1 See, e.g., G. L. Geison, “Introduction” in G. L. Geison, ed., Professions and the French State 170O-1900, 1–12 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984); D. Rueschemeyer, Power and the Division of Labour 120–24 (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1986); R. Collins, “Changing Conceptions in the Sociology of Professions” in R. Torstendahl & M. Burrage, eds., The Formation of Professions 15–18 (London: Sage Publications, 1990); K. Jarausch, “The German Professions in History and Theory” in G. Cocks & K. H. Jarausch, eds., Germun Professions 1800–1950, 9–26 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) (“Cocks & Jarausch, German Professions”).Google Scholar

2 See J. Blum, The End of the Old Order in Rural Europe (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978) (“Blum, End of Old Order”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 Very few studies and no major sociological attempts at explanation have been made concerning 19th-century lawyers in Finland, although their central position in that society is highly evident. Brief overviews of the position of lawyers and specific aspects of the legal profession in the 19th century can be found in the context of various studies.Google Scholar

4 See, e.g., J. Berlant, Profession and Monopoly: A Study of Medicine in the United States and Great Britain (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975); N. Parry & J. Parry, The Rise of the Medical Profession (London: Croom Helm, 1976); G. Larkin, Occupational Monopoly and Modern Medicine (London: Tavistock Publications, 1983).Google Scholar

5 P. Manninen, Selvitys Suomen elinkeinorakenteesta ja sen tutkimuksesta 1820–1870, 81 (Suomen työväenliikkeen historia-projektin selvityksiä 1) (Helsinki, 1976).Google Scholar

6 K. Wirilander, Herrasvákeä Suomen säätyläistö 1721–1870, 142 (The Finnish Gentry 1721–1870) (Historiallisia tutkimuksia 93) (Helsinki, 1974) (“Wirilander, Herrasvakeä”).Google Scholar

7 M. Noponen, Kansanedustajien sosiaalinen tausta Suomessa 25 (Porvoo & Helsinki: WSOY, 1964).Google Scholar

8 Legal studies were pursued at Turku Academy, the only university in Finland up to the 20th century (transferred to Helsinki in 1828), from its inception in 1640. University education of higher officials in the courts became fairly common at the end of the 17th century.Google Scholar

9 S. Carlsson,” Suomen virkamiehet ja Ruotsin valtakunta 1700—luvulla”in S. E. Åström, Y. Blomstedt, & I. Hakalehto, eds., Nåkokulmia menneisyyteen 158 (Porvoo: WSOY, 1967).Google Scholar

10 Cf. M. Peltonen,” A Bourgeois Bureaucracy? The New Mentality of the Finnish Aristocracy at the Beginning of the Period of Autonomy” (“Peltonen, ‘A Bourgeois Bureaucracy’”), in M. Peltonen, ed., State, Culture and Bourgeoisie. Aspects of the Peculiarity of the Finnish 33–53 (University of Jyväskylä Publications of the Research Unit for Contemporary Culture 13, 1989). See also M. Peltonen,” Valtiollinen yö? Ajatuksia autonomian ajan alun valtion rakentumisesta,” in Kari Pitkinen, ed., Nåkokulmia kriisien ja konfliktien syntyyn, merkitykseen ja kontrolliin 115–25 (Helsinki: Hakapaino, 1987).Google Scholar

11 For a comparative perspective, see P. Anderson, Lineages of the Absolutist State 173–91 (London: Verso, 1980).Google Scholar

12 Blum, End of OId Order 29–34 (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

13 E. Jutikkala, ”Suunrmaanomistuksen historiallinen kehitys Suomessa,”in E. Jutikkala & N. Nikander, Suomen kurtanot ja suurtilat 35–36 (Suomalaisen kirjallisuuden seura) (Helsinki, 1939); R. Alapuro, State and Revolution in Finland 21 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988) (“Alapuro, State and Revolution”).Google Scholar

14 E. Jutikkala, Ståndsamhällets upplösning i Finland 124 (The Dissolution of the Finnish Traditional Order) (Turun historiallinen arkisto) (Turku, 1956) (“Jutikkala, Ståndsamhällets upplösning”).Google Scholar

15 Wirilander, Herrasvakeä 105–6; E. Backman,” Virkamiehistön asema ja yhteiskunnallinen kehitys,” 8 Oikeus 187–202 (1979); on these privileges later in the 1800s, cf. E. Nevanlinna, Virkumiesolomme. Millaiset ne ovat ja millaiset niiden pitäisi olla? (Helsinki: Suomalainen Kustannus Oy Kansa, 1907) (“Nevanlinna, Virkamiesolomme”).Google Scholar

16 Wirilander, Herrasväkeä 192 (cited in note 6).Google Scholar

17 In addition, there was a small number of judicial posts; for a historical perspective on the nobility's privilege with regard to judicial office, cf. Y. Blomstedt, Laamannin-jakihlakunnantuomarin virkojen Läänittäminen ja hoito Suomessa 1500-ja 1600-luvuilla (Historiallisia tutkimuksia LI) (Helsinki, 1958) (“Blomstedt, Laamannin”).Google Scholar

18 Wirilander, Herrasväkeä 185.Google Scholar

19 In the year of the change, 1809, only 4% of the members in the House of Knights had a land estate as their main source of income. In 1863 the proportion was remarkably higher, 27% according to E. Jutikkala, Sääyvaltiopäivien valitsijakunta, vaalit ja koostumus. Suomen kansanedustuslaitoksen historia: Osa IV, 27 (Helsinki: Valtion painatuskeskus, 1974) (“Jutikkala, Sääyvaltiopäivien valitsijakunta”). The increase indicates, above all, the influence of the situation in 1809: When the military collapsed, some of the noblemen had the option of retiring to their land estates.Google Scholar

20 C. von Bonsdorffxy, , “Kejsar Alexander I och finska officerkåren,” 79 Finsk Tidskrift 230(1915).Google Scholar

21 E. Nevanlinna, Suomen rahu-asiain järjestämisestä Porvoon valtiopäiviä lähinnä seuranneina vuosina 136–37 (Helsinki: WSOY, 1899); K. Wirilander, Suomen upseeriperheiden sijoittuminen vuoden 1809 jälkeiseen yhteiskuntaan 104–17 (Historiallinen aikakauskirja, 1955).Google Scholar

22 For a discussion on Finnish noble officers in the Russian army, see J. Screen,” The Entry of Finnish Officers into Russian Military Service 1809–1917,” 287–89 (Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1976).Google Scholar

23 On the importance of the bureaucracy for the nobility, see Alapuro, State and Revolution 20–21 (cited in note 13).Google Scholar

24 K. Rauhala, Keisarillisen Suomen senaatti 1809–1909, 33 (Helsinki: Otava, 1915); Jutikkala, Ståndsamhällets upplösning 115–16 (cited in note 14).Google Scholar

25 A-L. Mikkeli,” Aatelin osuus Suomen suuriruhtinaskunnan virkamiehistöstä 19. vuosisadalla 42” (The Proportion of the Nobility among the Officials in the Grand Duchy in the 19th Century) (Pro Gradu thesis, University of Helsinki, 1954) (“Mikkeli, ‘Aatelin osuus’”).Google Scholar

26 Alapuro, State and Revolution 25.Google Scholar

27 As an expression of the peculiarity of the class structure, and departing from other European countries, in Sweden, and after 1809 in Finland, the peasantry were also representated in the Diet. However, its political importance was not great, and the representation increased to a certain degree only at the end of the 19th century.Google Scholar

28 The clergy was the next to the nobility. It had grown remarkably in size in the 17th century, dominating the university and public education up to the year 1809. The synonymous term “Learned Estate” simply refers to the totality of the clerical profession and the sphere of education, school, and university teachers. The clergy had, by the end of the 18th century, become sharply divided into lower clergy and clergy aristocracy. A detailed analysis is provided by G. Suolahti, Suomen papisto 1600- ja 1700-luvuilla (Porvoo: WSOY, 1919).Google Scholar

29 B. Wuolle, Suomen teknillinen korkeakouluopetus 1849–1949 (Helsinki: Otava, 1949); T. Särkikoski, Teknisen koulutuksen ristivedot (Helsinki: Insinööriliitto, 1987).Google Scholar

30 Wirilander, Herrasväkeä 445 (cited in note 6).Google Scholar

31 Jutikkala, Sääyvaltiopäivien valitsijakunta 27 (cited in note 19).Google Scholar

32 The following two examples demonstrate the centrality of bureaucratic office in the status structure: (1) An official ranking order, the basis of which was military office—according to which various civil offices were ranked; on it: A. Inkinen, Virka-arvot ja arvonimet Suomessa ennen itsenäisyyden aikaa (Historiallinen arkisto 54, 1954)—functioned, from the end of the 1600s until the turn of the 1900s, as a universal indicator of social status. (2) It was complained (see Wirilander, Herrasväkeä 105) that even “blind admiration” was felt for officeholders so that private entrepreneurship suffered and a man without office was regarded as “worthless.” It may be noted that officials were widely admired in Germany at this time. See J. Kocka, White Collar Workers in America 1890–1940. A Socio-political History in International Perspective 142 (Beverly Hills, Cal.: Sage Publications, 1980).Google Scholar

33 For minor posts, once so-called civil secondary schools were established, the university-examination requirement was dropped in 1856. J. T. Hanho, Suomen oppikoululaitoksen historia. Toinen osa 1809–1872, 126 (Porvoo & Helsinki: WSOY, 1955).Google Scholar

34 M. Mali,” Hallituskonseljin ja senaatin oikeusosaston sekä korkeimman oikeuden toiminnasta ja virkakunnasta” in M. Mali, ed., Korkein oikeus 1809–1959 63 ff. (Helsinki: Valtioneuvoston kirjapaino, 1959).Google Scholar

35 Nevanlinna, Virkaamiesolomme 15–16 (cited in note 15).Google Scholar

36 Cf. M. Klinge,” Yliopisto ja virkamieskoulu” in M. Klinge, R. Knapas, A. Leikola, & J. Strömberg, Keisarillisen Aleksanterin yliopisto 1808–1917, 335–42 (Keuruu: Otava, 1989).Google Scholar

37 Carl von Bonsdorff, Statsmän och dignitären (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland CLIX) (Helsingfors, 1921) (“Bonsdorff, Statsmän och dignitären”).Google Scholar

38 K. Rauhala, Keisarillisen Suomen senaatti 1809–1909, 82–83 (Helsinki: Otava, 1915).Google Scholar

39 See R. S. Wortman, The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness 34–50 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976) (“Wortman, Russian Legal Consciousness”); H-J. Torke,” Administration and Bureaucracy in 19th-Century Russia: The Empire and the Finnish Case” in S. Tiihonen, ed., Institutions and Bureaucrats in the History of Administration. Studies on Administrative History 36–37 (Publications on the Commission of the History of Central Administration in Finland 1, 1989) (Helsinki, 1989) (“Torke, ‘Administration and Bureaucracy’”).Google Scholar

40 See R. Selleck,” The Language Issue in Finnish Political Discussion: 1809–1863,” 41–42 (Ph.D. thesis, Radcliffe College, Cambridge, Mass., 1961) (“Selleck, ‘Language Issue’”).Google Scholar

41 Wirilander, Herrasväkeä E. Konttinen,” Central Bureaucracy and the Restriction of Education in Early Nineteenth-Century Finland” 28–29 (unpublished, 1989). The status function of education seems to have been very high in 19th-century Finland. Low-status professions, such as physicians or teachers, tried to gain higher status in society by promoting their education. The medical profession is a case in point. Lacking any status importance to the leading power groups—the nobility and the clergy—physicians' social position and status were peripheral before 1809. At the beginning of autonomy, to the head of health administration was appointed a Collegium Medicum made up of the scientific elite of medicine and related sciences. This elite promoted the status of medical profession, and one of the means it used was education. The education of a professional physician, with a doctor's degree as a precondition, and progressing in accordance with the 1828 University Statutes, required an average of about 13 years of study (see M. Ruutu, Savo-karjalaisen osakunnan historia II (1857–1887) 50, appendix 4a (Helsinki, 1939). Might this be the world record for professional careers?.Google Scholar

42 Konttinen 27–20.Google Scholar

43 Torke,” Administration and Bureaucracy.”.Google Scholar

44 Cf. G. Suolahti, Tilastollisia tietoja Turun akatemian ylioppilaista 69 (Historiallinen aikakauskirja I, 1903); J. Strömberg,” Ylioppilaat”in M. Klinge, R. Knapas, A. Leikola, J. Stromberg, Kuninkaallinen Turun Akatemiu 1640–1808 291–354 (Keuruu: Otava 1987).Google Scholar

45 E-C. Mäkeläinen, Sääyläisten seuraeläma ja tapakulttuuri 1700-luvun jälkipuoliskolla Turussa, Viaporissa ja kartanoalueilla 78 (Historiallisia tutkimuksia 86) (Helsinki, 1972); also see the data by V. Lagus, Åbo Akademis studentmutrikel (and supplement 1906) (Skrifter utgifna av Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland (Helsingfors, 1890, 1906).Google Scholar

46 An estimate based on Lagus's data.Google Scholar

47 Ojala argues that at chat time “almost without exception” the nobility and higher officials sent their sons to university. H. Ojala, Ensipolven akateemisen sivistyneistön muodostuminen Suomessa vuosina 1859–1899, 337 (Studia Historica Jyväskyläensis I) (Jyväskylä, 1962).Google Scholar

48 However, the nobility had no monopoly on recruitment for posts in administration and the legal profession. The clergy maintained its important role up to the 1840s, and nonnoble officials gained the upper hand during the 1800s. As a narrow stratum (accounting for only 11% of the gentry in 1870 (Wirilander, Herrasuäkeä 129)), the Finnish nobility alone could not fill all the higher administrative posts.Google Scholar

49 For a coherent analysis of the Swedish case, see L. Svensson, Higher Education and the State in Sweden 168–78 (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1987).Google Scholar

50 K. Nousiainen,” Juristietiikan aineellisen perustan tarkastelua” 16 Oikeus 29–38 (1987); D. Gaunt, Utbildning till statens tjänst: En Kollektivbiografi av stormaktstidens hovrättaus-kultanter (Studia historica Upsaliensia 63, Acta Universitatis upsaliensis) (Upsala, 1975).Google Scholar

51 Bonsdorff, Statsmän och dignitären 11–17 (cited in note 37).Google Scholar

52 Wortman, Russian Legal Consciousness 38 (cited in note 39).Google Scholar

53 Selleck,” The Language Issue” 47–50 (cited in note 40).Google Scholar

54 Id. at 47–50.Google Scholar

55 Despite the fact that the nobility had a long history of avoiding university education and thus also juridical education, judicial office was not historically alien to it. Judicial office had fallen into the hands of the nobility by the beginning of the 17th century, but noblemen seldom managed it by themselves; they hired the office mostly to their own servants or others who had the required financial means (see Blomstedt, Laamannin (cited in note 17)). The First Estate lost this privilege later, partly by the Association and Security Act of 1789. At the beginning of the 19th century, only 19% of all judicial administrative posts were occupied by noblemen (Wirilander, Herrasväkeä 445 (cited in note 6)).Google Scholar

56 Quoted in Selleck,” The Language Issue” 47 (cited in note 40).Google Scholar

57 See notes 48 and 54.Google Scholar

58 D. Rueschemeyer,” Comparing Legal Professions: A State-centered Approach”in R. Abel & P. Lewis, eds., Lawyers in Society, Vol. 3, Comparative Theories 302 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989) (“Rueschemeyer, ‘Legal Professions’”).Google Scholar

59 A. Koivumäki, Suomen aatelin edustus autonomian ajan säätyvaltiopäivillä 1863–1906, 61 (Turun yliopiston Suomen historian laitos, sarja B:2) (Turku, 1968).Google Scholar

60 M. Noponen, Kansanedustajien sosiaalinen tausta Suomessa 42–43 (Porvoo & Helsinki: WSOY, 1964).Google Scholar

61 For a detailed analysis of the relationship of the Russian nobility to legal education, see Wortman, Russian Legal Consciousness 8–69.Google Scholar

62 The Finnish Juridical Association was the second nationwide professional association in Finland. The first one was the Finnish Society of Physicians (Finska Läkaresällskapet) which was founded as early as 1835. In the 1860s also the Finnish Pedagogical Association (Pedagogiska Föreningen i Finland), a professional association of secondary school teachers, was founded. More associations were founded in the 1880s and 1890s.Google Scholar

63 See 1 Jur. Föreningens i Finland Tidskrift 1.Google Scholar

64 See 48 Tidskrift utg. av Juridiska Föreningen i Finland 202–7.Google Scholar

65 Peltonen suggests the emergence of economic activities among higher officials as another factor. Peltonen,” A Bourgeois Bureaucracy?” 33–53 (cited in note 10); M. Kuisma,” The Civil Service of Finnish Central Administration in 1809–1984: Problems of Socio-historical Research,”in S. Tiihonen, ed., Institutions and Bureaucrats. Studies on Administrative History 79–82, 80 (Publications of the Commission on the History of Central Administration in Finland No. 1) (Helsinki, 1989).Google Scholar

66 Selleck,” The Language Issue” 70 (cited in note 40).Google Scholar

67 T. Vuorela, Opetusministeriön historia 2. Taantumuksesta uudistuksiin 1825–1868, 132 (Pieksamäki: Sisälähetysseuran kirjapaino, 1980).Google Scholar

68 On the activities of the association, see Grotenfelt, J., “Juridiska Föreningen i Finland 1862–1912,” 48 Tidskrift utg. av Juridiska Föreningen i Finland (1912) 501–70.Google Scholar

69 Cf. Rueschemeyer,” Legal Professions” 309 (cited in note 58).Google Scholar

70 Mikkeli, Aatelin osuus 47–48, 52, 56 (cited in note 25).Google Scholar

71 Inferring from Westerlund's data; see source note for table 5.Google Scholar

72 Cf. Nevanlinna, Virkamiesolomme (cited in note 15).Google Scholar

73 See D. Rueschemeyer, Power and the Division of Labour 309 (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1986).Google Scholar

74 M. Oker-Blom, Till frägan om “läkartätheten” och läkarbehovet i Finland 1 (Suomen Yleinen Lääkäriliitto, tiedonantoja no. 11, 1916).Google Scholar

75 B. Wuolle, Suomen teknillinen korkeakouluopets 1849–1949, 43 (Helsinki: Otava, 1949).Google Scholar

76 This rough estimate is based on the section of population over 14 years of age in 1870, 1.14 million people (according to Wirilander, Herrasväkeä 461 (cited in note 6). If we estimate that the professional stratum had 3,000 members (some professional groups, such as newspaper editors, university teachers, and artists, are not mentioned in table 6), we can account for a little more than 0.5% for the male population over 14 years of age. Taking into account the fact that those between 15 and 20 were too young to function as professional practitioners, we arrive at the end result of 0.7-0.8%.Google Scholar

77 E. Jutikkala,” Sääty-yhteiskunnan hajoaminen,”in E. Jutikkala, ed., Suomen talousja sosiaalihistorian kehityslinjoja 183 (Porvoo: WSOY, 1968); R. Alapuro, Akateeminen Karjala-Seura. Ylioppilasliike ja kansa 1920- ja 1930-luvulla 13 (Helsinki: Helsingin liikekirjapaino, 1973).Google Scholar

78 M. Alestalo & H. Uusitalo, Occupational Prestige and Its Determinants: The Case of Finland (University of Helsinki, Research Group for Comparative Sociology, No. 20) (Helsinki, 1978) (“Alestalo et al., Occupational Prestige”).Google Scholar

79 R. Alapuro & H. Stenius,” Kansanliikkeet loivat kansakunnan”in R. Alapuro et al., eds., Kansa liikkeessä 7, 17 (Vaasa: Vaasa Oy, 1987).Google Scholar

80 Selleck,” The Language Issue” (cited in note 40); also, see Alapuro, State and Revolution (cited in note 13).Google Scholar

81 A rather decisive factor in the victory of the Fennocists was the fact that they received active support from Russia. This seemingly odd Russian support for a nationalist movement is explained by the fact that leading Fennocists were not separatists. They were, furthermore, conservative in the sense that they did not demand deep democratization of political structures (Selleck,” The Language Issue” 171–75; M. Klinge, Ylioppilaskunnan historia 1872–1917: Osa 3: K.P.T.:stä jääkäreihin 114(Vaasa: Vaasa Oy:n kirjapaino, 1978); Alapuro, State and Revolution 95 (cited in note 13). Indeed, in an international comparison, exceptionally strong upper-class character was a striking feature of Finnish nationalism; see M. Hroch, Social Preconditions of National Revival in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of the Social Composition of the Patriotic Groups Among the Smaller European Nations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

82 Alapuro, R., “De intellektuella, staten och nationen,” 73 Historisk Tidskrift för Finland 458 (1987).Google Scholar

83 There is evidence that in this situation the traditionally oriented Fennocists hindered the development of certain emerging groups of modern society. Technical education is an illustrative example. In spite of demands on the part of the industry and technical professionals (e.g., teachers of the polytechnical school actively demanding better technical education), the development of technical education remained slow. The first (university level) Institute of Technology was not founded until 1908, when the economic elite had become a strong enough pressure group; cf., e.g., Elovainio, P., “Tieteiden eriytyminen Suomen korkeakouluissa,” 6 Sosiologia 242–60 (1972).Google Scholar

84 As shown by Wirilander's data (Herrasväkeä 460 (cited in note 6)).Google Scholar

85 Ailio, L., “Katsaus Suomalaisten lakimiesten yhdistyksen syntyyn ja vaiheisiin kuluneena 30-vuotiskaucena,” 26 Lakimies 209–22 (1928); K. Pesonen,” Piirteitä Suomalaisen lakimiesyhdistyksen toiminnasta 75 vuoden ajalta,”in Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys 75 vuotta 1–34, 3 (Vammala: Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys, 1973).Google Scholar

86 K. Brotherus, Suomen valtiollisen järjestysmuodon kehitys 73 (Porvoo: WSOY, 1968).Google Scholar

87 M. Noponen, Kansanedustajien sosiaalinen taustu Suomessu 59 (Porvoo & Helsinki: WSOY, 1964) (“Noponen, Kansanedustajien”); on the changes in other elites, see H. Uusitalo & Alestalo, M., “Eliittien sosiaalinen tausta ja yhteiskunnan muutokset Suomessa,” 9 Sosiologia 193–207 (1972).Google Scholar

88 Noponen, Kansanedustujien 80.Google Scholar

89 R. Blom, Lakimieskunta ja yhteiskunta 80 (Publications of the Department of Sociology at Tampere University 33) (Tampere, 1971); Wences, R., “Electoral Participation and the Occupational Composition of Cabinets and Parliaments,” 75 American Journal of Sociology 187 (1969).Google Scholar

90 Although in different periods the proportion of lawyers was even lower in West Germany (7%), in Israel (8%), and in Ireland (9%). However, the proportion was 28% in Mexico, 37% in Canada, and as high as 56% in the U.S.A. In Finland, lawyers as well as many other sections of the upper class were partly replaced in the upper class by other groups (e.g., the number of teachers increased considerably) and by those from lower classes—see Noponen, Kansanedustujien 58–59. The clergy, however, succeeded in maintaining their position.Google Scholar

91 E. Boisman, Suomen valtioneuvoston jäsenten tausta vuosina 1917–1966, 21, 27 (Publications of the Institute of Finnish History at Jyväskylä University, no. 6) Jyväskylä, 1980).Google Scholar

92 Id. at 22–27.Google Scholar

93 The proportion of lawyers among the members of government was (according to Wences, op. cit. in note 91) 16% in West Germany and Australia; 60% in Canada; and 70% in the U.S.A. In Finland there were, during the period 1917–, almost equally large a group of those graduated in other faculties, such as philosophical (20% of those with university education), technical, theological, military, etc. During the period 1939–66, lawyers constituted a minority among university graduates. Id. at 27.Google Scholar

94 K. Stahlberg,” De statligt anställda i Finland”in L. Lundquist & K. Stahlberg, eds., Byrakrater i Norden 95 (Publications of the Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation) (Åbo, 1983) (Stahlberg, 'De statligt anställda”); J. Vartola & K. af Ursin, Hallintovirkamieskunta Suomessa 69–71 (University of Tampere, Julkishallinnon julkaisusarja no. 2) (Tampere, 1987) (“Vartola & af Ursin, Hallintovirkamieskunta”).Google Scholar

95 Vuorjoki, Y., “Ylemmän oikeustutkinnon suorittaneiden työmarkkinatilanne 1928–1948,” 50 Lakimies 165–214 (1952);Kähönen, J., “Lakimiesten kysyntä ja tarjonta Suomessa vuosina 1970–80,” 7 Lakimiesuutiset (1967).Google Scholar

96 In 1975, for instance, of 5,623 lawyers, 31% had a post in state administration, 9% in communes, 23% in business life, no more than 17% in courts, and 11% were private attorneys. P. Immeli, Lakimiesten tulevat työmarkkinat Suomessa vuosina 1975–1990, 5 (Helsinki: Suomen Lakimiesliitto, 1976).Google Scholar

97 Ståhlberg,” De statligt anställda,” at 95; Vartola & af Ursin, Hallintovirkamieskunta 77.Google Scholar

98 See Rueschemeyer, Legal Professions 307 (cited in note 58).Google Scholar

99 On the latter case, see J. Caplan,” Profession as a Vocation: The German Civil Service” in Cocks & Jarausch, German Professions 169 (cited in note 1).Google Scholar

100 I am currently engaged in more comprehensive research into the 19th-century Finnish professions.Google Scholar

101 J. Kocka, ”‘Bürgertum’ and Professions in the Nineteenth Century: Two Alternative Approaches,”in M. Burrage & R. Torstendahl, eds., Professions in Theory and History 62–74 (London: Sage Publications, 1990); K. Gispen,” Engineers in Wilhelmian Germany: Professionalization, Deprofessionalization, and the Development of Nonacademic Technical Education” in Cocks & Jarausch, German Professions 104–22; C. Huerkamp,” The Making of the Modern Medical Profession, 1800–1914: Prussian Doctors in the Nineteenth Century,”id. at 66–84.Google Scholar

102 As the leading stratum in the state this Bildungsbürgertum, for instance, powerfully expanded university education immediately after it had come to the power after Napoleon's invasion (thus, during 1805–1830 the number of university students as much as tripled. See C. McClelland, State, Society and University in Germany 1700–1914, 148 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). This opened up opportunities of upward social mobility. Finland was an opposite case: fearing the potential loss of their privileged position, the noble bureaucrats tried to exclude the common people from opportunities of upward mobility.Google Scholar

103 See, e.g., A. La Vopa,” Specialists against Specialization: Hellenism as Professional Ideology in German Classical Studies,”in Cocks & Jarausch, German Professions 27–45.Google Scholar

104 As argued by, e.g., Rueschemeyer,” Legal Professions” at 313; H. Siegrist,” Public Office or Free Profession? German Attorneys in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,”in Cocks & Jarausch, German Professions 47; T. C. Halliday & B. C. Carruthers,” States, Professions, and Legal Change: Reform of the English Insolvency Act, 1977–1986” (presented at the 12th World Congress of Sociology, Madrid, 13–17 August 1990; M. S. Larson,” In the Matter of Experts and Professionals, Or How Impossible It Is to Leave Nothing Unsaid,” in R. Torstendahl & M. Burrage, eds., The Formation of Professions 24–50 (London: Sage Publications, 1990).Google Scholar

105 As early as the first half of the century attempts at occupational advancement were made by certain occupational groups. In the 1840s secondary school teachers founded their local associations in Turku and Vaasa to promote vocational ends. Their application for permission to found a nationwide association was refused by the bureaucracy. More fortunate in their strivings were physicians, or more precisely, the scientific elite of the physicians, who could in Collegium Medicum determine the educational criteria for the specialty. As mentioned earlier, partly due to the prolonged and demanding education, the status of physicians began to rise rapidly during the first decades of the Grand Duchy.Google Scholar

106 K. H. Jarausch,” The German Professions in History and Theory”in Cocks & Jarausch, German Professions 14 (cited in note 1).Google Scholar