The question of Keith s military and civil administration in Finland seems to be one of the less

Transcription

1 The question of Keith s military and civil administration in Finland seems to be one of the less studied and less known periods of his life. Although it is mentioned in a few sources the details on this period are in general less familiar, perhaps because his governorship in Finland covered such a brief span of time or because his exploits elsewhere have proved more attractive to historians. In the present paper I will focus briefly on Keith s carrier during his Russian service and particularly on where and how he acted as governor. The main questions I was interested in were why he was selected for both military and civil jobs, and how he was regarded in both the Ukraine and Finland during his governorship. James Francis Edward Keith, brother of George Keith and Earl Marshal of Scotland, was a Scottish Jacobite known among other things as a military commander under Frederick II of Prussia. Before he entered Russian service in 1728 he had been forced into exile for his activities on behalf of James Stuart, titular King of Great Britain. Keith had taken part in the failed Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1719 after which he entered Spanish service, where he served for nine years reaching the rank of colonel. In Russia, Keith took up in 1730 a prestigious appointment as lieutenant-colonel of the personal bodyguard of the Empress Anna considered one of the greatest trust in the Empire. During the period of his service Keith distinguished himself in various campaigns. In the Polish War of Succession General Peter de Lacy, an Irish Catholic, was placed in overall command with Keith acting as second to him. The army led by Lacy and Keith amazed Europe. Military knowledge and experience ensured Keith s ongoing rise through service. The improved discipline of the Russian military owed much to Keith and other foreign nationals who helped develop both the country s army and navy. 5

2 The defence of the Ukraine was delegated to Keith and in 1740 he also became country s civic governor. One of the reasons lies in the general situation of the Russian army at that time, but another reason for his appointment was that a man like Keith was particularly appropriate for the job. Firm, honest and disinterested government was needed to save this otherwise wealthy province from being completely ruined and to start rebuilding its wealth. After Keith s recall, the whole country regretted his departure. His humane and wise administration made many people consider him to be one of the best Governors the Ukraine had ever known. In fact, the only reason for his recall was the outbreak of the war with Sweden because the Russians needed his military leadership even more. The year 1741 witnessed intense Russian preparations for their forthcoming attack against Sweden, of which Finland was an integral part. Keith led the successful assault against Villmanstrand fortress in September 1741 where he distinguished himself and was much admired for his bravery. After Lacy returned to St Petersburg, Keith assumed full command of the Russian forces. In quick order, several Finnish towns surrendered. This can be attributed to an extent to Lacy and Keith whose improvements had made Russian warfare more effective through better organisation. Keith served throughout the campaign, the result of which was that a large part of Finland became Russian-occupied territory. Keith never received an official appointment as civic governor of Finland. Nevertheless, he played a significant role in its civil government and his administration was particularly successful. Although he represented the occupying Russians, Keith retained a deep understanding of the aspirations of the local people. He used his position as the de facto governor for Finland s benefit. According to the Finnish historian Cederberg, Keith was admired by the Finnish people for creating discipline and order and for being sympathetic to the Finns. It is worth speculating how far Keith s Jacobitism 6

3 may have made him especially aware of the need to accommodate local interests within the Russian administration established in the aftermath of the occupation. He did not make Russia s domination more painful than it had to be and apparently also made sure he was available for meetings with ordinary people twice a week. Despite the military occupation, Cederberg has argued that the end of 1742 actually turned out to be a period of economic growth. James Keith s contemporary, Henrik Wegelius, said about Keith that by creating order and justice, and by his humanity, he deserves to be remembered with respect all over Finland. Several modern Finnish historians have come to the same conclusion and provide us with the generally positive memory that he left in Finland. According to the Finnish historian Blomstedt, the reason why Keith was eventually replaced was because it became obvious that the military occupation would end through a political agreement and that Finland would not be annexed to Russia. The release of the military government from the burden of the civil administration also became necessary at that moment. Keith s contacts in Sweden were essential from the perspective of his Russian service. War broke out again in 1743 over the Duke of Holstein s succession to the throne of Sweden. Keith acted as a naval commander in several engagements. The final peace treaty was drawn up in Åbo in 1743 on the 7 th of August, together with the extensive withdrawal of the Russians from the occupied Finnish territories. The election of Frederick as king proved to be an extremely controversial decision in Stockholm. After a suppressed rising King Frederick asked for Russian help. Keith was sent to Sweden in command of men. The fact that he sailed from Helsinki to Stockholm with such a force shows that the Swedes had a substantial level of trust in Keith, due in part to his many contacts. During his stay in Stockholm Keith also proved he was an excellent diplomat and gained a considerable reputation. 7

4 In August 1744 Keith returned from a nine months embassy at Stockholm, and was loaded by the new empress, Elisabeth, with presents and honours. Unfortunately, the favour Keith was held in by Elisabeth resulted in considerable Russian envy towards him as a foreigner. At that time personal loyalty became something to be suspected, especially when coming from foreigners. Another important reason to leave service was the fact that George Keith, his brother, was refused permission to enter Russia. Keith s activities outside his service in the armies of Russia and Prussia were amongst the most significant, if neglected, aspects of his life and career. Keith s successful administration in both Finland and the Ukraine gained him prestige and admiration within and outwith the particular areas he governed. Accounts of both his Ukrainian and his Finnish terms of office appear to agree on the nature of his character. His gentleness, mildness and compassion for the local people left a favourable memory in the history of both nations. Nevertheless, these admirable features of James Keith s character are not surprising given his Freemasonry, to which his respect for the Ukrainians and the Finns can perhaps be attributed. The earlier experiences of the Finns during the governorship of Gustav Otto Douglas in 1717 were in complete contrast with Keith s sympathetic administration. Douglas is often described as particularly rude, unfriendly and high-handed as opposed to Keith, who was friendly, sympathetic and distinguished by his humanity. Owed to the briefness of Keith s civil governorship in Finland, his administration is less known than his military achievements. Nevertheless, Keith is still remembered baith in history books and in the novel of the Finnish author Zacharias Topelius Duchess of Finland which is based on the love story of Eva Merthen and James Keith. Whatever emphasis exist in literary fiction, Keith s familial and fraternal bonds and the use of socio-political networks are an important characteristic of his life and career. His various networks aided his 8

5 advancement in military and civic life in Russia. Not only that, but these enabled him to move into Stockholm, the capital city of the recent enemy, with a huge army, in a friendly capacity. They also made it easier for the Swedes to accept him both as governor of Finland and throughout his extended embassy to Stockholm. In the end, it was Russian jealousy and the pursuit of private agendas that saw him recalled from his military and civic duties abroad and reduced in military and social status in Russia. The departure of Keith did not see the end of Scottish interest in Finland s administration. In fact, several others served longer than James Keith. None, however, had more respect for the Finns or such an impact on their self-esteem when conducting his duties as civil governor. He stayed in Finland for couple of months, but deserved to be remembered for centuries. 9

6 Atina Nihtinen, Researcher, Dept. of History, Åbo Akademi University Abstract / Description James Keith and his governorship of the Ukraine and Finland, This paper was presented at a Conference held at the University of Aberdeen in April 1999 and later published as an article in the book Military Governors and Imperial Frontiers (2003). The question of Keith s military and civil administration in Finland appears to be one of the less studied and known periods of his life. Although it is mentioned in a few sources the details on this period are in general less familiar, perhaps because his administration in Finland covered such a brief span of time or because his exploits elsewhere have proved more attractive to historians. The paper focuses on Keith s carrier during his Russian service, particularly on where and how he acted as governor. Particular attention was paid to the questions of why he was selected for both military and civil jobs, and how he was regarded in both the Ukraine and Finland during his governorship. My research demonstrated that James Keith left a favourable impression in the collective memory of both nations and that Keith s kinship ties and the use of socio-political networks were an important characteristic of his life and career. His various networks aided his advancement through military and civic life in Russia and explain both his success in military and civil jobs and the admirable features of Keith s character. Keith s activities outside his service in the armies of Russia and Prussia were amongst the most significant, if neglected, aspects of his life and career. 10