and had raised the issue anew in the first place.

By contrast, in the following decade, the debate in the press reflected more sharply the Finnish policy of the governmental which itself acquired a new specificity. At a high level meeting in February 1889, the Russian government decided to incorporate within it the Finnish postal and monetary systems as well as the separate Finnish customs. Commissions designed to carry out those tasks met throughout the year and well into the next. The issue of the Finnish post was readily dealt with. By May 1890 it had been incorporated into the Russian Ministry of Interior. z6 The Finnish monetary system was another matter. Since 1865 the Finns had printed their own money and since 1878 the Finn mark, linked to the French franc, could boast convertibility, a7 Rather than antagonize their French ally and disrupt the Finnish economy entirely, the Russian govern- ment left Finnish currency untouched, contenting itself with making the ruble legal tender in Finland for all transactions with government agencies.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

132 Journal of Baltic Studies

The issue of a separate Finnish customs was thornier to resolve. Russian industry wanted to maintain the distinction and continue to impose the heavy duties of the tariff of 1885 on Finnish imports. The Minister of Finance, V.I. Vygnegradski, on the contrary wanted full control of Finnish customs within his ministry, aa The issue remain unresolved for most of the decade, obscured in various government committees.

More conspicuous and yet more difficult to implement were threats to the Finnish seim. In August 1890 the government made its first attempt to establish control of the Finnish assembly when the Emperor decreed that its representa- tives must take into consideration the opinions of the appropriate Russian Minis- ter or Ministers on issues which affected the rest of the Empire. 29 The decree was unsettling in its ambiguity and in its timing. A new seim was scheduled to meet in January 1891. Perhaps more than any Finnish institution, the elected seim which met every three years to devise legislative proposals symbolized Fin- land's autonomy.

Vestnik Evropy defended the seim in addition to the whole structure of Fin- nish autonomy which the decrees and commissions of the early 1890s were designed to dismantle. The seim in particular became a prominent issue in the Russian press because it was such an obvious target for those opposed to Fin- land's status in general. By the same token, for Vestnik Evropy that institution both embodied as well as helped to devise the economic, social, and political order in Finland which the journal came to regard as a possible model for the Russian Empire as a whole.

II

Early in December 1890 Mechelin wrote Stasjulevi6 to introduce him to a former mathematics professor from the University of Helsinki who was soon to arrive in St. Petersburg. Mechelin explained that "for a long time he has known about the great services of the editor of Vestnik Evropy." Mechelin also took the opportunity to congratulate Stasjulevi6 on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the journal. He wished him, "the strength [to continue] to work for the spread of sensible, enlightened, and humanitarian ideas. ' 'a°

Always susceptible to flattery and thus at least partly in response to Meche- lin's praise, Stasjulevi~ made a rare foray into active journalism. He had largely ceased to contribute to Vestnik Evropy since 1881 when he had taken up the editorship of the short-lived daily Porjadok. After the suppression of that news- paper in 1882, Stasjulevi6 returned to Vestnik Evropy, passing judgment on what might appear in the journal, but increasingly devoting most of his time to the St. Petersburg Municipal Duma, rather than contributing directly to Vestnik Evropy. He now traveled to Helsinki and in three installments described the working of the Finnish seim and the issues before it in 1891. Once a Professor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Vestnik Evropy & Finland 133

of History at the University of St. Petersburg, Stasjulevi~ devoted some attention to the history of the Finnish assembly.

Throughout the series, Stasjulevid praised the responsiveness of the institu- tion. After enumerating the various petitions recently presented to it, he con- cluded that the large number "of petitions acted upon testifies to the conscien- tiousness of its elected representatives." He attributed "the development o f . . . [Finland] in all areas" to an institution whose "right of initiative" allowed it both to satisfy local needs and to save the monarchy much inconvenience. 31

Stasjulevid's assessment of the Finnish seim was nearly identical to the defense and encouragement which Vestnik Evropy provided other institutions of local control and administration within Russia proper. The zemstvos, the dumas, the local school boards and the circuit court system freed the autocracy from numerous details of administration at the same time that they provided respon- sive government because those most familiar with local issues dealt with them.

In an exchange which referred directly to the similarity of the seim to the zemstvo, Arsen'ev, too, used the example of the Finnish institution to emphasize a lesson about local self-government for the Russian provinces of the Empire.

N.M. Korkunov, professor of State Law at St. Petersburg University, writing in Juridi~eski] letopis', a new bi-weekly newspaper devoted to legal questions, maintained that the reformed zemstvos, as a result of a statute promulgated in 1890, could provide the Finns with more responsive representation than the seim. Arsen'ev countered that the new semstvo statute hardly equalized the representation of nobles and peasants on the zemstvo boards. In the seim, on the contrary, although representatives of nobles and peasants were chosen by different means, "there is still solidarity between those who represent and those represented," and no Estate is able to dominate another. 32

Shortly thereafter Arsen'ev took issue with the same publication for an essay by N.S. Tagancev. Tagancev, professor of Criminal Law in the Imperial School of Jurisprudence, called for a re-examination of all Finnish laws that might not conform to the spirit of the decree of August 1890 which had ambiguously attempted to engage the Russian ministries in the work of the seim on matters affecting the whole Empire. Arsen'ev queried, which laws in particular should be examined and in what order? He condemned Tagancev's proposal for its imprac- ticality and its probable result: the breeding of Finnish separatism, a3

At the closing of the seim, in June, Arsen'ev used the words of the Emperor to condemn the opponents of the institution. In declaring the 1891 sessions at an end, Alexander III thanked the representatives for their "work for the good of the country" and for their expressions "of loyal devotion" to him and his family. Arsen'ev expressed the hope that those words might "serve as an exhor- tation for some of our 'patriotic' publicists.. , and put an end to the newspaper travail of the Finnish people. ' '34

In a sense he used an argument of last resort. Presumably the conservatives would heed the words of the Emperor. Imperial rhetoric, however, was one thing, decisions of policy another. Of the two legal scholars with whom Arsen'ev

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

134 Journal o f Baltic Studies

had taken issue, Professor Tagancev had already been appointed to a commission to draw up new criminal legislation for Finland. 35 Two years later Professor Korkunov would be appointed to a similar commission, independent of the seim, responsible for codifying Finnish fundamental law. 36 Finland's real problem lay with the government's actions which had given a cue to the conservative press in the first place.

Engaged by other issues, Arsen'ev had almost nothing to say about the Finnish question in the next three years until the opening of the seim in January 1894. That event also provoked Finland's opponents. Arsen'ev noted that "the zeal of some of our newspapers has reached the point where it has . . . lost the most elementary fairness or sense of proportion . . . . ,,37 By the absence of"ele- mentary fairness," he referred obliquely to the fact that the Finns themselves could no longer participate in the debate. In 1893 the Russian government had proscribed two works by the Finnish jurist F. Danielson, The Union of Finland w#h the Russian Empire and The Autonomy of Finland. At the same time it forbade Finnish newspapers to reply to criticism of Finland by the Russian press, aa

The support of Vestnik Evropy was more important than ever. Arvid Neovius, the editor of the Helsinki daily Nya Pressen write Stasjulevi6 in October 1894 explaining that "although few of our readers can follow directly the contents of Vestnik Evropy, from the extracts of your journal cited by my newspaper, our public is able to form a conception of the enlightened, strictly consistent and sincerely liberal direction of . . . [Vestnik Evropy] and to nourish real respect for the publication. ''39

Neovius attempted to encourage Stajulevid's continued defense of the Grand Duchy. In the autumn of 1894, another event also encouraged Vestnik Evropy to comment on the Finnish question.

Since Nicholas I ascended the throne in 1825, every Russian sovereign upon accession had confirmed Finland's possession of special rights and privileges much as Alexander I had done at Borgo. 4° The accession of Nicholas II marked a depature from that practice. He succeeded his father on 8 October 1894, but delayed over two weeks in making the traditional statement confirming Fin- land's privileges. In his belated statement the Emperor reversed the traditional order of his titles and listed Tsar of Poland before Grand Duke of Finland. The Finnish press termed the reversal "a simple oversight." Arsen'ev also argued that the order of titles counted for nothing because "the exclusive position of Fin- land . . . is depicted with sufficient clarity" in the text of the Manifesto. 41 Nicholas' reversal of the traditional order of imperial titles was in fact an omi- nous indication of a hostile attitude toward the Grand Duchy. Neither Arsen'ev nor apparently the Finns themselves were willing to recognize the danger signal confronting them.

For Arsen'ev, interest in the Finnish question receded as legal and juridical questions ceased to figure prominently in the debate. Consistent with his con- tention that Nicholas lI's accession implied no new threat to the Grand Duchy,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Vestnik Evropy & Finland 135

he had yet another reason for avoiding direct defense of Finland. Instead, Arsen'ev continued to write about the region, not in terms of a problem or issue of official policy but as an example for the Russian provinces of the Empire.

Through the essays of several contributors, both Finnish and Russian, the journal developed the theme whichArsen'ev had struck at the time he defended the seim of 1891. Finland provided an example of social efficiency and sound administration that Russia should follow rather than suppress. Arsen'ev had implied in his exchange with Professor Korkunov that the representation of the estates in the seim could provide a model for equalizing class representation on local zemstvo boards. Only a few months later he explictly held up recent Finn- ish factory legislation as a model for such laws in Russia. 42

Starting in 1897 the same theme recurred. A writer for Vestnik Evropy named S. Vasjukov recounted a month spent in Helsinki. He had nothing but praise for the Finnish capital where "at each step you are convinced that it is possible to arrange things conveniently and well, ' '43 Vasjukov elaborated throughout his account which social services in Helsinki Russian cities would do well to enmlate.

When Vestnik Evropy printed a piece by the Fennoman N.K. Yrjo-Koskinen, which provided a detaUed description of the Finnish elementary school system, Stasjulevid prefaced the essay with a note urging his readers to compare the piece to an earlier one in Vestnik Evropy by D.D' Druckij-Sokol'ninskij on ele- mentary schools in the Russian provinces. 44 Sokol'ninskij had advocated that the Church manage such schools because the responsibility and the association with education would raise the status of the clergy even if it might initially retard the spread of elementary education in the countryside. In contrast, Yrj6- Koskinen described a secular, extensive, well-run system of elementary educa- tion in which the Finns obviously took pride. 45

In effect, Stasjulevi~ had printed both pieces as part of an argument which he had waged since the early 1860s when as a bureaucrat in the Ministry of Educa- tion he had helped draw up Russia's first statute on elementary education and at that time opposed granting the Church any responsibility for elementary schools in the countryside.

While Vestnik Evropy urged Finland as a model for Russia, withdrawing from direct defense of Finnish privileges, it also withdrew from involvement with the Svecomans. In fact, there is some indication that at least briefly, in 1897-1898, the journal sided with the Fennomans in their conflict with the Swedish- speaking minority.

In his month in Helsinki, S. Vasjukov (p. 669) had noted the growing inde- pendence of the Finns from the Swedes, to the benefit of the former. Similarly, D.D. Protopopov, who described the seim of 1897 for Vestnik Evropy, provided a detailed account of the language question which had dominated the assembly. 46 Writing under the pseudonym P.D., 47 he revealed that the language question was the most obvious symptom of social cleavage in Finland whose divisions the seim itself could not help but mirror.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

136 Journal o f Baltic Studies

A few years before, Protopopov had compiled the propagandistic collection Finlyandiya. Among those who had aided him with that project were members of Finland's Swedish speaking minority whose privileges Protopopov now con- demned. The Svecomans, he admitted, held "progressive views" on questions of religion and the rights of Jews and women. But the landowning nobility, many of the bureaucrats, the wealthy merchants, by and large Swedish speaking, have "in their time rubbed over the Finns as much as they could . . . . ,,a8

Protopopov's picture of the seim, stymied in its work and bitterly divided on ethnic lines, was a far cry from Stasyulevich's idealistic description of 1891 or Arsen'ev's sanguine assessment of a few years before that "equality of rights be- tween Finns and Swedes is almost a completed fact . . . . ,,49 Still, Protopopov was not entirely negative. The insufficiencies of the seim, he claimed, must be sought "in the rapid growth of the country. But even the existing government is a benefit to every Finn . . . . " (p.252).

lII

Vestnik Evropy's comments at the outset of the Bobrikov era continued to ignore or minimize the threat to Finland just as it had done when Nicholas II neglected to guarantee Finnish privileges at the very beginning of his reign. Arsen'ev expressed surprise at the rejoicing of the patriotic press at Bobrikov's appointment as Governor-General. The rescript of August 1898 announcing the Emperor's selection of a Russian general from the St. Petersburg Military District contained no mention of proposals to undermine Finnish privileges. Nor did Arsen'ev understand why Moskovskie vedomosti labeled as "highly pleasant news" the calling of an extraordinary seim to render an opinion on a new Mili- tary Service Law. After all, the contents of the new law were unknown. 5° In October, when the terms did become available, Arsen'ev observed that still "it is proposed to the seim to express its opinion about the statute in all its parts. ''51

With the last issue of 1898, the journal did acknowledge a new threat. Partly to compensat e for Protopopov's essay, Vestnik Evropy printed a review by Mechelin which recalled Arsen'ev's carefully argued exchanges with Ordin earlier in the decade.

F. P. Elenev, for more than three decades a member of the Ministry of In- terior's Main Administration for Affairs of the Press, had just written an histori- cal critique of Finnish privileges and offered proposals to turn Finland into a group of Russian provinces. 52 Elenev had previously written works about his main preoccupation, the censorship, in which he blamed Russia's problems on journalists controlled by the Jewish "hidden hand. ''So Similarly, he attributed all of Russia's problems in Finland to the secret intrigues of Finnish Swedes.

Mechelin refuted Elenev's arguments one by one, at the end rejecting his con- tention that the Minister State Secretary for Finland must be a Russian. On the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Vestnik Evropy & Finland 137

contrary, Mechelin maintained, by Finnish fundamental law only a Finn can hold this post and only a Finn could be competent to do so. s4 Not only was Mechelin incorrect-Speranskij, who created the post, was the first to hold i t -but worse for Vestnik Evropy, Mechelin's statement could be construed as direct criticism of a recent government appointment. In August 1898 when Bobrikov became Governor-General, Nicholas II appointed the Russian V. K. Pleve Minister State Secretary. Pleve, who like Elenev had worked for years in the Ministry of Interior, may have complained to his fellow bureaucrat; or Elenev, for reasons enough of his own, may have seized the initiative in punishing Vesmik Evropy for Mechelin's essay.

Because of it, in February 1899 Elenev's superior, the Minister of Interior I. L. Goremykin, leveled an official warning at Vestnik Evropy. In 1889 the journal had been warned for an article by Vladimir Solov'ev critical of the Church. Ss A third warning and it would suffer a three month suspension of the right to publish, both a financial and psychological blow.

Throughout the period of Bobrikov's Governor-Generalship when the Russian government made one attempt after another to undermine Finnish autonomy, Vestnik Evropy published very little on the Finnish question and then only what might be termed "safe. ''56 Arsen'ev contented himself with pieces which consisted largely of quotations from government documents like the February Manifesto and the Military Service Law. 57 To keep his readers informed he also borrowed accounts directly from Novoe vrernja and Moskovskie vedomosti when they printed stories on Finnish objections or counter proposals to government decisions, sa

In 1900 Mechelin asked Stasjulevi6 to print an article on Finnish emigration written by two former members of the Finnish Senate. He explained that the piece was designed "to refute false information published by some Russian journals . . , all the more necessary [in] that information with the same tendency was presented to the sovereign. ''59 Stasjulevi~ refused.

When Bobrikov was assassinated in June 1904 Arsen'ev gave the bare facts of the Russian official's death: that Eugene Schauman shot the Governor-General in the crowded Senate and then committed suicide. Arsen'ev also quoted from Finljandska/a gazeta, a newspaper founded by Bobrikov, to explain why the case had been removed from Finnish jurisdiction. The Finnish legal system did not possess adequate means of investigation or flexible courtroom procedures. Arsen'ev left to his readers' imagination how one might solve a crime committed before a score of witnesses and then try a dead man. 6°

Vestnik Evropy did not cease to comment on Finnish affairs with the death of Bobrikov, and Mechelin subsequently found a place on its pages. However, the Finnish question in the era of the Duma is another story.

From the foregoing account of Vestnik Evropy's involvement in the Finnish cause, a number of conclusions arise. Although the journal was highly sym- pathetic to Finland's plight, no working alliance developed between its editor- ship and the Svecoman leaders or, by the same token, with the leaders of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

138 Journal of Baltic Studies

Fennomans. The publication in 1897 of a piece by Yrj6-Koskinen, a leading Fennoman, was an isolated instance and perhaps an indication of temporary dis- sension between Vestnik Evropy and the Svecomans rather than indication of real support for one language group over another. Stasjulevi6 recognized that Mechelin, if able, would use the journal for his own purposes. The editor of Vestnik Evropy retreated from the Finnish cause when expediency demanded it. Precisely that wariness to allow the journal to become a mouthpiece for issues in which he was not directly involved had been one reason enabling Stasjulevi6 to publish regularly since March 1866. Still, the journal offered Finns the com- fort that a segment of the Russian public appreciated Finnish institutions and the prosperity they had fostered.

Vesmik Evropy's support for Finland primarily took the form of debate with Moskovskie vedomosti, Novoe vremja, and in the early 1890s, with Juridideskij letopis'. Direct criticism of government policy was dangerous. The exchanges, moreover, transcended the issues of official policy to which they were ostensibly directed. The debate over Finland was part of a continuing war that Stasjulevi~ and Katkov had waged for years. In the late 1860s and 1870s the issue which divided them had been modern secondary education vs. the classical curriculum. In the 1880s the conflict centered largely on the treatment of religious minori- ties. Katkov always sided with government policy in its conservative forms. The writings of Moskovskie vedomosti, especially evident in the case of Finland, set the tone and atmosphere in which government policy was determined and im- plemented. Its lead articles and feuilletons intimidated and ridiculed the op- position. One way for Strasjulevi~ to criticize government policy and urge re- form was to fuhninate against Katkov's position.

Similarly, Vestnik Evropy had almost from its inception praised reform in Western countries as examples by which the government could model progress in Russia. Not surprisingly, Arsen'ev saw in Finland the same possibility. It might therefore be argued that Finland's importance for Vestnik Evropy was ultimately that of a tool for special purposes rather than a problem in its own right.

At the same time it should be remembered that Arsen'ev came late in his career to the Finnish question. Katkov had been familiar with the issue for at least two decades before Arsen'ev began to confront it. Katkov, in addition, was able to argue knowledgeably about the complicated issue of the separate Finnish tariff. Arsen'ev, on the contrary, was not prepared to defend Finland until Kat- kov's death and Ordin's introduction of theoretical problems of legality and historical precedence as they related to the Finnish question. Such issues con- formed to the concerns of one of Russia's most renowned jurists, but were not always relevant to government policy toward Finland.

The question naturally arises, how effective was each side in communicating its message. For the most part one must say that communication took place within each camp and not across the ideological barriers dividing them.

Among Russian liberals, Peter Struve, a prominent advocate of Finnish con-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Vestnik Evropy & Finland 139

sti tutional rights, has testified about the impact of Vestnik Evropy at the end of the nineteenth century. In 1907 on the occasion of Arsen'ev's li terary jubilee, Struve wrote him: 61 "I would like to tell you how much I owe to you in my political development both as an individual and as a representative of that

Russian youth which in the 1880s and 1890s learned so much from the Mes- senger o f Europe." Presumably Struve included his position on the Finnish ques- tion in his debt to Arsen'ev. Arsen'ev in turn had learned much from Mechelin. Initially unsophisticated in his approach, under Mechelin's tutelage, he quickly grasped the historical and juridical fine points de rigueur for the debate in the press on the Finnish question.

In contrast, neither the Russian liberals nor their Finnish counterparts seemed able to grasp the ominous message communicated at the accession of Nicholas II yet readily understood by the patriotic press. Arsen'ev instead ceased to de- fend Finland directly, but wrote about the Grand Duchy's institutions as an ex- ample for the Russian provinces. Protopopov, moreover, revealed that the Finns themselves entered the Bobrikov period divided and immersed in the language question to the exclusion of all else. The Finns, like the editorial board of Vestnik Evropy, enjoyed the illusion of security by minimizing the threat posed by Nicholas II 's accession.

During Bobrikov's Governor-Generalship when Finland faced the severest trials it had experienced since 1885, the censorship largely forced Vestnik Evropy from the fight. Still, the journal had given the Finns support and an outlet when both were needed. Russian liberals had gained too. The exposure to Finnish institutions in the formative period of Russian liberalism enhanced the lessons learned in Russia's own organs of self-government. Such training would acquire even greater significance when political parties began to form in Russia and open

political activity became possible within the Empire as a whole.

NOTES

1 Pp. 192-3 in P.O. Morozov, "Finskaja literatura v ee pro~lom i nastojagdem," Vestnik Evropy, 1902, Vol. 4, pp. 187-228.

2 G. D. Kornilov, Russko-Finl/andskie tamo~ennye otnogeni/a v konce XIX-na&le XX v. (L., 1971), 52.

3 See my "Finland in the Russian Empire, 1809-1917," Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, XI (1979), 156-7. Precisely Finland's economic prosperity motivated the Tsar. He sought to engage the seim in levying new taxes in order to shore up Russian finances undermined by the Crimean War.

4 See K. Korhonen, "Autonomous Finland in the Political Thought of Nineteenth Century Russia," Turun yliopiston julkaisuja, B 105 (1967), 54-56.

5 Moskovskie vedomosti, 10 & 18 Sept. 1863; Nos. 196 & 202. 6 Korhonen, 59. 7 Kornilov, 53-54. 8 Korhonen, 54. 9 P. 420 in K. K. Arsen'ev, "Russkaja pe6at' o Finljandii," VE, 1885, Vol. 5, pp. 420-4.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

140 Journal o f Baltic Studies

10 P. 876 in K. K. Arsen'ev, "Konstitucija Finljandii," VE, 1887, Vol. 6, pp. 876-81. 11 For an account of Arsen'ev's education in the School of Jurisprudence see his "Vospom-

inanija K. K. Arsen'eva ob U6ili~6e pravovedenija, 1849-1855 gg.," Russkaja starina, 50 (1886), 199-220. See also p. 456 of his "Vospominanija o V.D. Spasovi6e," VE, 1906, Vol. 6, pp. 456-61, for an account of his work with the Ministry's Journal.

12 P. 247 in A. F. Koni, "K. K. Arsen'ev," Russkaja starina, 133 (1908), 244-55. 13 Arsen'ev, "Vospominanii o V. D. Spasovi6e," 457. 14 K. K. Arsen'ev, "Avtobiografija," CGALI, f. 40, op. 1, ed xr. 14, U. 4, 6, 7, 10, 12-29.

See also p. 246 of V. E. Rubakov, "Jubilej K. K. Arsen'eva," Istori~eskij vestnik, 111 (1908), 243-57.

15 P. 66 in L. Suni, "Finljandsko-russko torgovlye otno~enija v vtoroj polovine XIX veka, (1858-1885)," Tartu riikliku iilikooli toimetised, 135 (1963), 3-174.

16 Moskovskie vedomosti, 4 & 5 March 1883, Nos. 63-64. 17 Moskovskie vedomosti, 19 June & 13 July 1883, Nos. 168 & 173. 18 Kornilov, 55. 19 Korhonen, 85. 20 "Russkaja pe~at' o Finljandii," 423. 21 "Konstitucija Finljandii," 876. 22 "Konstitucija Finljandii," 877-9. 23 M. Lemke, ed., M. M. Stasjulevik i ego sovremenniki v ix perepiske, V (SPb., 1913),

424 (1 Feb./20 Jan. 1888). In the Finnish State Archive this letter is dated Jan. 1889. See Mechelins brevsamling 602-37b; b. 63.

24 P. 387 in L. Mechelin, "Otvet g-nu Ordinu," VE, 1888, Vol. 2,383-90. 25 P. 852 in K.K.A., "Novaja kampanija protiv Finljandii . . . . " VE, 1889, Vol. 3, pp.

850-6. 26 Kornilov, 65 & 68. 27 V. V. Poxlebkin, SSSR-Finl]andija: 260 let otnogenij, 1713-1973 (M.: Me~dunarodnye

otno~enija, 1975), 108-9. See also M. Russobtovskij, Istori~eskoe osvek~enie finlfandskogo voprosa (SPb., 1912), 34.

28 Kornilov, 75. 29 Kornilov, 67. 30 Lemke, V, p. 425 (6 Dec. 1890). 31 P. 818 in S. M. [= Stasjulevi6], "Trudy finljandskogo sejma," VE, 1891, Vol. 2, pp.

814-23. 32 Pp. 940 & 942 in [K.K.A.], " 'O~iv~ija u~re~denija' Finljandii i g. Korkunov," VE,

1891, Vol. 1,940-9. 33 P. 455 in [K.K.A.], "Finljandskaja ugolovnoe ulo~enie . . . . " VE, 1891, Vol. 2, pp.

452-64. 34 [K.K.A.], "Zakritie finljandskogo sejma," VE, 1891, Vol. 3, pp. 840-1. 35 "N.S, Tagancev," Enciklopedi6eskij slovar', 32 (SPb., 1895), 471. 36 "N. M. Korkunov," 'E'nciklopedi~eskij slovar', 12 (SPb., 1895), 264. 37 [K.K.A.], " . . . Finljandskij sejm," VE, 1894, Vol. 1,922-3. 38 Russobtovskij, 33. 39 Lemke, V, p. 434 (21 Oct. 1894). 40 See P. Silovskij, Akty otnos]a~ies]a k politi~eskomu polo~enii Finl/andii (SPb., 1903),

10-15. 41 [K.K.A.], "Manifest 25-go oktjabrja po delam finljandskim," VE, 1894, Vol. 6 ,898. 42 VE, 1891, Vol. 4, pp. 377-8. 43 P. 674 in S. Vasjukov, "Mesjac v Gel'singforse: zametki turista," VE, 1897, Vol. 5,

664-91. 44 Kn. Dm. Druckij-Sokol'ninskij, "Narodnaja ]kola v. derevne," VE, 1897, Vol. 4, 780-

801.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014

Vestnik Evropy & Fi n l and 141

45 N. K. Yrj6-Koskinen, "Narodnaja lkola v. Finljandii, v gorode i v derevne," VE, 1898, Vol. 4,775-94.

46 P. D. [= D.D. Protopopov], "Finljandskij sejm i ego trudy," VE, 1897, Vol. 4, pp. 240- 62.

47 See I. F. Masanov, Slovar'psevdonimov, 2 (M., 1957), 316. 48 Protopopov, 243 & 245. 49 "Russkaja pe6at' o Finljandii," 422. 50 [K.K.A.], "Novyj finljandskij general-gubernator," VE, 1898, Vol. 5,869-72. 51 [K.K.A.], "Osoboe soveg6anie po voprosu o voinskoj povinnosti v Finljandii," VE,

1898, Vol. 6,432-4. 52 P. 808 in L. Mechelin, "Novaja kniga g-na F. Eleneva i popravki k nej," VE, 1898, Vol.

6,808-31. 53 See D. M. O'Flaherty, Preface to V. V. Vodovozov, Materialy difa xarakteristiki polo-

~eni]a russko] pe~ati, Zeneva, 1898 (Cambridge: Oriental Research Part nets, 1972). 54 Mechelin, 830. 55 Pp. 228-9 in K. Arsen'ev, "Vzgljad na pro~loe 'Vestnika Evropy'," VE, 1909, Vol. 1,

216-232. 56 For an explanation and discussion of Russian policy under Bobrikov see my "The Pol-

itics of Frustration: The Governor-Generalship of N. I. Bobrikov in Finland, 1898-1904," JBS, 7 (1976), 231-46.

57 E.g., VE, 1899, Vol. 2, pp. 353-4 & 1901, Vol. 4, pp. 779-800. 58 E.g., VE, 1899, Vol. 2, pp. 796-800 & Vol. 3, pp. 796-7. 59 Lemke, V, 426 (30 Apr. 1900). The original letter can be found in the Finnish State

Archive: Mechelins brevsamling 602-37b; b. 68. where it is dated "1900?" 60 K.K.A., "Kon~ina finljandskogo general-gubernatora N.I. Bobrikova," VE, 1904, Vol.

4,345-6. 61 R. Pipes, Struve, Liberal on the Left (Harvard Univ. Press, 1971), 24 & 365.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

cast

le U

nive

rsity

] at

08:

49 2

0 D

ecem

ber

2014