Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Man and Culture
Reference:

Methods of interaction of Russian conservatives with society and government. The question of the status of the Grand Duchy of Finland at the beginning of the XX century

Shcherbakov Mikhail Urievich

ORCID: 0009-0004-3344-4609

Postgraduate student, Department of Russian History, State University of Education

24 Vera Voloshina str., Mytishchi, Moscow region, 141014, Russia

burundym@yandex.ru

DOI:

10.25136/2409-8744.2024.3.70614

EDN:

UVRFFK

Received:

29-04-2024


Published:

17-05-2024


Abstract: The subject of the study is the change in the methods of interaction of the Russian conservative trend with society and government structures within the framework of the anti-Finnish discourse in the early twentieth century. The author examines in detail such aspects of the topic as the return of the "Finnish question" to Russian journalism after the assassination of Alexander II by the People's Deputies and a sharp change in the internal political course of the government; the influence of right-wing monarchical organizations (especially the "Russian Assembly") on the spread of anti-Finnish sentiments in Russian society and senior government circles; the actualization of the "Finnish question" in the context of the actions of the tsarist government by incorporation of the outskirts. Special attention is paid to the transition of anti-Finlandic sentiments from the plane of public controversy on the pages of Russian magazines into the practical activities of Russian officials to limit the autonomous rights of the Grand Duchy of Finland. The main content of the research methodology is the study from the point of view of objectivity and historicism of materials giving an idea that the strengthening of anti-Finlandic sentiments among representatives of the right-wing radical spectrum of the Russian social movement, which was caused by revolutionary shifts in the life of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century. The main conclusions of the study are: 1) disagreements over the status of the Grand Duchy of Finland became part of the ideological and practical confrontation between different social groups in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century; 2) the vector of Russian policy regarding the autonomous rights of Finland is changing, and this problem is again becoming part of the information agenda, mainly in conservative publications. The author's special contribution to the research of the topic is to identify the reasons for the change in the nature of the discussion of the status of Finland in the context of serious changes in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century. The novelty of the research lies in the analysis of the events of a crucial historical stage, when the activation of the revolutionary and national liberation movement caused a tendency to strengthen pro-monarchist groups seeking to counter the destructive anti-state challenges in the national issue of the idea of preserving the state.


Keywords:

the Finnish question, Russification of Finland, Russian conservatives, the national question, anti-Finnish sentiments, status of Finland, right-wing monarchists, incorporation, Russian journalism, Finnish separatism

This article is automatically translated.

Introduction

The assassination attempt on Alexander II ("execution of the emperor" on March 1, 1881) seriously changed the nature of the conservative wing of Russian socio-political thought and led to an increased influence of this trend on government officials and its organizational design. In historical science, this will be called "right-wing conservatism", the radicalization of the methods of activity of which will manifest itself, for example, in the work of the right-monarchical organization "Sacred Squad", which imposed death sentences on some public figures in Russia.

In 1901, the first legal monarchical organizations in Russia were formed: In St. Petersburg, it was a Russian assembly and in Moscow — a "Circle of Moscow nobles loyal to the oath", who saw the purpose of their activities as opposition to liberals and revolutionaries, including in politics towards the national outskirts [1, p. 30]. During the First Russian Revolution, the far-right will unite around the parties "Union of the Russian People" and "Union of Mikhail the Archangel", and the leaders of this trend will be K. P. Pobedonostsev, N. E. Markov, V. M. Purishkevich, V. V. Shulgin and others.

K. P. Pobedonostsev wrote: "One of the most false political principles is the beginning of democracy, the idea, unfortunately, that has been established since the French Revolution, that all power comes from the people and has its foundation in the will of the people. Hence the theory of parliamentarism, which ... unfortunately penetrated into the Russian mad heads" [2, p. 67].

The main part

The intensification of the revolutionary and national liberation movements in Russia has caused a tendency to strengthen pro-monarchist groups seeking to counter destructive anti-state tendencies, including in the national issue, the idea of preserving the state and traditional values, including in the form of conservative orthodox ideology, which was perceived by both contemporaries and historians as a form of "right-wing radicalism" [3, p. 15; 4].

For Russian conservatives, the main enemies of the existing system were revolutionaries and actively asserting themselves national groups representing the interests of the outskirts of the empire. Supporters of orthodox conservatism, in an effort to preserve the existing state of affairs, at all costs sharply rejected the basic ideas about the possibility of parliamentarism and the constitution in Russia [5]. Representatives of the right-wing forces saw their task as protecting the state system, i.e. preventing the diminution of the rights of the autocrat. The confrontation with left-wing, liberal and moderately conservative forces led to the fact that right-wing conservative forces began to use radical methods of struggle, for example, terror: according to contemporaries and researchers, they could be behind the attempts on a number of famous political figures (S. Y. Witte, M. Ya. Herzenstein, G. B. Iollos and some others) [6, pp. 205-221].

Disagreements over the status of the Grand Duchy of Finland became part of the ideological and practical confrontation between different social groups in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century. Already in the 2nd half of the 19th century, Russian liberals defended the special status and rights of Finland, taking into account the historical and legal features of its entry into the empire. Moreover, the liberal discourse saw in the special conditions of existence of a number of suburbs of the Russian Empire a desirable option for the development of the country in economic and political terms. Russian liberal publications (for example, Vestnik Evropy and Golos) They pointed out the positive aspects of the development of the Grand Duchy of Finland, which were the result of its special status and autonomous rights.

The main critic of the special status in the post-reform period was the publicist N. M. Katkov, who pointed out the main contradictions in this issue and laid the foundations of anti-Finnish sentiments in Russian conservative circles. At the same time, the tsarist government did not support such discussions and even tried to stop them until a certain time. But in the 1890s, the vector of Russian policy regarding the autonomous rights of Finland changed. This problem is once again becoming part of the information agenda, mainly in conservative publications [7, pp. 91-104].

L. A. Tikhomirov was the successor of M. N. Katkov's case as the editor of Moskovsky Vedomosti. Tikhomirov's main work "Monarchical Statehood" (1905) was a continuation of his work "Sole power as a principle of the state structure" (M., 1897). It focused on identifying the essence of the monarchical principle and the content of monarchical policy. Tikhomirov called the nation, the supreme power, the state (the totality of the supreme power and the nation), the government (the management system created by the supreme power) elements of the state structure. Tikhomirov saw the difference between the supreme power and the governmental (governing) one in that the former is united, concentrated and indivisible, the latter generates a division of powers (into legislative, judicial and executive). The development of society can lead to the realization of the principle of government representation and self-government. In the first case, there is a "bureaucratic government, where officials, like parliamentary politicians, represent the will of the supreme power. This, of course, is the same fiction as under parliamentary rule, with the difference that in one case the subject of falsification is the will of the monarch, and in the other the will of the people. Bureaucracy and parliamentarism, therefore, always go hand in hand, and parliamentarism, in theory, is even the natural end of bureaucracy" [8, p. 59].

In fact, the main idea of the author, in addition to a deep historical digression, was to prove that the monarchical form of government is the highest and most effective. At the same time, he noted that "the difficulty of the emergence and maintenance of the monarchy consists only in the fact that it requires the presence of a living and universally shared moral ideal in the nation" [8, p. 668]. L. A. Tikhomirov's book was written during the First Russian Revolution, the author himself understood the dangers of social chaos, revolutions and national movements to society. Tikhomirov will actively develop these ideas in his journalism after the end of the First Russian Revolution, pointing out that Russia is weakening morally and materially, losing its unifying idea and moving towards disaster.

The Moskovskie Vedomosti, headed by Tikhomirov, periodically returned to the "Finnish question". As B. I. Yesin established, for example, in 1909. The Moscow Gazette repeatedly addressed the issue of Finnish separatism: "So, on July 26, 1909, the article "Preparations for an uprising in Finland" was published. It reported that the Finnish revolutionary community "Voima" is not only flourishing, but is preparing a general strike and a revolutionary uprising with the aim of separating from Russia" [9, p. 55]. And in 1910, the newspaper, led by Tikhomirov, would enter into a polemic with the Russian Vedomosti, which it would accuse of sympathizing with the Finnish separatists.

As already mentioned, at the beginning of the twentieth century, the organizational formation of right-wing organizations took place. One of them (the Russian Assembly) will take an active part in the discussion of the Finnish question. A. P. Petukhova identified two main directions in the activities of this organization: discussion of the problems of national suburbs and the development of a certain ideology in this direction, as well as practical activities for the implementation of national policy [7, pp. 169, 171]. A feature of the work of this organization was its active influence on practical decision-making, providing its own conclusions on various issues [10, p. 140].

Russian Russian Assembly, as one of its founders, included General M. M. Borodkin, who was among the Russian publicists who dealt with the Finnish issue. Russian Russians later became one of the organizers of the newspaper "The Outskirts of Russia", the purpose of which was a thorough study of the suburbs "to help strengthen Russian principles and Russian statehood in them" [11].

A. P. Petukhova highlights the special role of M. M. Borodkin in the consideration of Finnish issues in the Russian Assembly: "Based on the publications and information provided by him, the main resolutions on this issue were developed. Borodkin sat on the council of the assembly, made reports, opened local departments (in particular, in Kharkov), was published in periodicals" [7, p. 170].

Several influential officials of the tsarist administration who could influence the government unite around the Russian Assembly, for example, a member of the State Council, professor of law N. D. Sergeeevsky (he will also be one of the organizers of the newspaper "Outskirts of Russia"), S. V. Sturmer, E. V. Bogdanovich, A. N. Lobanov-Rostovsky, N. A. Myasoedov, A. A. Shirinsky-Shikhmatov and others.

Such a social structure played a significant role in changing attitudes towards Russification and incorporation of the Finnish outskirts. As part of the discussions, proposals were made to amend and unify Finnish legislation, revise personnel policy, and change the management system.

The intensification of the activities of the right-wing conservative wing of the Russian social movement would not have been possible if it had not coincided with the strict government policy of reducing marginal liberties. This is the fundamental difference between the "Finnish policy" of the Russian autocracy of the early twentieth century from previous historical periods, when attempts at incorporation were carried out in a rather cautious mode or were not brought to their goals due to the passive resistance of the Finnish bureaucracy [12].

After the appointment of N. I. Bobrikov as Governor-General of Finland, a number of steps were taken to incorporate the Grand Duchy, which caused serious resistance in Finnish society [13]. On February 3, 1899, a Manifesto was issued, which asserted the supremacy of the Emperor in matters of issuing Finnish laws affecting all-Russian interests without the approval of the Seimas. Since the law enforcement practice of this Manifesto could encroach on the autonomous rights of the principality and the resolution of issues of local importance, this caused mass protests. Later, this manifesto allowed Emperor Nicholas II to sign a new Military Charter on June 29, 1901, without the approval of the Sejm, which abolished national military formations and extended to Finland the principles of conscription, which assumed the service of Finns in the Russian army.

The next step was the policy of Russification of Finland (a special manifesto was signed on June 7, 1900), which was supposed to translate the education system and office management in the administrative and political sphere into Russian. Researchers, as a rule, are skeptical about the results of this reform, which caused passive resistance among the Finnish population.

Conclusion

The steps taken by the government of Nicholas II to incorporate and Russify the Finnish outskirts were an expression of the long-term aspirations of individual representatives of the Russian conservative intelligentsia, who throughout the post-reform period tried to impose on the imperial authorities the idea of limiting the autonomous rights of the principality and unifying its legislation with the laws of the Russian Empire. The events of the First Russian Revolution will actually cancel out these efforts, making Finland one of the problematic parts of the empire. Nevertheless, attempts by Russian right-wing conservative organizations to limit the autonomy of the Grand Duchy of Finland will continue until the February Revolution of 1917.

References
1. Basmanov, M. I., Gusev, K. V., & Polushkina, V. A. (1988). Cooperation and struggle: From the experience of the CPSU's relations with non-proletarian and non-communist parties. Moscow: Politizdat.
2. Pobedonostsev, K. (1993). The Great Lie of our time. In Homeland, 4, 66-71.
3. Aksyutin, Yu. V., Volobuev, O. V., & Danilov A. A. (Ed.). (1995). The government and the opposition. The Russian political process of the twentieth century. Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia.
4. Izgoev, A. S. (1909). «Right-wing terrorists». Russian thought, 10, 172-181.
5. Pobedonostsev, K. P. (1901). Moscow collection. 5th ed. Moscow: Synodal type.
6. Stepanov, S. (2005). The Black Hundred. 2nd ed. Moscow: Publishing house «Eksmo», publishing house «Yauza».
7. Petukhova, A. P. (2022). The Russian national movement and the Finnish question in the second half of the XIX – early XX century: dissertation of the Candidate of Historical Sciences: 5.6.1. Moscow State University named after M. V. Lomonosov. Moscow.
8. Tikhomirov, L. A. (1992). Monarchical statehood. St. Petersburg: [Russian Imperial Union-Order of JSC «Complex»].
9. Yesin, B. I. (2013). «Moskovskie Vedomosti» edited by L. Tikhomirov. 1909. Bulletin of the Moscow University. Journalism, 3, 52-56.
10. Kiryanov, Yu. I. (2003). Russian meeting, 1900–1917. Moscow: ROSSPAN.
11. Myakinin, O. V., & Ryabova, L. K. (2012). The position of the right forces in relation to the «Finnish question» on the pages of the newspaper «Outskirts of Russia» (1906–1912). In Vihavainen, T., Kashchenko, S. G. (Ed.). Helsingfors – St. Petersburg: Pages of history (the second half of the XIX – the beginning XX century): Collection of articles, pp. 145-166. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press.
12. Krot, M. N. (2022). «To strengthen the state connection between the Grand Duchy and the Empire...»: attempts to incorporate Finland into the Russian imperial space in the late XIX – early XX centuries. In Gromova, A. V., Neganov, S. V. (Ed.). Under the scepter of the Romanovs: to the 300th anniversary of the proclamation of Russia as an Empire: Materials of a scientific and practical conference (Kaliningrad, June 4, 2021, Perm, June 14–15, 2021, Kazan, July 22, 2021). Kaliningrad, Perm, Kazan, pp. 91-106.
13. Polvinen, T. (1997) Derzhava and the outskirts. N. I. Bobrikov – Governor-General of Finland 1898–1904. St. Petersburg: European House.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

There is an opinion that in Russia reforms are being replaced by counter-reforms, which is due, among other things, to the confrontation between conservative and liberal forces. The changes in the alignment of socio-political forces were especially pronounced on the example of the marginal regions of pre-revolutionary Russia, including on the territory of the Grand Duchy of Finland, which enjoyed serious autonomy during its century-long stay in Russia. These circumstances determine the relevance of the article submitted for review, the subject of which is the question of the status of the Grand Duchy of Finland at the beginning of the 20th century in the discourse of the liberal and conservative forces of the Russian Empire. The author sets out to identify the main personalities who sought to change the special status of Finland, analyze the main trends in the incorporation of the region, and determine the results of these efforts. The work is based on the principles of analysis and synthesis, reliability, objectivity, the methodological basis of the research is a systematic approach, which is based on the consideration of the object as an integral complex of interrelated elements. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the very formulation of the topic: the author, based on various sources, seeks to characterize the methods of interaction between Russian conservatives with society and the authorities on the example of the question of the status of the Grand Duchy of Finland. Considering the bibliographic list of the article, its versatility should be noted as a positive point: in total, the list of references includes 13 different sources and studies. From the sources attracted by the author, we note the works of K.P. Pobedonostsev and L.A. Tikhomirov. Of the studies used, we will point to the works of A.P. Petukhova, O.V. Myakinin and L.K. Ryabova, whose focus is on various aspects of studying the position of the right forces in relation to the Finnish question. Note that the bibliography is important both from a scientific and educational point of view: after reading the text of the article, readers can turn to other materials on its topic. In general, in our opinion, the integrated use of various sources and research contributed to the solution of the tasks facing the author. The style of writing the article can be attributed to a scientific one, at the same time understandable not only to specialists, but also to a wide readership, to anyone interested in both the history of the conservative forces of Russia in general and their attitude to the national outskirts in particular. The appeal to the opponents is presented at the level of the collected information received by the author during the work on the topic of the article. The structure of the work is characterized by a certain logic and consistency, it can be distinguished by an introduction, the main part, and conclusion. At the beginning, the author defines the relevance of the topic, shows that "the ideological and practical confrontation between different social groups in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century was disagreement over the status of the Grand Duchy of Finland." The paper shows that "The activation of the activities of the right-wing conservative wing of the Russian social movement would not be possible if it did not coincide with the strict government policy of reducing marginal liberties." The author pays special attention to the activities of such a right-wing organization as the Russian Assembly. The main conclusion of the article is that "the steps taken by the government of Nicholas II to incorporate and Russify the Finnish outskirts were an expression of the long-term aspirations of individual representatives of the Russian conservative intelligentsia, who throughout the post-reform period tried to impose on the imperial authorities the idea of limiting the autonomous rights of the principality and unifying its legislation with the laws of the Russian Empire." The article submitted for review is devoted to an urgent topic, will arouse readers' interest, and its materials can be used both in lecture courses on the history of Russia and in various special courses. At the same time, there are comments on the article: 1) It is necessary to proofread the text, eliminating some typos: "the publicist N. M. Katkova was a critic of a special status in the post-reform period," and also pay attention to the display of footnotes (footnote 10). 2) The author calls Finland an enclave of the Russian Empire, which contradicts the traditional understanding of the term enclave. After correcting these comments, the article can be recommended for publication in the journal "Man and Culture".

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the study is indicated in the title and explained by the author in the text of the article. The research methodology is based on general scientific principles (analysis, synthesis, induction and deduction, description and others) and special historical methods. The work uses historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological, historical-systemic, concrete-historical, historical-chronological and other methods. Relevance. One of the most important issues in the multinational Russian state was and remains the national question. Currently, this issue remains relevant and attention is being paid to finding a compromise between the civil and ethnic expression of national identity. Therefore, it is important to study the historical experience of the national policy of the Russian state in different historical periods and especially in the early twentieth century, when this issue was considered by all political movements and various parties, the government and society. Scientific novelty is determined by the formulation of the problem and the objectives of the study. The novelty of the reviewed article is also due to the fact that the article comprehensively and systematically examines the issue of the formation of a conservative right-monarchist ideology, organizations adhering to this ideology and their interaction with the government and society. Style, structure, content. The style of the article is generally scientific, but at the same time understandable to a wide range of readers. The structure of the work is aimed at achieving the purpose of the article and the objectives of the study and consists of an introduction, the main part and a conclusion. The introduction shows the causes and factors of the emergence and institutionalization of the right-wing monarchist ideology and notes the influence of the assassination attempt on Alexander II. The main part of the work shows what ideological trends were in Russian society at the end of the XIX century and notes that Russian conservatives were in favor of preserving the existing system, rejected the ideas of parliamentarism and the constitution, and considered revolutionaries and various national groups representing the interests of the periphery of the Russian Empire, primarily Finland, to be the main enemies of the country. It is noted that the right-wing conservatives, in their struggle to preserve the existing system and government, were ready for radical methods of struggle. The article analyzes the views of the main ideologists of the conservatives and their most prominent representatives, N. M. Katkov and L. A. Tikhomirov. The most consistent supporter of the conservatives was N.M. Katkov, who laid the "foundations of anti-Finnish sentiments in Russian conservative circles." It is noted that the tsarist government initially did not support anti-Finnish sentiments, but the development of events at a later time made adjustments in the attitude of the authorities to this issue. The article shows how the organizational design of right-wing organizations and especially the Russian Assembly went, names of people who were members of it are named and it is noted that some of them could influence members of the government to one degree or another. The article emphasizes that the activation of "the activities of the right-wing conservative wing of the Russian social movement" took place during a period when the government began to pursue a tougher course towards the suburbs. And it is noted that "the "Finnish policy" of the Russian autocracy at the beginning of the twentieth century"differed from previous historical periods when attempts at incorporation were carried out in a rather cautious mode or were not brought to their goals due to the passive resistance of the Finnish bureaucracy." In conclusion, objective conclusions on the topic of the study are presented and the author writes that the actions of Nicholas II "on the incorporation and Russification of the Finnish outskirts" of the intelligentsia, who throughout the post-reform period tried to impose on the imperial authorities the idea of limiting the autonomous rights of the principality and unifying its legislation with the laws of the Russian Empire." But the subsequent events of the early twentieth century led to the fact that the policy of Nicholas II led to Finland becoming one of the parts of the Russian Empire. The author emphasizes that Russian right-wing conservative organizations continued their attempts to limit the autonomy of the Grand Duchy of Finland "until the February Revolution of 1917""The bibliography of the work consists of 13 different sources from different years (these are works of the pre-revolutionary, Soviet and post-Soviet periods on the topic of research and related topics). The bibliography is well designed. The appeal to the opponents is presented in the information received by the author during the work on the article. Conclusions, the interest of the readership. The article is written on a topical topic and will be of interest not only to specialists, but also to a wide range of readers.