142 11. The Emergence of Procedural Legal Literature in Finland at the End of the 1800s: ALate Reception of Free Evaluation of Evidence The first half of the nineteenth century was a period of extremely lame scholarly activity in Finnish law. Only a fewlarge legal treatises appeared during the period,* and no more than seven ordinary professors held posts in the country’s only university between 1809 and 1850.’ Before the 1880s and 1890s, no Finnish literature of criminal procedure or law of proof existed.^ There are, however, bits and pieces of information that help to trace the development of Finnish procedural law thinking during the century. Necessarily, this reconstruction cannot be but a partial one, and it can serve only as a complement to ' Ehrström 1962 pp. 80—81. In law, doctoral degrees were rather uncommon and mainly taken by those aspiring after an academic career. Klami 1977 pp. 16-17. - The professors were; General Jurisprudence: Matthias Calonius (1778-1817) Anders Erik Afzelius (1818-1822) Wilhelm Gabriel Lagus (1822-52) Economic and Commercial Law (1812-28), International and State Law, National Economics (1828-1846): Daniel Myreen (1812-1831) Johan Jakob Nordstrom(1834-1846) Roman and Russian Law: Karl Evert Ekelund (1829-1843) Johan Philip Palmén (1844-1852) Appendix to Klinge — Knapas - Leikola— Strömberg 1989 (no page numbers). ^ The only Finnish legal treatise devoted to the law of proof in the first half of the 1800s was Johan Jacob Nordstrom’s doctoral dissertation “Skildring af bevisningsmethoderne i brottmål efter de gamla landskaps lagarne” (“Description of Methods of Proof in Criminal Cases According to the Old County Laws”) of 1832. For the present purpose, what Nordstrom’s work remains silent about is more important than what it contains. In the introduction, the author makes it clear that he is well acquainted with the revolution in criminal procedure that has followed the philosophical teachings of the late eighteenth century. Besides Enlightenment philosophers (such as Montesquieu), he cites contemporary German reformers such as Feuerbach and Mittermaier. Despite his apparent knowledge of the new European trends in criminal procedure, Nordströmprefers to direct his own scholarly ambitions to the Swedish Middle Ages. For him, there is no need to introduce the fervent German debates concerning trial jury and the lawof proof to Finland. Flowever, Nordström is not completely indifferent to the ongoing German discussion. Dcscribing it, he says: “Abetterment became necessary; it ought to be radical, on this there was agreement; but some wanted to build a new criminal procedure on the teachings of philosophical dogmatics, others wished to approach the matter historically, and in the nations’ old institutions seek a base for the newones”; Nordström 1832 pp. 2-3. Nordström thus show's an inclination towards Germanists, but does not develop the thesis further.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=