232 ferently. For her, the changes in the theory of interpretation (within the theory of interpretatio logica fromsubjective to objective theory of interpretation) did not alter the judge’s position of power or produce working methods. The objective theory made “allowances for changing needs in presentation, without establishing new methods of judicial decision-making.Although no choice between the theories of Schroder and Ogorek will be reached in this study, they help to grasp the meaning of free evaluation of evidence from the point of viewof power and offer a background for its consideration. The Finnish legal profession’s social position during the Autonomy was prominent: most of the prestigious senators and other central government officers had legal training. But the question worth considering in the context of transformation of the law of proof is, how did legal modernization of society affect the jurists’ social position? Or vice versa, did their social position have effects on the legal science, especially legal theory? In what kind of relation did legal science and the legal profession’s social position stand to each other? During the nineteenth century, the bureaucratic administrative state was erected in Western countries.Gradually, the Ständestaat was replaced by a rational-legal Herrschaft and a bureaucratic mode of government.^*’ The central feature of this kind of a state was formal rationality based on a legalistic ideology. Therefore, modern bureaucracy relied on the legal profession as an expert profession capable of “running it.” In Finland, the annexation to Russia and the subsequent development of the Grand Duchy’s autonomous position had already produced a growing need for jurists to service the Grand Duchy’s central government and a consequent necessity to reform the legal training. Thus, after 1817 legal training was required for most government posts. Fromthe 1860s on, there was another increase in the legal profession’s social stature: the flood of statute material flowing from the Diet and the liberalizing economy demanded legal expertise to master the statutes and to settle and decide legal disputes raised by the social and economic transformation. Thus, more legal professionals were needed, and the contents of their work changed. Because of the czar’s passiveness in Finnish affairs and owing to the absence of parliamentary action until 1863, it was in the administrative apparatus and especially the Senate that political leadership concentrated. Early nineteenthcentury Finland was a highly bureaucratic society.Theemergence of the buOgorek 1989 p. 26. 3** For the classic definition, see Weber 1956 pp. 559-587. Ibid. pp. 552-555. According to Tiihonen, it was only with the reforms linked to the idea of Rechtsstaat and democracy at the end of the century that one can actually speak of a modern, rational Herrschaft-., Tiihonen criticizes Weber for failing to notice this. Tiihonen 1994 (a) pp. 208209. Alapuro 1988 p. 25.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=