Hyvien miesten valtakunta: Arvid Henrikinpoika Tawast ja aatelin toimintakulttuuri 1500-luvun lopun Suomessa

Abstract

Miten hallintoa hoidettiin 1500-luvun Suomessa ja Ruotsissa? Arvid Henrikinpoika Tawastin (n. 1540 99) laajasta kirjeenvaihdosta hahmottuu kuninkaan luottamustehtävistä huolehtineen aatelin toiminta- ja vuorovaikutuskulttuuri, jossa sosiaaliset suhteet, henkilökohtaiset verkostot ja epäviralliset vaikutuskanavat olivat merkittävällä sijalla. Ylhäältä annettujen pikkutarkkojen määräysten sijaan hallinnollista toimintaa ohjasi usein luova reagointi vaihteleviin olosuhteisiin. Aatelismiehet hoitivat limittäin ja rinnakkain sotilas- ja siviilihallinnon tehtäviä, huolehtivat maaomaisuudestaan, suhdeverkostostaan ja ylläpitivät asemanmukaista elämäntapaa.

Tutkimus perustuu Hämeessä asuneen aatelismiehen yksityiseen kirjeenvaihtoon toisten aatelisten, perheenjäsenten, palvelijoiden, kauppiaiden, paikallishallinnon viranhaltijoiden ja kuninkaan kanssa. Hallinnon, sodan ja yksityisen elämänpiirin asioita käsiteltiin ja hoidettiin kirjeitse erottelematta, joten kirjeenvaihto soveltuu hyvin aatelismiehen elämänpiirin kokonaisvaltaiseen tarkasteluun, kuitenkin painopisteen ollessa kuninkaalta saatujen tehtävien hoitamisessa.

Tutkimus jakaantuu kahteen pääosaan. Ensimmäisessä keskitytään kirjeenvaihtoon: minkä sääntöjen puitteissa kirjeitä kirjoitettiin ja mitä niiden perusteella voidaan päätellä 1500-luvun yhteiskunnasta, sen valtasuhteista, normeista, ihanteista ja näillä käydystä pelistä? Kirjeenvaihto näyttäytyy neutraalin tiedonvälityksen sijasta moniulotteisena viestintäprosessina, jossa oli mahdollista manipuloida ja vaikuttaa vastapuoleen ihanteisiin vetoamalla.

Toinen osa käsittelee sosiaalisia suhteita. Siinä kuvataan aatelismies verkostonsa jäsenenä ystävineen, aatelisveljineen ja kaukaisempine kontakteineen. Huomion kohteena on erityisesti verkoston toiminta. Mitä apua ja tukea Arvid Henrikinpoika Tawast sai eri tahoilta ja miten hän hyödynsi suhteitaan? Vastausta haetaan kysymykseen, miten merkityksellisiä verkostot loppujen lopuksi hallinnossa olivat. Sosiaaliset suhteet asetetaan puitteisiinsa tarkastelemalla vallanjakoa valtakunnan sisällä ja aatelin erityisasemaa siinä sekä käytännön olosuhteiden, kuten suurten välimatkojen, asettamia ehtoja vallankäytölle. Keskeiseksi kysymykseksi nousee hallinnossa toimineiden aatelismiesten omatoimisuus, siihen johtaneet syyt ja keinot sen ylläpitämiseksi. Hallinnon käytännön toteutus oli huomattavassa ristiriidassa jatkuvasti toistettuun ihanteeseen siitä, että kuninkaalla oli kaikki valta.

Väitöskirjatutkimuksen tärkeimmäksi teemaksi nousee ystävyyden ja vastavuoroisuuden kulttuurin merkitys yhteiskunnassa, jonka viralliset instituutiot eivät olleet kaikenkattavia ja jossa ei ollut tarkkaa keskusvallan kontrollia. Toisiaan hyviksi miehiksi kutsuneiden aatelisten kirjeissä vallitsi ystävyyden ja veljeyden retoriikka, joka korosti henkilökohtaisia, tasa-arvoisia ja solidaarisia suhteita oman ryhmän sisällä vastakohtana hierarkisille valtasuhteille. Ystävyyden ja veljeyden julistukset loivat ja vahvistivat sosiaalisia verkostoja, joiden puitteissa myös hallinnollinen vuorovaikutus sujui. Niitä voitiin myös käyttää avunantoon velvoittavina argumentteina sekä yksityisissä että hallinnollisissa asioissa. Ystävyyden ja kunnian sääntöjen avulla yhteiskuntaan luotiin järjestystä ja ennakoitavuutta, joita valtiovalta ei voinut taata.

Toinen pääteema on erilaisten ulkoisten olosuhteiden kuten liikenneyhteyksien, vuodenajan ja tiedonkulun hitauden merkitys. Niitä ei voinut hallita eikä niiden vaikutusta aina ennakoida, ja ne vaikuttivat olennaisesti saatavilla olevan tiedon määrään. Pitkän tähtäimen suunnitelmien laatiminen oli usein mahdotonta. Toimiva ja nopeasti aktivoitavissa oleva sosiaalinen verkosto oli näissä oloissa tärkeä. Vaikka asioiden kulkua ei voinut ennakoida, voi laskea sen varaan, että tilanteessa kuin tilanteessa oli saatavissa apua tarvittavalta suunnalta. Niin pystyi luovimaan olosuhteiden asettamissa puitteissa.

Hitaan tiedonkulun ja muuttuvien olosuhteiden vuoksi keskusvallan oli annettava viranhaltijoille melko vapaat kädet toteuttaa käskyjä järkevällä tavalla. Väistämättömänä seurauksena heillä oli myös mahdollisuus ajaa omia etujaan verkostojensa avulla ja koettaa kätkeä toimensa keskusvallan silmiltä. Vaikka teoriassa kuninkaalla oli kaikki päätösvalta, hän oli riippuvainen paikallistasolla toimivista verkostoista eikä voinut kontrolloida niitä tehokkaasti. Arvid Tawastin kirjeenvaihto avaa näkymän hallintomiesten arkeen, joka ei kulunut ylhäältä annettuja määräyksiä sanatarkasti noudattaen, vaan jatkuvassa vastavuoroisessa neuvottelussa, jossa herruus- ja ystävyyssuhteilla, tiedonkululla ja olosuhteiden pakolla oli suuri merkitys. Etukäteen ei voinut koskaan varmuudella tietää, kuinka asiat lopulta kääntyvät.

A kingdom of good men: Arvid Henriksson Tawast and the culture of agency among noblemen in late sixteenth-century Finland

This study concerns the culture of agency and interaction shared by nobility with administrational duties in the late sixteenth-century Swedish realm, especially in its eastern part, Finland. By culture of agency I mean different aspects of agency, such as traditions, social roles, possible strategies of actions, dealing with factors that set limits to them and adapting to a larger framework created by external surroundings. As the "official" sphere of life including offices co-existed undivided from the private sphere that seems "unofficial" to us, social relations, personal networks and unofficial channels of influence are given a central place in this study. The focus is on the functioning of a society, in which official institutions were not all-inclusive, administration was person-oriented and there was no close control carried out by centralized power.

The late sixteenth century is regarded in many ways as a transition period between medieval and modern Sweden. It still had many characteristics of medieval administration based on dispersion, independent local lords and their personal loyalty to the king, while already facing modern challenges presented by a new type of warfare, which put unforeseen pressure on the kingdom's resources.

The reforms, which finally led to an internally stable dynastic state were begun but by no means completed by Gustavus Wasa in the early and mid- sixteenth century, and his sons in the latter part of the century, faced by the demands of war, invoked different experiments including separate taxation for the Finnish part of the realm, which meant a step back to the older tradition of dispersion of power. From the administrational point of view, the period can be seen as an interim between the Middle Ages and the "new era" in the early seventeenth century, when Sweden was shaped into a wholly new form.

The main character of the book is Arvid Henriksson Tawast, a nobleman who lived in 1540 99 in Finland. Typical to his times and estate, he took care of various military and civilian duties and also managed his landed properties, social network and lifestyle suitable for nobility. As my principal source material I use his exceptionally well-preserved letter collection, which includes altogether 403 letters. 280 of them are letters from other people and 123 his own drafts and copies. My study is therefore based on one nobleman's correspondence with other noblemen, family members, servants, merchants, local office holders and the king. The emphasis lies on nobility, as their letters are in clear majority in the collection. Matters concerning administration, warfare and private life were covered unseparated, so the correspondence lends itself well to examining a nobleman's life comprehensively, however keeping the focus on duties received from the king.

I have divided the study into two main parts. The first one concentrates on the forms of correspondence. What kind of rules were included in writing letters and what can the very formal-looking letters actually tell about society, power relations, norms, ideals and interaction? Instead of neutrally conveying information, concentrating on the formal aspects of the letters presents them as parts of a multifaceted communication process, which allowed possibilities for manipulation and influence by appealing to social norms and ideals.

The second part focuses on social networks. It presents the nobleman as a member of his network of friends, noble brothers and more distant connections. The functioning and significance of the network is under special scrutiny. What help and support did Arvid Tawast get from different directions and how did he utilize his relations, especially in "official" matters? Background to the importance of social relations was created by vaguely defined formal power relations within the realm, nobility's special position in societal hierarchy and limits that infrastructure set to the execution of administration. A central theme is the nobility's inclination to independent actions. The execution of administration in practice was at odds with the constantly repeated ideal that the king held all the power in the realm.

King's trusted men

It is difficult to conceptualize sixteenth-century administration including nobility's agency in it, because it lacks features that are central to our understanding. The study deals with something that we do not have words for and that is in our minds essentially defined by the absence of something constitutive. Many concepts common in researching political culture do not match sixteenth-century way of thinking. Contemporaries did not have concepts like state, governance, civil servant or others that are familiar to our way of using language and referring to abstract phenomena like exercise and distribution of power. This notwithstanding, administration did exist. It was just understood in different words.

Some of these words were good men, friends and brothers, which were used by noblemen to address each other. These good men took care of various administrational tasks given by the king in co-operation with each other, utilizing their personal networks. Their interaction appears as a normative friendship. Friendship networks were utilized to react with creativity and independence to ever-changing, uncontrollable external circumstances like seasons, weather or slow movement of people, troops, and goods. In doing so, office holders paid attention to their own benefit as well as that of the king. They were not always obedient subjects or officials, but rather shared a self-reliant culture. However, they were careful to express their actions in a language of obedience to the king and solidarity with each other. Regardless of what they did or thought, they represented it in their letters to match the various ideal models of behavior expected of loyal noblemen.

Rhetoric and culture of friendship

My approach is based on the idea that letter rhetoric can reveal something of the ideal order of society as contemporaries expressed it. Office holders writing about friends and brothers strike us as something very different from modern administration and draw our attention to the differing ways contemporaries understood their social world.

The historical connections of letter rhetoric have not been widely studied. Studies on historical pragmatics concentrate on linguistic forms rather than social relations. The problem with rhetoric is that it has often been ignored as meaningless, though in fact it can be seen as a part of constructing social reality. Relationships between individuals were expressed in conventional ways and this way they were consolidated in letters over and over again. Letter formulas gave ideal models of behavior, which include polite, friendly and reciprocal attitude towards others.

Letter rhetoric and address formulas did not differ in "personal" or "public" matters. Officials called each other friends even when taking care of their administrational duties. The foundation of the late sixteenth-century Swedish administration was an old tradition of a culture of friendship, which was expressed in letter rhetoric, and which had its roots in classical and medieval notions of friendship as an ideal state of being. Friendship was an integral part of the ideal, harmonious Christian society and the peaceful co-existence of different social groups united in a pursuit of collective good. Needless to say, reality did not always meet with this harmony, but nonetheless it was the goal that everybody had to take into account in their actions. Social roles or the ideal behavior expected of persons of different status were in harmony with this big picture, so that put together, all the individual agents would form a big harmonious entity, which was governed in accordance with Christian principles and God's plan. Lords should be benevolent, servants humble and friends trustworthy.

Medieval friendship as a part of political culture has been studied a lot, but regarding early modern times research has concentrated more on patron client -relations. This reflects the hierarchization and consolidation of society that took place alongside new administrational structures. The former informal friendship was partly adapted to the new centralized power structure as a system of patrons and clients called patronage. However, the situation in late sixteenth-century Sweden still resembled more medieval friendship.

Noblemen's actions within their networks can be conceptualized as reciprocal exchange. It has been regarded a basic feature in human communities, and even in sixteenth-century Sweden it was seen as a cornerstone of society based on Christian values. As can be seen already on basis of this, it was not regarded negatively utilitarian to perform services and expect favors in return. The noblemen wrote about friendly favors. The ideal was benevolent co-existence and helping each other in a solidary spirit.

In the context of administration, the concrete manifestation of the culture of friendship was that office holders interacted utilizing personal connections instead of official channels. This applies to the personal nature of king's government as well: administration consisted of individuals linked personally to the king instead of impersonal institutions functioning according to clear regulations.

Office holders had no clear instructions on how to do their job, nor official hierarchy to organize things. Instead they used their personal networks and often personal economical resources. I have called office holders' personal relations resource networks, because they were essentially reciprocally functioning relations granting access to wider resources by providing economic and practical help.

Self-reliant traditions

Networks have been widely studied in early modern context from different points of view. Researchers have lately stressed the notion of negotiation or bargaining, meaning dialogue between different groups of society rather than the traditional approach, where the use of power and control was seen as one-sided dominance "from above". Negotiations with each other and the king are constantly present in the office holders' correspondence as well. Things were rather settled within the own group instead of making them public. This led to problems of control: because central power had no official structures to rely on, it could not efficiently control what the office holders were actually doing with their personal networks. The society consisted of bonds of loyalty between numerous lords, servants, friends and brothers, and the king was only one, not the only, party that the nobility was dependent on.

Noble office holders were therefore not crown officials in the later sense of the word, but rather independent agents, who had sworn allegiance to the king as their supreme lord. They understood their oath in a medieval way as a reciprocal deal between them and the king, putting the responsibility of behaving as a good lord also on the king.

In their letters noblemen stated very clearly that they expected rewards in return for their service to the king. They were eager to ask for benefits such as fiefs (Sw. förläningar) and expressed their resentment if they were not granted. They held an idea about their relationship to the king as a reciprocal contract rather than unconditional domination, which would have better suited the king's way of thinking. King John III for instance made it clear that he would only give rewards on basis of successful service, keeping the right to define what was successful to himself.

This often led to a juxtaposition between the goals of the king and his office holders. In a self-reliant manner, the office holders took care of their tasks with the help of their own networks. They tried to get rid of unpleasant commandments received from the king. They also often invoked self-help in their relations with peasants, trying to collect rent from them by force. They tried to pursue their own interests often in secrecy and concealment from the central power, as they often involved unlawful violence. These kinds of actions were in violation with the ideas the crown had about the role of the office holders.

Peasant resistance has been studied a lot; especially nuijasota or Club War in the 1590's having been a favorite topic among Finnish scholars. However, resistance seems not to have been rooted only in peasants, but also in noble office holders, who clung tight to their relatively independent position. They were not loyal exclusively to the king, but had multiple loyalties towards other lords and their peers with whom they formed a solidary network of brothers. These loyalties and networks also provided power resources, which could help in resisting the king: hiding dubious actions from him, or helping in getting rid of unpleasant commandments.

Coincidence in the form of uncontrollable external circumstances played a major role in the lives of office holders. Seasons of the year and weather were decisive in many matters. Travel on sea depended upon favorable winds and open water. War efforts had to be taken before the snow came or before it melted, leaving the roads impossible to march on. Seen from the modern viewpoint infrastructure was poor, meaning that the travel of information in the form of letters was slow and often uncertain. The carrying of letters had to be organized with the help of servants or other travelers, as there was no postal service. There was often no current information about the whereabouts of different people, which meant a lot of waiting or unnecessary travelling.

Great distances combined with slow travel of information made office holders relations with the king complicated rather than straight-forward. Though the king made practically all the important decisions, he had to render independent executory power to local office holders in the borderlands in order for the administration to work more effectively. The limits of the noblemen's authority were vague and the central power lacked efficient means to control how it was used. It is useful to make a distinction between the power to make decisions and the power to execute them in practice. On a formal level, the king had supreme undivided power, but in practice the execution of his orders depended on local agents. They needed to have relatively free hands in order to apply the king's orders to the local circumstances.

The practical difficulties were not just obstacles, but could also be used as rhetorical arguments. In cases when local office holders' actions were not in line with the king's orders, distance could serve as a practical, legitimizing excuse. The noblemen could say that they had not received information from the king in time or that it was already too late to do anything because the winter was near or that the circumstances had changed since the king's letter was written. Thus noblemen beyond the king's reach could utilize distance as a legitimizing argument. This seems to have been easier in remote locations, as it was hard to check what was actually going on.

However, it was vitally important to make things look like they were in accordance with the harmonic Christian ideal of society, which was the foundation of all good administration. Here the significance of rhetoric can be seen again. All agents had to show that they conform to their social ideals. They were expected to play their role and maintain the social ideals associated with it. Breaking expectations eroded trust and demanded an acceptable explanation so that the reciprocal relationship could be continued.

Office holders represented the crown to its subjects, but were at the same time themselves subjects of the crown. Their relationship to the king should ideally look like humble obedience, though it might often look dubious as the office holders undertook a lot of independent action. Solution to this problem was rhetorically maintaining the social ideal of a humble servant. That meant representing their actions in speech and letters as being in accordance with the values of obedience and humility. Problems arose only if the original actions were too much at odds with the representation and could not be convincingly described in accordance with the ideals.

Conclusions

The agency of office holders could perhaps be best described as self-reliant and flexible. Personal dependence on the king and no clear hierarchy in administration meant that the system was quite far from the so-called bureaucratic administration as defined by Max Weber. However, I think that it is not reasonable to call the sixteenth-century administration unclear, chaotic or disorderly. Using those kinds of terms is uninformative in the sense that it ignores the understanding of the time.

A system of administration that rested on personal relations instead of impersonal, bureaucratic structures is different, but still rational because it had its own network logic and it was controlled by ideals like friendship and honor. To the contemporaries it was the only imaginable way of doing things. The king gave mandates (Sw. fullmakter) and those who received them took care of the tasks relying on their personal contacts. There was nothing wrong in the system to the contemporary eye. That was the traditional, right way of doing things. Other ways of administration were of course unimaginable to them. In the rhetoric of the time, as long as all office holders set common good as their ultimate goal and followed old habits, everything went well. If problems arose, that was explained to be due to office holders doing something wrong, usually putting personal gain ahead of common good.

Social ideals referred to in letter rhetoric were a central controlling factor in the absence of adequate formal institutions. They were a means to make interaction predictable. Rules of friendship, reciprocity and honor brought order and co-operation to a world that was marked by rapidly changing, uncontrollable conditions. Hierarchy did not yet penetrate society in the way it would in the following centuries. Office holders promoted friendship, not subordination, in their letters. Ideology that rested upon a sense of community granted even the lowest ones a possibility to try to influence their superiors by appealing to norms and ideals that placed social responsibilities on everybody.