Performing Herself

Everyday Practices and the Making of Gender in Early Modern Sweden

MIKAEL ALM (ED.)

______Distribution eddy.se ab Box 1310, 621 24 Visby 0498-253900; [email protected] http://opuscula.bokorder.se

Cover illustration: Pehr Hilleström: The Wool Winder (Nysterska). Nationalmuseum, Stockholm. Photo: Nationalmuseum.

This publication has been funded by the Faculty of Arts, Uppsala University.

Production: Graphic Services, Uppsala University Printed by DanagårdLiTHO AB, Ödeshög, 2017 ISSN 0284-8783 ISBN 978-91-979632-8-2

Contents

List of Plates 5

Contributors 7

The Count’s Tabourette, Gender Ideals, Household Chores, and Knitting Handbooks: Introduction 9 Mikael Alm

Gendering Household: Norms and Ideals of Gender and Work in Sweden during the Gustavian Era, 1770–1790 13 Hedvig Widmalm

‘God! Let Me Not Waste a Moment of This Year’: An Intersectional Perspective on the Practices of Time-Use in Gentry Women’s Households in Sweden, 1793–1839 45 Jessica Karlsson

‘An Amusing and Useful Pastime’: Knitting as a Performance of Femininity 89 Hanna Bäckström

References 131

List of Plates

1. Knitted sampler, dated 1842 (NM.0136497). Letters ‘C W’ and ‘1842’ knitted in red cotton yarn, the rest of the sampler in white. Foto: (Karolina Kristensson), © Nordiska museet. 97 2. Illustration of pattern for a heavily decorated children’s sock in Emma Hennings’s Charlotte Leanders Stickbok (1848). 106 3. Knitted lace (NM. 273556). Foto: (Nina Heins), © Nordiska museet. 109 4. Example of a lace knitting instruction and illustration from Maria Magdalena Charlotta Olivecrona’s Mönster till spets-stickning och hålsöm (1843). 113 5. Copper etching from 1778 by Elias Martin, ‘A little each day. Who is happy if not the industrious?’ (Uppsala University Library). 123

Contributors

MIKAEL ALM is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of History, Uppsala University, and Director of research of the node Early Modern Cultural His- tory at the Faculty of Arts, Uppsala University. His research is focused on the political and social culture of late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century Europe, spanning from the struggles for legitimacy of late Swedish ab- solutism through art, rhetoric and ceremonial display, via the ritual and symbolic making of the Bernadotte dynasty in Sweden during and after the upheavals of the Napoleonic wars, to — presently — sartorial practices and visualization of social order in early modern Europe.

HANNA BÄCKSTRÖM is a doctoral student in Textile Studies at the Depart- ment of Art History, Uppsala University. Continuing on the themes analysed in her master’s thesis, her research focuses on the early publication and dissemination of printed patterns and instructions for knitting and crochet, as well as changes in how these handicrafts have been valued in different social contexts over time.

JESSICA KARLSSON has a master’s degree in early modern studies at the De- partment of History, Uppsala University. In her master’s thesis she focused on the creation of social hierarchies through the practices of time-use in gentry women’s households in Sweden in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. She also has a master’s degree in archival studies (ALM) at Uppsala University and is currently working as an archivist at Chalmer’s University of Technology.

HEDVIG WIDMALM is a doctoral student at the Department of Economic History, Uppsala University. She is currently researching the household economy in the Swedish mining town of Falun in the early eighteenth century. Her master’s thesis and doctoral thesis both focus on the social hierarchies of eighteenth-century Sweden, and the ways hierarchies affected how the household economy functioned as an ideal and in practice.

The Count’s Tabourette, Gender Ideals, Household Chores, and Knitting Handbooks

Introduction

Mikael Alm

On the evening of the 1st of November 1796, a startling drama played out at the Royal Opera House in Stockholm, by Gustav Adolf’s Square, just across the bridge from the royal palace. Inside, the gala dressed echelons of court and the political ranks took to their seats, to be entertained with an opera in celebration of the young king’s — Gustav IV Adolf — coming to maturity and instalment on the throne earlier that day. As the most prominent guests arrived at the royal podium, raised in front of the stage, everything came to a halt. The Russian ambassador — who held highest rank among the foreign emissaries following the revolutionary turmoil in France — had marched straight up to the first tabourette on the right side of the royal family’s armchairs, with the apparent intention to take his seat there. This seat belonged to His Excellence Count Carl Axel Wachtmeister, President of the royal courts of law and the single highest ranking civil servant of the entire state machinery, in dignity and social standing second only to royal- ties. The latter immediately turned to the Master of Ceremonies, Leonhard von Hauswolff, who in turn sent a runner to the king, who was upstairs in his Opera House apartments. After some deliberation a decision was made. The Russian ambassador kept his seat, while servants were sent to the podium to — discretely — re-arrange the tabourettes, so that Count Wachmeis- ter, with his honour and rank intact, took his seat on the left side of the royal seats, instead of the right.1

1 Alm & Vahlne 2010, p. 214, and footnote 4.

In the midst of drama, a pungent example of the performative nature of practices — a prominent theme among historians in the last decade or so — unfolds.2 In the most hands-on sense of the word, a performance was about to take place on stage — the orchestra in the pit and the artists back stage were about to start off the opéra-comique ‘Le caravan du Caire’ by French composer André Grétry in celebration of the day’s festive event.3 In a deeper sense, the whole spectacle — with raised thrones, illuminated halls, and the sumptuous display of sartorial splendour — staged a performance of royal power and Gustavian kingship. But deeper still — and more to the point — the ceremonial turns at the Opera House that evening were performative in the sense that they shaped and transformed the world and the experiences of those present. Things came about, came into being — became. True, the intricate web of ranks and privileges in court society was painstakingly described and regulated in formal protocols and instructions, but it was through everyday practices such as these — the seating in the Opera House — that this world of ranks and its hierarchies came into being. Through those practices, distinction was made, and the court became an ordered entity. Equally clear, the contingency of performative practices — as often emphasised in research — stands out. The order of seating may have been drawn up in close detail in court protocols, and the intended ranks may have been performed over and over through the decades — centuries, even — but as the events on November 1st 1796 illustrate, practices were challenged and they were the object of change every time they were performed. Something was irreversibly changed as the Rus- sian ambassador took to his seat. By taking that seat (and he was undoubt- edly aware of what he was doing), it became his, and as the Master of Cere- mony failed to prevent it from happening (which was his job at ceremonial events such as this) everything else had to be adapted to and re-ordered around that fact. From now on, Count Wachtmeister had his seat to the left of the royal family. In this volume, three Uppsala researchers engage with questions like these. However, the cast, the setting, and the social categories at play are different. From the aristocratic echelons of court, and the practices of ranks,

2 See e.g. Burke 2004, pp. 90–94; Gillgren & Snickare 2012, pp. 4–5. 3 Personne 1914, p. 74.

distinguishing the high from the low, we move on to the wider circles of gentry men and women in late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century Swe- den, and the practices of gender — and questions of who was to do what, rather than who was to sit where — making a difference between men and women, between the feminine and the masculine. First out, economic historian Hedvig Widmalm focuses on marital life in the late eighteenth century, and the intricate relationship between gender ideals as they were phrased in conduct books of the period and the performative realities of every-day-life as they appear in the correspondences between husbands and wives, the founding pillars of early modern households. How did the lived lives of eighteenth-century Swedish gentry spouses — with the plethora of daily experiences and choices involved in running a household — correspond with the normative narratives and structured orders presented in the manual-like conduct books? Moving on, historian Jessica Karlsson approaches work and the performative practices of time-use in late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century gentry households. Focusing on the diaries kept by four gentry women, the intersectional realities of daily chores and division of labour, and the household hierarchies that these practices of work created, present themselves. Textile work in terms of producing and mending, social obligations in terms of making and receiving visits; gardening in terms of planting and trimming; farming in terms of sowing and harvesting; managing animals in terms of feeding and milking; cleaning in terms of washing and polishing — who did what? Women or men? Young or old? High or low? Married or unmarried? Finally, textile historian Hanna Bäckström takes yet another step towards concretion, entering the world of handiwork among mid-nineteenth century Swedish gentry women, specifically knitting and knitting handbooks. This was an advancing literary genre at the time — with translations of foreign works making their appearance alongside domestic works in the Swedish public sphere — which in itself reflects on elite tastes and behav- iours. But more specifically, the handbooks and their instructions to their female readers, reflects on the performative nature of knitting, shaping ideals of social status as well as notions of feminine virtues.

The three masters’ theses upon which the three chapters presented in this volume are based, were all written within the Faculty funded masters’ research node Early Modern Cultural History at Uppsala university — a collaboration between the disciplines of History, Art History, Textile Studies, and Musicology which has been running since 2013.4 The generous Faculty grants have also funded the publication of this book, which is the first in a hopefully long succession of volumes of its kind.

4 Apart from all the ’Noders’ and their constructive contributions throughout the years, and the Masters’ seminars at the departments of History and Art History/Tex- tile Studies, the editor and the authors would like to thank professors Miri Rubin and Amanda Vickery at the School of History, Queen Mary, University of London, for organizing the two-days’ research workshop in London, back in spring 2013, during which the Node students — including the authors of this volume — were in- vited to present, discuss, and further improve their research projects in interaction with their peers at Queen Mary.

Gendering the Household

Norms and Ideals of Gender and Work in Sweden during the Gustavian Era, 1770–1790

Hedvig Widmalm

When the wealthy Ulrica Grill1 (1744–1824) went to survey the fieldwork of the tenant farmers who supplied her husband’s estate, she met a family of farmers walking down the road. She observed that the farmer’s wife was very young, perhaps only 18 years old, but that she looked well equipped to ‘grab her husband by the collar.’2 With those words, she might just as well have described herself. Ulrica Grill was a formidable woman, a competent administrator with a head for fiscal matters and a sharp tongue. Her letters are full of snide observations and humorous asides. Toil and grief also fill the pages, but there is no flow- ery language and very little romance. Ulrica Grill was in a position of power as a kind of deputy for her husband Jean Abraham Grill (1736–1792), who owned the iron works known as Godegård where the couple made their home. Adolph Murray (1751–1803) and Hedvig Charlotta Murray (1760–1788) were a rather different kind of married couple. Hedvig Charlotta Murray was the daughter of an esteemed orientalist professor at Uppsala University, Carl Aurivillius. Carl Aurivillius’s letters to his daughters have survived, showing that he encouraged his daughters to read.3 Adolph Murray was also

1 Ulrica Grill’s maiden name was Lüning, but Ulrica referred to herself as Grill in her letters, so that is what she is called here. Hedvig Charlotta is called Aurivillius in her letters, perhaps because most of them are written during her engagement period. She is referred to as Hedvig Charlotta Murray in this text, since it was the name she eventually took. 2 NMA Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 — August 1 1781. 3 See, for example, RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 13, the letters from Carl Auriv- illius to Hedvig Charlotta Murray, July 4 1771, April 2 1772, December 16 1772.

an academic. He entered Uppsala University at the age of thirteen and he began teaching at seventeen. By the time he married, he was a professor in anatomy.4 What comes across in his letters is his enthusiasm, both for his academic subject and for whatever else happened to catch his interest. When Hedvig Charlotta captured that interest, he filled his letters to her with descriptions of his romantic desires. She responded in kind. Their letters depict a marriage of romantic love. These two couples seem to almost inhabit different worlds, but in fact they were both part of the same social group. They were the type of people that conduct books were written about, and geared towards. Conduct books was a genre that had its roots in etiquette manuals for young princes (specula principum) during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. However, conduct books differed from princely books in that they reached a wider audience.5 They also contained notions about gender roles. They described these ideas in a way that made it seem as though they were applicable to all men and women, regardless of social standing, but the books were clearly about, and directed to, the privileged classes.6 They formed part of a discourse on gender roles and privilege during the late eighteenth century. The household is a key concept to understand as a setting for that gender discourse. The household was a concrete house, a work unit, and the model on which the whole society was based. When the Swedish economist Anders Berch described his notion of economy, or hushållning (literally, housekeeping), he began by describing how the Swedish nation was one great household. This household had a hierarchical order where the housefather — in Sweden’s case, the king — was at the top.7 The great household of Sweden consisted of smaller, private households, where the ruler was the husband

4 Documents about Adolph Murray’s living situation are available at the family’s webpage, www.murrayska.se 5 See Runefelt 2001 regarding the older genre known as household books, which contained advice about conduct. See the first part of Per Brahe’s oeconomia from 1580 for an example of this type of literature. Lars Laelius’s Een sköön och härligh jungfrw speghel, translated from a German work, 1591, is an example directed at young women. 6 For a short history of the genre and how it evolved during the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century, see Hasselberg 2011, pp. 355–365. 7 This is quoted in Legnér 2004, p. 87. See also Lindroth 1967, pp. 220–231.

and father. His wife was a deputy ruler, subordinate but also ruling alongside him. Servants and children answered to them. This household order derived from the works of Aristotle, but the most direct influence was the Bible. The greatest housefather was God. The hustavla, a collection of Mar- tin Luther’s texts, provided a way of explaining household hierarchies to Swedes.8 These Lutheran texts could be seen as a doctrine for social hierarchy. However, by the eighteenth century, as the historian Karin Hassan Jansson has argued, the household was more a culture than a fixed ideology.9 Ac- cording to Hassan Jansson, the idea of the household permeated contemporary public discourse. It was the context in which gender and other social hierarchies were understood during the eighteenth century. The agrarian ideal of the household was by its very nature static, ordered by God, but in reality the Swedish social order was in constant flux. The household culture, and the gender roles it entailed, had to adapt to the changing social and economic conditions of the eighteenth century. Though Sweden was still mostly an agrarian society, a small privileged class was able to read and travel, trade, practice science, and discuss new economic ideas. This class took part in the pan-European intellectual exchanges at that time, and played a part in connecting Sweden to the wider world.10 What did the traditional household mean to this group? What did its gendered hierarchy mean to the men and women of the late eighteenth century? I believe that in order to answer these questions, one must look beyond public discourse. In order to see how much a concept such as the household was accepted as a culture, it should be compared to so-called ‘ego documents’ — diaries or, as in the case of this investigation, letters. In this study, I examine the way the household and gender are described in conduct books, and I compare those books to the letters of two married couples to whom the conduct books might have applied. Together, these

8 Stadin 2004, pp. 35–36. See also Runefeldt 2001. 9 Karin Hassan Jansson presented how this culture can be seen in court cases in her paper ‘Doing Household, Performing Power: Agency, Authority and Space in Early Modern Sweden’, Practices and Performances: Between Materiality and Morality in Pre- Modernity, Sigtuna (Sweden), 21–23 August 2014. 10 See Müller 1998; Rydén 2013, pp. 1–2.

different forms of writing reveal how gender and the household can be understood during the late eighteenth century. Since the household had many facets, I have chosen three subjects to examine: the depiction of the household as a workplace, the depiction of servants and subordinates, and the social and emotional aspects of forming a household. These three topics will show how the household was defined simultaneously as an economic unit, a cementation of hierarchies, and as an emotional space. These topics are so broad that they cover life itself, but then again, so did the eighteenth- century definition of the household. The broadness in turn motivates the choice of particularly narrow sources, that are read against the grain in order to reveal different things. What the choice of topics and the choice of sources have in common is that they are related to gender and social status.

The Letters and the Conduct Books The conduct books chosen for this study were both published in 1787, which means that they are both situated within the time-frame of the correspondence under consideration. The book, A Complete, True Wife’s Image,11 was a translation of the German author ‘E. F.’, while How Shall a Young Woman Educate Herself with Dignity12 was apparently a translation by another German writer named Andreas Meyer. It is difficult to know how much was changed in the translation to Swedish. Both books were published by a man named Samuel Norberg, who may have also translated them. A Complete, True Wife’s Image provides an outline of the ideal gender division within a household at the end of the eighteenth century. The husband is supposed to be in charge of the ‘outer housekeeping’, while the wife looks after the ‘inner housekeeping.’13 In this context, the Swedish word hushållning is used, and it means the married couple’s economic practices within the household that they arranged together. They have separate economic tasks; he brings home the income and it is her job to administer this

11 ’En Fulkomlig Ägta Hustrus Bild’ in Swedish, my translation. 12 ’Huru skal et Ungt Fruntimer wärdigt bilda sig’ in Swedish, my translation. The word ’bilda’ is related to the German word ’bildung’. 13 ’En Fulkomlig Ägta Hustrus Bild’, 1787 p. 18.

income for the household’s survival. His role is to work and be seen in the outside world, while she plays the part of the withdrawn caretaker at home.14 Ulrica Grill’s letter to her husband Jean Abraham — described in the introduction — depicts a couple working together outside: the young wife is described as having the ability to take her husband by his collar, to take charge.15 It is not a particularly informative description, but in an off-hand way, Ulrica still depicts a wife who can walk along side and even sometimes lead her husband. In this way, Ulrica provides an image of a couple’s relationship which stands in contrast with the conduct books. This couple is identified, however, as belonging to a farmer’s household. The intended readers of the conduct books possibly belonged to a different strata of society, even though the conduct books also drew on the idea of agrarian life- structure for its examples.16 There is often a connection made between the historical marginalization of women and the development of an individualist, capitalist society. Some historians have seen a connection between the development of capitalism in society at large and the strengthening of the so-called ‘separate spheres’ at home.17 They have observed print culture and found stronger tendencies to create demarcations between the two sexes from the end of the eighteenth century onwards, in correlation with the development of industrialization, the development of capitalistic economic systems, and a society celebrating individual achievement.18 According to this historiography, the older, household-oriented social model had a place for the wife that allowed her a certain amount of freedom and status; she could help and in some ways complement the husband.19 In the new capitalist society of the nineteenth

14 See Stadin 2004, ch. 2. See also Jacobsson & Ågren red. 2011; Harvey 2012; Pihl 2012. 15 NMA Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 — August 1 1781. 16 In this case they carried similarities to the household literature studied by Gray in Gray 2000, and by Runefelt in Runefelt 2001, pp. 91–116. 17 See Alice Clark in Clark 1919, a pioneer in woman’s history and gender history who made this theory popular. 18 See Davidoff & Hall 1987, regarding the creation of a middle-class identity in England during the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century and how this entailed a very genteel and respectable role for women. For an account of how heightened industrialization pushed working women away from industrial work in Sweden during the same time period, see Florén 1995, pp. 38–45, 90, 110. 19 Jansson 2011, pp. 235–254. See also Hansen 2006.

century, the woman did not have any kind of economic role to play. Instead, she was allocated the private sphere, while the man took his place in the ‘outer’ world.20 This explanatory model for separate spheres is frequently observed in the United Kingdom, a land that became industrialized much earlier than the Scandinavian countries. There are problems with applying it to poorer, peripheral countries like Sweden. It is easy to underestimate the durability of household-based social order — indeed, there is research that shows it held influence over Swedish society well into the nineteenth century.21 Some historians have discussed whether these norms were generally accepted and followed in practice. Amanda Vickery has written about the necessity of comparing different types of sources in order to judge the extent of certain norms and whether these were predominant during any given period. It is a well-established fact that certain texts extolling the ‘outer’ and ‘inner’ household were in circulation by the end of the eighteenth century, but in order to prove that these views were predominant, it is not enough to read these texts.22 Ulrica Grill’s observation of the farmer’s wife provides a simple illustration of how a person’s point of view could deviate from the reality depicted in normative books. The texts in these normative books were not necessarily representative of the zeitgeist of the period. There might have been different ways to view marriage, gender, and the division of work, and different ways to speak about these topics. Rather than acting as rigid societal framework, the conduct books could have been a part of wider discussion. If this seems

20 Jansson 2011, pp. 235–254. This is brought up by Anders Florén in connection with the social structures of iron-making communities in Florén 1995. 21 Göran Rydén has written about how the household economy remained functional and relevant in a community centered on iron production in 1839–1850. The iron bruk could be regarded as places in Sweden that developed a social stratification similar to that of industrial towns in England, with a proletarianisation of the workers, at an earlier date than in the rest of Sweden’s mostly agrarian economic communities. However, Rydén shows that the reproductive work of the women were vital to the economic survival of these communities. See Rydén 1990. See also Ulvros 1996, pp. 47–67; Hasselberg 1998, pp. 61–75, for discussions about how household-like structures retained their durability in Sweden during the first half of the nineteenth century. 22 Vickery 1993, pp. 383–386.

self-evident, it is still worth stating, since it raises the further question of the rationale behind these books — if conduct needed to be taught, were women and men not behaving or thinking the way they should? It is helpful to compare conduct books of the late eighteenth century to private correspondence from the same time period, to see if the norms the books promote appeared in private writing, and in that case, how they were addressed.

Reading Against the Grain — Letters as a Source When approaching centuries old texts, there is a danger of looking for things that seem recognizable. Were these concepts, events, or activities the same or similar, or does our modern cultural baggage make us prejudiced readers? There are many pitfalls when trying to interpret the deeper meanings of a letter that was perhaps not even intended to be read closely in the first place. The type of letters under consideration were mainly aimed at conveying news and expressing devotion. The latter is more apparent in the Murrays’ letters. They were newly-weds during the time that most of their correspondence took place. There is little room for news in their romantic missives. Adolph Murray mainly wrote to his wife lamenting that he had to be parted from her and she responded in kind. The question becomes in what way household norms can be gleaned from these emotional texts. One way is to take a step back and look at the context in which the letters were written. There has recently been a slew of scholarship concerning the tendentiousness of letters. Some scholars have highlighted that there were fashions in letter-writing as in everything else: many different letters have a similar style, prompting the question of how personal they really were.23 There were manuals for writing letters, and popular epistolary novels such as Samuel Richardson’s Pamela and Clarissa and Rousseau’s Heloise in- structed men and women how it should be done.24

23 See, for example, Hansson 2003; Löwendahl 2007; Goodman 2009. 24 The formal manuals for writing letters are discussed in the Swedish anthology Brevkonst 2003, in which Stina Hansson compares the strict rules men were supposed to follow when writing letters with the greater stylistic freedom allowed to women. The historian Dena Goodman has found in her study Becoming a Woman in the Age of Letters (2009) that the ‘free’ form was as much a norm for women as the structured

Another thing to take into account when studying letters as a genre is that they were not necessarily meant to be private. Though they might be addressed to one person, they could also be read by others, and that would not be considered strange.25 If you want to know how private a letter might have been, you have to consider the space in which it was read: for instance, did the reader even have access to a private room? In his letters, Adolph Murray writes about the spaces that were available to him and Hedvig Char- lotta Murray during their courtship, revealing how little privacy there was actually available. The couples’ parents are present everywhere: the proposal happened in ‘your parents’ garden’ and a few moments alone are stolen in ‘my mother’s chamber’, about which at least the mother must have known.26 The fact that the letters were preserved also tells us that someone wanted them to be preserved, possibly to be studied by later generations. There are letters missing — why are they missing? It is impossible to know. What we do know about the selective process with which the Murray letters were preserved, is that the whole collection was entrusted to Pehr Aurivillius, Hedvig Charlotta’s brother and Adolph’s close friend. Thus the courtship between Adolph Murray and Pehr Aurivillius’s sister has been preserved, but there are no extant letters between Adolph and his second wife Maria Lamberg. It is possible that Pehr Aurivillius made this selection. The Godegård collection, containing the correspondence between Ul- rica and Jean Abraham Grill, is vast. For Ulrica’s part, there has survived a letter from almost every other day. These are from the times when Jean Abraham went on journeys. There is the impression that everything was simply preserved as it was, though it is impossible to be sure. Ulrica and Jean Abraham Grill’s correspondence is of a different character than the Murrays’. In particular, Ulrica writes longer letters full of practical concerns. She also comes across as far more confident than Hedvig

form was a norm for men. During the eighteenth century, there was a strong expectation for women to write in an unfettered, emotional style, while men stood for reason and logic. Ideed, Ulrica Grill alludes to this stereotype in one letter to her husband, when she writes that she added several P. S.’s because women’s letters were supposed to include them. See, NMA Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG July 21 1779. 25 See Ulvros 1996, pp. 23–31; Steinrud 2008. 26 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to HCM 31 December 1781.

Charlotta Murray. Neither Ulrica nor Jean Abraham filled their letters with romance. One reason for the difference is of course that they were simply very different people. Some accounts of Ulrica depict a clever, formidable woman, described as being as competent as a man.27 She was in charge of a large estate and an iron works, in effect working as a deputy to her husband. Hedvig Charlotta Murray, on the other hand, never had that kind of responsibility. She did not oversee what amounted to a company while her husband was away, nor did she live long enough to gain the confidence Ul- rica Grill acquired after years of experience. While Adolph Murray was a scientist who was enthusiastic about his studies in anatomy, Jean Abraham Grill was primarily a trader on the board of the Swedish East India Trade Company. He had built his fortune in part on an illegal trade in opium in Canton.28 That might account for the more pragmatic tone in the Grill letters, but most importantly, their letters cover a longer period of time, showing how the couple grew used to one another. Perhaps the Murrays never got over the honeymoon-phase of their marriage since Hedvig Charlotta died young. The Grill correspondence demonstrates that letters between husbands and wives could have a different purpose during this period. In a clearer way than the Murrays’ correspondence, they reveal a married couple working together as partners, combining their emotional investment in each other with the economic investments they shared. The Grills occasionally allowed practical economic matters to take precedence in their correspondence, while the Murrays made more of an effort to keep the romantic aspects alive. Both couples may have had practical as well as emotional motives for their different writing styles. As previously noted, when trying to read these letters ‘against the grain’ in order to understand more about the context in which they were written, the norms they existed within, and the type of relationships they helped to create, it is important to remember that there are certain things we cannot know. For example, though it can be shown that the Murrays’ romantic style was befitting a certain popular ideal of marriage, it cannot be said that this

27 See the family history written by Claes Lorentz Grill in Grill 1866, and the biographical page at the family’s website, www.grilliana.se 28 Frängsmyr 1976, p. 106.

makes their love any less genuine than it would have been had they written like the Grills, or vice versa. Sentiments are not necessarily false because they are described in the accepted romantic language of the time.

Whose House? The Household as a Workplace, Inside and Outside When discussing the household as a workplace, it will at first be necessary to define the concept of ‘work’. An able-bodied person was expected to work in order to make him or herself useful. Those who were poor but deemed physically fit could readily be blamed for their own misfortunes — they were the ‘undeserving poor’, irrespective of the outside circumstances that pre- vented them from earning a living. Poor-relief was granted more liberally to people who were unable to work because of age or infirmity, the so-called ‘deserving poor’.29 Women were also expected to work, although their work was vaguely defined. The woman’s role as keeper and caretaker of the house was considered economically important. According to the conduct literature, tasks that pertained to taking care of the house, such as cooking, cleaning, and sewing, were considered work.30 However, women from different social classes were required to perform different types of tasks. Higher-ranking women were not expected to do grueling labour — indeed, to do the same tasks as a piga would have meant a loss of status for these women, as will be described in a later section of this article. Still, the association between household chores and ‘work’ retained its symbolic importance, even for the wealthy women who would have read conduct books. For middle and upper-class women, a tension clearly existed between what was in practice required of them and the notion of ‘work’. It was im-

29 See Sjögren 1997, pp. 86–118 regarding the history of the concept of the ‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving’ poor in Sweden. For discussions about the culture of util- ity in Swedish economic thought during the eighteenth century, see Frängsmyr 1971–72; Johannisson 1988; Legnér 2004, Runefelt 2005. Blom 1997, pp. 170– 195, discusses how this view was extended to children in orphanages that functioned as work houses. 30 See, for example, ‘Huru skal et Ungt Fruntimer wärdigt bilda sig’ 1787 p. 30.

portant to keep up appearances. In the conduct books, women are repeatedly described as the ‘fairer sex’.31 Yet these same books criticize women who spend too much time taking care of their appearance, whiling away the morning in front of their mirrors instead of working. Such a pursuit is considered idle.32 The books paint an idealized picture of how even the most high-born housewives were hard-working in the ancient past. ‘Homer tells of how princesses did not distain the most menial tasks. Today we would laugh at such things. What have we gained?’, writes the author of A Com- plete, True Wife’s Image.33 In short, reproductive work within the household was the only respectable task for women, whether they were rich or poor, even though many tasks were off-limits for wealthy mistresses. This reproductive work consisted of keeping accounts of the food in the pantry, of sewing and mending, cleaning and caring for children.34 While the husband brought in the income from outside the household, the wife kept the household’s economy running from within.35 How did this arrangement work out for the wealthy Murrays and the Grills? We have the most information about the Murrays’ lives in the period between their engagement and their marriage. These letters reveal the construction and early stages of their common household. Adolph’s voice is the clearest. He discusses the furnishing of their new household at some length, and with a great deal of authority.36 Amanda Vickery has described the custom among the English gentry to let women furnish the rooms of the house. According to her study, among the English gentry, there existed a certain cultural value in a woman’s touch, the sense of style that only women could possess. When women were allowed to express this sense of style, they could symbolically mark the inner rooms of the house as a female domain, as an expression of feminine

31 See ’En Fulkomlig Ägta Hustrus Bild’ 1787, p. 5. 32 ’En Fulkomlig Ägta Hustrus Bild’ 1787 pp. 20–21. 33 ’En Fulkomlig Ägta Hustrus Bild’ 1787 pp. 14–15. 34 ’En Fulkomlig Ägta Hustrus Bild’ 1787 p. 17. 35 See ‘Huru skal et Ungt Fruntimer wärdigt bilda sig’ 1787 p. 30, where a man who takes charge of the pantry is scolded for trying to steal food, called a grytsnok which can be translated as ‘pot-snake’. 36 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to HCM November 3 1783.

power.37 Not so for the Murrays. Apparently the furnishings were entirely the responsibility of the husband in this new family. Adolph writes to in- form Hedvig Charlotta about the practical packaging of his tables and chairs, and she effuses over the mirrors he has sent her for his room.38 Adolph also describes the house he has chosen for her, in a way that shows she clearly has not seen it.39 He also demonstrates extensive knowledge of the type of cloth used for furniture and clothes — he knows exactly those materials that will fray and those that will not.40 His detailed descriptions of fabrics are meant for one of his wife’s sisters. Apparently none of the Auriv- illius-girls possessed that knowledge. One can wonder what feminine home- making tasks were left for Hedvig Charlotta to perform. The Murray’s correspondence does not provide a clear picture of Hedvig Charlotta. Those of her letters that survive are fairly simple and short. She writes about accepting furnishings that Adolph has sent, but makes no mention of deciding anything about these furnishings or making any orders of her own.41 The Grill correspondence provides a window into a more settled marriage, and Ulrica also reveals herself to be more in control of her household furnishings than Hedvig Charlotta. She makes orders, via her husband, for cloths that she intends to make into tapestries. She also plies her husband for wax figurines to decorate the table, and discusses the maps of Godegård that she intends to mount on the walls.42 The maps would have not only been decorative, but functional, offering an overview of the estate that belonged to the Grills. Ulrica might have been able to make the claim that it was hers as well as her husband’s. Her mounting the maps on the wall suggests that she saw the necessity of knowing the wealth and the borders of their vast estate, this is not surprising since she spent a lot of time alone on the estate while her husband was away. But the map would also have been on display for visitors, showing them the expanse of the Grills’ domain.

37 Vickery 2009, ch. 3. 38 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to HCM November 3 1783. 39 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to HCM November 3 1783. 40 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to HCM November 3 1783. See also RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM till 1786, the date missing. 41 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 10 HCM to AM July 2 1782. 42 See NMA Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG February 18 1778, February 25 1778 and November 29 1783.

Ulrica’s concerns seem to fit well with the idea that a woman should work exclusively with the ‘inner’ household, but her preoccupation with tapestries, wax figurines, and maps relate to decoration and taste rather than the household economy or the physical comfort of the home. Of course, it is possible that the Grills simply liked to surround themselves with pretty things. However, that does not rule out the possibility that they had a vested interest in displaying their wealth and taste to their social peers.43 Ulrica mentions how visitors frequently dropped by without notice. This was an endless cause of frustration for her.44 Decorating was a particular form of household work that could open up the inner household to the outside world. Indeed, decorating dismantled the division between the inside and the outside. As historians such as Joa- chim Eibach have shown, the household was never a closed space during the early modern period, but rather something that needed to be performed to one’s neighbours. Marie Steinrud and David Sabean have also demonstrated how women’s sociability and networking, even in bourgeoisie drawing rooms, functioned as a way of preserving and promoting their households during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.45 However, I cannot find evidence that the conduct literature ever acknowledged any blurring of the boundaries between the inner and outer spheres of the household. If normative texts served any purpose, it seemed to be to guard those boundaries, sometimes in contradiction with everyday practice. This whole discussion is based on the presupposition that Ulrica Grill was mainly responsible for decorating and representing the house, which is not entirely accurate. Jean Abraham has partly made a name for himself by overseeing the building of a park at Godegård.46 It is not obvious whether this should be seen as an example of ‘outer’ housekeeping. When it came to tasteful household display, he supposedly provided Godegård with a Chi- nese porcelain set that he had acquired through his connections with the

43 For a Swedish study of this, see Andersson 2009. 44 For Ulrica’s complaints about visitors, see NMA Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG May 18 1778, Ibid. May 24 1778, July 17 1779, July 21 1779. 45 See Joachim Eibach’s conference text regarding ‘the open house’, ‘Doing House and Neighbourhood’, at the conference European Social Science History Conference, Vienna (Austria), 23–26 April 2014. 46 Olausson 1993, p. 191.

East India trade company.47 Though Ulrica was specific in her demands, he did most of the actual shopping. As previously mentioned, Adolph Murray was the one who decided how the Murray household should be furnished. There is evidence that Hedvig Charlotta provided some small items of decorative sewing.48 Who was responsible for the furnishing seems to have been decided according to who had the most opportunity to provide it, rather than by a ritualized gendered division; Jean Abraham Grill had connections with the East India trade company, so he provided porcelain. Ulrica could sew, so she made tapestries. Adolph Murray had lived as a bachelor for many years and therefore already owned furniture. The gendered division is apparent in the reason why Jean Abraham Grill did not sew, why Ulrica could not have a career within the East India trade company, or why Hedvig Charlotta Murray lived at home until her marriage. The women and men went into their marriages with different preconditions, preconditions that would continue to delineate their abilities to act once they were married. The fact that Jean Abraham Grill and Adolph Murray were well-traveled and worldly when they got married, while neither Ulrica nor Hedvig Charlotta were, determined the different responsibilities they acquired within the household. The addresses on their correspondences show that it was much more common for the husbands to travel than it was for their wives. It was possible for the wives to act as deputies to their husbands when it came to overseeing the management of estates and households, but they could not act as deputies for work that could take them away from the home, such as work within the field of politics or science.49 The conduct books mention the possibility of women receiving scientific education. Hedvig Charlotta Murray, the daughter and spouse of professors in Uppsala, would have had high education within her near reach. A Com- plete, True Wife’s Image makes the claim that women like her are capable of learning science, but that it is unnecessary for them to do so since their lot

47 Frängsmyr 1976, p. 106. 48 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to HCM 1786, the date missing. 49 Marion Gray sees this, rather than the development of industries, as one of the main causes of the creation of ‘separate spheres’ in household literature in Gray 2000.

in life is to dedicate themselves to the household. This is held up as something of equal importance to prestigious male work: ‘The science of which I speak is called the Household-science.’50 How Shall a Young Woman Educate Herself with Dignity describes the mental capacities of women in less generous terms, claiming that they are inca- pable of understanding science and those who talk about it appear ridicu- lous:

When I speak of Young Ladies’ knowledges and insights, I only count among them such knowledges as are befitting of that sex. A Young Lady who as soon as she opens her mouth breathes pure learning, and wants to flaunt herself with Wolf, Newton or Leibnitz, seems to me even so silly, as if I should see a man sit and make bobbing lace, tambour-stitching or knitting stockings.51

Here the division is obvious and unproblematic: men educate themselves and women sew. Why? A Complete, True Wife’s Image gives a practical explanation that there is no economic incentive for women to become educated.52 They could not use their knowledge for a career within a field of science, and their housekeeping skills were needed elsewhere. Even as the housefathers’ horizons were widening beyond farms and estates, there was no economic incentive for women to obtain the education they would need to partake in those ventures. They were barred from the fields of politics and science by laws and customs. However, there might be other incentives. Since women were economically dependent on men to survive, they might feel the need to get male attention by engaging with men on their own terms. According to How Shall a Young Woman Educate Herself with Dignity, that venture would be doomed to fail, since women never could hope to earn respect that way.

50 ’En Fulkomlig Ägta Hustrus Bild’ 1787 p. 18, my translation. It should be noted that the Swedish word for science, vetenskap, is slightly more flexible than the English ‘science’. Vetenskap draws together the terms science and learning, encompassing natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. However, during the eighteenth century, vetenskap did not have the function of forwarding erudition for its own sake like it did later in the nineteenth century. Rather, it had a utilitarian purpose, to develop technical skills and tools. See Benner & Widmalm (red.) 2011, for a brief history of the concept of ‘knowledge’ in Sweden. 51 ‘Huru skal et Ungt Fruntimer wärdigt bilda sig’ 1787 p. 28. 52 ’En Fulkomlig Ägta Hustrus Bild’ 1787 p. 18.

The question why the genders held different positions is in fact fundamental for gender history research. Gender historians like Yvonne Hirdman and Eva Helen Ulvros have described how gender relations in history are frequently are seen to be in stasis, when in fact they are always in a state of change.53 This study of norms and ideals concerning gender also shows that change happened at a slow pace and that old norms could overlap with newer ones: it was not as neat as that one ideal replaced another. Old-fashioned notions of what was considered women’s work and men’s work co- existed with new practical realities, complicating the lives of real women and men as they tried to understand their own lives.

Servants and Subordinates: Borders and Hierarchies in the Household When discussing Swedish households during the eighteenth century it is crucial to remember the role played by servants. Maids were called pigor and male servants or farmhands were referred to as drängar. This servant class was an essential part of a moderately wealthy Swedish household during the early modern period: the question is, were they viewed as a part of the extended family or simply as labourers, or both? The maids and servants could live under the same roof, and in some cases sleep in the same room as their employers. Their tasks could vary greatly from household to household, and their status as well: sometimes they were considered family and sometimes barely human.54 There is some discussion within the scholarship about how the status of maids and servants changed during the early modern period.55 This segment will consider how the conduct books depicted servants, and how the Grills and the Murrays acted as employers. These sources reveal something about the discursive climate in which the servants existed. They do not reveal anything about the servants’ own views. The practices of servants during this period do, however, show that they possessed a level of agency, though their movements were restricted by laws.56

53 See Hirdman 2001; Ulvros 1996. 54 See Harnesk 1990 for a discussion about how views on servants fluctuated during the eighteenth century. 55 See Pleijel 1970; Harnesk 1990. 56 Harnesk 1990, pp. 88–89.

Servants were very mobile. They could sometimes stay at one place for less than a year before moving on to the next. During the eighteenth century there was significant concern about the movements of this servant class, because this caused instability in the households that employed them. There were laws that tied the servants to their employments for an extended period of time. These laws were enforced to varying degrees during the century. The 1750s were the most restrictive period, and the laws were relaxed somewhat during the 1770s.57 At the same time, some historians have observed a shift in social trends: preachers began to preach about the Lutheran hustavla more vigorously than before.58 This could be interpreted as the return of a more traditional discursive climate, with a focus on a household order where servants were regarded as members of the household who needed to be protected as well as disciplined. Within this household order they were expected to show familial loyalty towards their employers.59 If this change in discourse happened in the 1770s, it would have happened concurrently with the granting of greater freedom of movement for servants as a result of changes in the law, and the gradual weakening of the aristocracy’s feudal rights during the reign of Gustav III. In other words, the ideological reigns were tightened at the same time as the practical ones were loosened. Laws could be perceived as tyrannical, but norms were more difficult to challenge. How were servants and servants’ work actually described during this period? During the 1770s there were debates within the Diet and within the press about the effectiveness of the laws. These debates were sometimes tied to normative discussions about the role of servants. In The Royal Patriotic Society’s periodical, Hushållningsjournal, authors argued against the laws by relating them to the idea of freedom.60 At the same time, the society awarded medals to servants who had been in the service of one family for a long period of time.61 The same articles that argued for freedom also described the ideal of the loving housefather and the familial loyalty a servant ought

57 Harnesk 1990, pp. 50–71. 58 Hansen, 2006, pp. 35–36. 59 Harnesk 1990, pp. 40–47. See also Hasselberg 1998, pp. 240–241 for a discussion about how this continued into the early nineteenth century. 60 See Hushållningsjournal vol. 1 September 1776. 61 See, for example, the piga who was awarded a medal for serving one family for thirty years, in Hushållningsjournal 1777.

to feel under his care.62 In essence, the writers of Hushållningsjournal, who included prominent landowners, scientists, and economists in Sweden and abroad in some cases argued that servants’ movements should not be restricted by laws because that infringed on their right to freedom. But, it was argued, household norms ought to be strengthened — this would make every right-thinking servant want to stay. The conduct books take a less conciliatory view of servants. In En Fullkomlig, Ägta Hustrus Bild, the chapter about the care of children offers a particularly sharp rebuke of the servant class, when it recommends that children are to be kept away from them because they will fill their heads with superstitions.63 Here the servants are not treated as beings worthy of respect: it is very far from the pleadings for freedom in Hushållningsjournal. In agrarian households, working as a servant could be considered a right of passage for most young people before they settled down, and in that context, pigor and drängar could be considered to have been potential householders themselves even if they were currently subordinated in someone else’s household.64 However, with the descriptions of servants as a separate class, the conduct books seem to be aimed at a group of women who would never have worked as pigor at any point in their lives. At a specific point in one of the books, the housewife and the piga are brought together. The woman who is too hands-on with the housework risks becoming a piga herself. The author of How Shall a Young Woman Educate Herself With Dignity, is accusatory of the parents who educate their daughters in the intricacies of household chores. In that case, ‘The husband’s new wife will also be his first house-piga.’65 However, he had no time for women who aspired to be more than housewives:

62 See Hushållningsjournal vol. 1 September 1776. 63 ’En Fulkomlig Ägta Hustrus Bild’ 1787 pp. 47–48. 64 This pattern in Western Europe is described in Berkner 1972, p. 411; Laslett 1977, p. 45; Hajnal 1983, p. 96. Börje Harnesk criticizes this depiction of Western European servant-culture in Harnesk 1990, ch. 3. According to Harnesk, this practice was not common in Sweden during the early modern period. However, there is still a possibility that there was a cultural expectation that working as dräng or a piga was a transitory phase. 65 ‘Huru skal et Ungt Fruntimer wärdigt bilda sig’ 1787 p. 29.

Others make themselves merry over such a simple education; they want to place themselves above such lowly habits, and let their young girls get themselves mixed up in the menfolk’s affairs; they teach them all manner of sciences, or rather, cheat. If the former becomes her husband’s first house-piga, the later becomes a fool, who wants to rule over him with her supposed wisdom and knowledge.66

This is a light-hearted passage, but it implied that the differences between the mistresses of the house and the servants needed to be upheld, lest the lines were blurred. At the same time the wife’s subordination with regards to her husband had to be maintained. It is as though the book, after assuring the female readers that they are superior to servants, must remind them of their inferiority at once to prevent them from taking it too far. As for the correspondence, the Murray letters barely mention the presence of live-in servants. A survey of the Murray household during the period when Adolph and Hedvig Charlotta lived there shows that they did have one dräng who lived with them, a man named Olof Engström.67 However, the times when a servant is mentioned in the surviving Murray letters, he is simply named as drängen, ‘the servant’ — with no clue about whether the man in question is Olof Engström or another day labourer.68 Servants could also change employment frequently, and this survey only shows one moment in the Murray’s lives. Other types of labourers are mentioned in passing — for example, there are mentions of sending an åkare, a horse-drawn cart, to ship furniture.69 The only subordinate who is present in the household and who is named is Mamsell Sommer, the hairstylist, but she is just a temporary presence.70 The lack of servants in these letters might be mislead- ing, since some of the Murray correspondence appears to be lost, but most of the surviving letters are from the time when the young couple is setting

66 ‘Huru skal et Ungt Fruntimer wärdigt bilda sig’ 1787 p. 29. 67 For basic biographical information about Adolph Murray, see Adolph Murray, http://sok.riksarkivet.se/sbl/artikel/8576, Svenskt biografiskt lexikon (art by Wilhelm Odel- berg), 2015-12-09. 68 Adolph Murray mentions ‘my dräng’ in one letter. RA, Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM till HCM July 5 1782. 69 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 10 HCM to AM July 2 1782. 70 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to HCM February 20 1783.

up a household together. Servants are not a main topic of discussion between them in this instance, though they would have been an essential component of the new home. Perhaps this particular couple preferred to discuss such matters face to face, or perhaps it was yet another instance of Adolph taking care of something without consulting his young wife. The lack of mention of servants could also point to a labour situation where day labourers were easy to find, flexible and anonymous. The Murrays lived in a town after all. The situation was very different for Ulrica Grill. Ulrica Grill’s letters mention servants and other subordinates frequently. Sometimes they are casually mentioned as an aside, as part of the setting for some other event, and sometimes she describes to her husband her interactions with them. Though it is not specified how close their quar- ters were to Ulrica’s, the drängar and pigor move in and out of her house and she pays attention to their movements. Ulrica Grill also oversaw a large iron works at Godegård, co-operated with its overseers, and socialized with their families. She reports to Jean Abraham the work conducted by the iron works’ inspector, and she describes his health and social situation.71 Work and social life is intermingled in a natural way for the woman whose home is her work. In the letters, sometimes she describes the people working at her husband’s metal works as being under her protection. She gossips about their lives and struggles, and also sees it as her role to give them help and advice. At one point Ulrica relates how a drunken clerk drove an acquaintance of hers, a Mrs Lagergren, temporarily hysterical.72 The purpose of this account was to tell Jean Abra- ham that Mrs Lagergren took medicine she recommended, thanked her, and ‘cried for joy.’73 The illnesses of the local people are a common topic for her, and when she describes them she often explains how she will help them.74 In one instance, when she is not allowed to help, she snidely refers to the doctor they

71 NMA Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG June 3 1781. 72 NMA Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG February 18 1778, my translation. 73 NMA Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG February 18 1778. 74 See examples of this in NMA Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG, June 3 1781, February 28 1778, July 17 1779, November 1783.

have called as ‘doctor helpless.’75 Though she socialized with the people who worked for her husband, this should not necessarily be read as the hierarchies between them were dissolving. The hints that are present in the letters of how Ulrica acted as a benevolent patroness to these people show that her familiarity with them was a way for her to maintain her hierarchical standing. Familial bonds were hierarchical. When Ulrica acted almost as a mother to the people in the village, she was reinforcing her hierarchical standing as the mistress of Godegård. Ulrica refers to villagers and people at the iron works in a respectful way, but what about the pigor and drängar who work for her? In general, she finds them a source of frustration. As previously mentioned, it is in the nature of letters to convey news, and Ulrica might not have commented on everyday work running smoothly. As such, the letters may not represent her everyday opinions. However, it is worth noting that when she does mention servants, it is usually in a negative way. She complains about how difficult it is to find good servants and about their drinking habits.76 She describes how a piga ‘fell into the fire’ as if it is an inconvenience to her.77 The household staff is moved around without regard to their own opinions.78 Such attitudes might not have been unusual. At the same time, household-oriented ideals such as the ones expressed in Hushållningsjournal would have promoted the notion that servants were supposed to have familial bonds with their employers. However, both Ulrica Grill’s letters and the Murray correspondence reveal masters and mistresses having distant relationships with the servants in their employ. The Murrays’ show this by omit- ting the servants while Ulrica expresses her distain for them. The most note- worthy thing is that Jean Abraham Grill barely discusses the servant situation with Ulrica, though she brings it up in her letters to him. There could be many reasons for this, and letters are missing from Jean Abraham’s correspondence; but logically, Ulrica might have written more about the servants because she spent time with them every day while Jean Abraham was away. According to the conduct books, taking charge of the household staff

75 NMA Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG February 251778, my translation. 76 NMA Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG 25 February 1778, July 17 1779, July 28 1781, March 16 1788. 77 NMA Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG March 16, 1788. 78 NMA Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG March 16, 1788.

would have been one of the main responsibilities of the woman, and Ulrica seems to have taken on that responsibility. In this way, her complaining about servants and his silence on the subject appears to be another example of a gendered divide between the couple. There is the suggestion of another connection between Ulrica’s distain for her servants and the ideal female role as expressed in the conduct literature. The conduct books talk about the fine line between being a mistress and being a servant. The mistress must justify herself by doing housework, as a good traditional wife should do, but at the same time not demean herself by doing too much housework. This fine line is alluded to in the passage of Meyer’s conduct book where it is said that the wife should not be con- fused with the piga. Ulrica certainly had a hands-on approach to governing her estate, visiting the fields of the tenant farmers, and discussing bills and shipments with her husband. At the same time she was acutely aware of the fact that at any moment her home could be invaded by guests and that she had to live up to certain standards as a hostess. In the normative discourse of the time, this was the balance she had to strike, between being a practical worker and a mistress worthy of respect. To conclude, Ulrica Grill’s letters show her distinguishing herself from both her servants and the other subordinates at the iron works by demonstrating how she either successfully lorded over them, or was disappointed and frustrated by them. Even though she needed them for housekeeping and company, this distinction had to be articulated to her husband.

Romance and Economy: The Emotional Aspects of the Household A letter from Ulrica Grill to Jean Abraham began like this:

My beloved best friend — it’s completely hopeless, Ehrenbills with the two eldest children are here, last Monday night 11 o’clock they came here, the same morning my dear mother and I had begun drinking at the well…79

79 NMA Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG July 21 1779.

On the other hand, Adolph Murray began a letter by stating:

Today you get a letter from me which I begin writing early in the morning, since I do not know which hindrances could occur, and I for no part want you to, from an unexpected shortness in the letter, conclude that a distrac- tion could hinder my thoughts from You, from my Carl Adolph, from Up- sala. No, my heart is constantly with you, and my only joy is, that I so often have the opportunity to speak of you. Fate separates us from each other for a long time now, but at the same time it unites us all the more strongly, for wherever I turn, and wherever I am I always have my little Hedda with me and give her my tender embrace. Alas how wonderful this will be, when imagination is turned into reality.80

This is not an engagement letter. The couples had both been married to each other for a few years when the quoted passages were written. The marriages of the Murrays and the Grills were very different. In a society where the family was supposed to be a working unit, the decision who to marry carried economic implications. Marriages created networks and movements of wealth in the form of dowries and inheritances. David Sabean has written about how family networks during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries both worked with trying to preserve wealth, and also generated and regenerated class divisions.81 It made a great deal of sense to take a pragmatic approach to marriage. However, during the late eighteenth century, the pragmatic approach found competition with the idea of romantic love. This section examines the kind of normative framework discussed in the conduct books and letters, and romantic love. The fine balance women were supposed to strike between being hard workers and aloof mistresses has already been discussed. In conduct literature, this fine balance is even more pronounced when the books describe the personal qualities women are supposed to possess, qualities that make them ‘lovely’ to the writers. In both books, women are repeatedly described as being the fair sex. This does not keep the writers from caricaturing the type of women who spend hours getting ready in front of the mirror, and advising them to stay away from ‘fashions and women’s fripperies.’82

80 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to HCM 1786. 81 See Sabean 1998. 82 ‘Huru skal et Ungt Fruntimer wärdigt bilda sig’ 1787 p. 15.

Women are advised to spend their time with more worthy pursuits, such as housework. There are corresponding attitudes to female vanity in the letters, particularly in Ulrica Grill’s as she grapples with wanting to or needing to look good and yet at the same time the need not to appear vain. She asks for clothes to ‘cover my horrible figure’, and excuses the purchases she wants to make with by stating that ‘It is no vanity, you know I despise such fripperies.’83 In the letters that have survived from Jean Abraham, he ignores the issue altogether. In the Murray, letters the opposite applies: Hedvig Char- lotta does not reflect on her own appearance but is repeatedly described by Adolph as ‘fair’. Adolph is also amused by the travails his sister has to go through to get her hair done:

I laugh at her as I see her pretty face in the mirror while I am writing, but she threatens me, that the same grim and unmerciful Madame Somer will eventually pull my Hedda’s hair. Well well, my ladies! So you are punished for your intention to follow the violent laws of fashion.84

Another sign of the association between beauty and femininity could be seen in the mockeries of dandies and fops that began to appear in Sweden during the late eighteenth century. In Swedish they were referred to as ‘sprätthökar’, or the French term ‘petit-maitre’. The historians Jonas Liljequist and Karin Hassan Jansson have both written about how these car- icatures began to appear in Swedish publications after being previously vir- tually unknown. Foppishness in men was seen as something foreign, mainly French, and uneconomic since it signified a wasteful, idle way of life. Most damningly, it was seen as a sign of effeminacy.85 The stereotype does indeed get mentioned in one of the conduct books, and Ulrica Grill also makes fun of the ‘petit-maitre’ at one point: she, at least, was aware that men could show excessive vanity.86 Whether this new stereotype created a quandary for men who wanted to appear good looking is not a question this study will be able to answer. There is no mention of such a dilemma faced by either

83 NMA, Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG May 24 1778. 84 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to HCM February 20 1783. 85 See Jonas Liliequist 2000; Runefelt 2005, p. 103; Jansson 2013. 86 NMA, Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG February 25 1778.

Adolph Murray or Jean Abraham. Taken as a whole, the letter-writers all seem to see beauty as a feminine trait. The necessity for women to appear beautiful can seem a trivial issue to focus on in an examination of household norms, but the tell-tale description of ‘the fair sex’ tied beauty to the notion of being a woman who belonged to a higher stratum of society. Carolina Brown has written about how conspicuous consumption of beauty products and the act of sitting in front of a mirror were accepted actions for women of the nobility, because that type of consumption was appropriate for their status, though it would have been considered wasteful for peasants, for example.87 On this point, the bourgeoisie, who had recently become a political force, might have occupied the middle ground. This might explain the ambiguity of the conduct books that both ridicule fripperies, but identify its readers as ‘the fair sex’. Beauty was a way to define refined women, and once women were defined their place within society and the household could be defined. The mockery of women who cared too much about beauty also brings up the tension that seems to exist in these texts between practical and romantic approaches to life. That tension is important to this study since one could take both approaches to entering a marriage and forming a household. After all, apart from defining what was masculine and feminine, looking good could make you attractive to the opposite sex. In reality, many things restricted people’s options to choose a partner — limited social circles, lack of money, pressures from one’s family. But the subject of this study is social norms, how these practical concerns could be couched in the normative discourse of the period. When it came to marriage, the tension between romance and practical concerns would have been a tension between choosing a life-partner and a good economic investment. And, though their options were in reality limited and women were often under pressure, the choice, according to the norm, fell to women. The beginning of Adolph Murray’s correspondence with Hedvig Charlotta is a letter where he tells her he wants to speak to her about something in her par- ent’s garden.88 The next letter is full of joyous exclamations about their love,

87 See Brown 2011, ch. 4, about the roles of different estates when it came to applying beauty products and wearing fine clothes. See also, Runefelt 2005, ch. 5 regarding the debate on luxury in Sweden during the mid-eighteenth century. 88 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to HCM July 15 1781.

after she has accepted his proposal in the garden.89 As previously mentioned, Hedvig Charlotta’s beauty becomes something of a defining trait for her in the letters that follow. One might conclude that her beauty helped elevate her to the position of mistress of a household. At the very least, it did her no harm. The conduct books provide detailed advice about how to behave around men. At the same time, there is a contradiction, similar to the one regarding the importance of beauty. Women are supposed to behave naturally and not engage in anything duplicitous.90 The implication is perhaps that the right conduct will give a person the right nature, that the surface is the key to understanding the person’s inner being. Acting as though something was true made it true. Adolph Murray never wrote a letter to Hedvig Charlotta without describing his love and devotion: this was also true even later on in their marriage.91 His and Hedvig Charlotta’s marriage seems to embody marriage as a romantic ideal to a far greater extent than the practical Grills.92 Yet in a letter to his brother Philip, written a year before his engagement, Adolph expresses a less romantic side of himself. He complains about the rumours that he is engaged, ‘For how is it possible that a healthy red-cheeked bachelor with a whole professor’s wage should long live unmarried?’93 The rumours are that he will marry one of Professor Carl Aurivillius’s daughters, since she is beautiful and soft-spoken like himself, and he often visits her as a doctor. He denies the rumours, but at the same time explains to Philip why she would be a good match for him after all:

If I were to take a professor’s daughter, she would already know how a professor occupies himself, if I took an Uppsala child she would know the way of living, and I would be free from blame if I sat by my desk far into the

89 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to HCM December 31 1781. 90 See ’En Fulkomlig Ägta Hustrus Bild’ 1787 pp. 22–31 regarding how women should behave towards their husbands. 91 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to HCM 1786, no date given. 92 One letter with a romantic tone from Jean Abraham to Ulrica survives. Its tone is completely different from the rest of their correspondence, and in that context it stands out as very odd. See NMA, Godegårdssamlingen vol. 14 JAG to UG, April 15 1772. 93 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to PM November 10 1780.

night and if I could not get her other amusements than her mother had had.94

This is rather more pragmatic than the romantic missives to Hedvig Char- lotta. Hedvig Charlotta in turn mentions in a letter how she has written it herself rather than dictated it, because Adolph had encouraged her to do so, mindful of her education.95 Since they would have moved in academic circles, it might have been necessary for her to be able to keep up with learned conversations. Though this does not mean that his feelings towards Hedvig Charlotta were not genuine, it nevertheless shows that Adolph was acutely aware that a romantic motive for marriage was not the only consideration. He had plenty of practical reasons to choose professor Aurivillius’s daughter. However, writing about his love added a sense of romance. It was a way of idealizing the relationship. As other historians have shown, romance became elevated as an ideal relationship between husbands and wives in the eighteenth century, though that did not necessarily remove the practical reasons for marriage.96 Adolph had to be aware of the practical advantages of marrying a beautiful professor’s daughter, at the same time seeing it as a romantic choice. Like in the conduct books, there was a contradiction between the demand to conform to strict social rules and the demand to be honest and natural. The fact that the romantic style of writing was becoming the norm for what was ‘natural’ between married couples shows that marriage was beginning to be publicly seen as something other than a household arrangement. The Bible stated that marriage existed for the purpose of procreation, and that it was the order of God. Romance implies free choice, people enter into marriage because they want to be with a certain person. The elevation of romance obscured the practical aspects of forming a household, couching it in different terms. One aspect of marriage that was both practical and emotional was that it played a part in creating networks. This is something visible in the Murray letters, where it appears that Hedvig Charlotta is marrying Adolph’s entire

94 RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to PM November 10 1780. 95 RA Murrayska släktarkivet vol. 10 HCM till AM January 3 1783. 96 See Löwendal 2007; Goodman 2009.

family, rather than just him. She liberally gives assurances of love to his mother and his brothers even before having met any of them. It is also note- worthy how important they both think it is to send regards to each other’s families — Hedvig Charlotta expresses an intense love for people she has not yet met. At one point in Adolph Murray’s letter, his brothers add their own playful regards.97 Even if these letters were not read aloud to the whole family, the family still inserted itself into them. When reading the Murray letters, we must consider that they were not only emotional expressions. They also served the practical purpose of tying two families together in writing, a social negotiation that was of vital importance for the formation of their household. Hedvig Charlotta seems to have been aware of the collective nature of the household she was about to create with Adolph, implying that she also knew marriage was something more than romance.

Conclusion The conduct books extolled the virtues of natural behaviour, natural appearances, and the natural order for the distribution of work between the sexes within the household. At the same time they advised their readers to work in order to uphold these things. The conduct books would not have existed at all if the order that they describe as natural had really been natural. The letters, on the other hand, show that the Murrays and the Grills did work to uphold gendered preconceptions of themselves and the household order in which they worked, at the same time as they had to also handle the contradictions of their respective situations. To begin with, Ulrica Grill had to maintain power over her servant staff, and also act as the centre of social life at Godegård, a task that was physically and mentally taxing. At the same time, she had to justify her choices to her husband. In a sense, they were partners, sharing gossip about mutual acquaintances and discussing the business of the iron works, but Ulrica was also subordinate to Jean Abraham, legally, economically, and culturally. The

97 See RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 10 HCM to AM, 4 January 1782, where Hedvig Charlotta exspresses her longing to meet Adolph Murray’s family. Adolph sends his regards in Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to HCM December 31 1781, and adds his family’s regards in the letters June 27 1782, July 5 1782, and December 30 1782.

tone of her letters when she tries to justify the purchases she wants him to make, or when she complains about his untimely absences, show she was aware of the differences between them. She sometimes reveals her irritation with her husband. This irritation becomes understandable when one considers the position of authority she otherwise held in her community. Her husband was frequently gone, and her role as deputy ruler of Godegård would have been strengthened in his absence. If she grew comfortable in that position of authority, it is not surprising that she was irritated by re- minders that she still held a subordinate status to her husband. The tone of some of her letters verges on the passive-aggressive. ‘Can you see that they made good of their promise to come’, she writes of an unwel- come visit from guests in 1783; ‘I could just imagine that the Groens could not give an unfounded promise to meet here, but you are sometimes too hasty in your expeditions.’98 Jean Abraham was also required to socialize more than he wanted to and he missed home. ‘I am swamped with food, courtesies, and welcomes, but everywhere I get castigated for not bringing you, you wicked woman,’ He wrote in 1785, suggesting Ulrica made her own decisions to stay home.99 The household, and housekeeping or hushållning, became coded as feminine space during the nineteenth century.100 This is evident both in the evolution of the household books and conduct literature of that century, and also in the connotations the word carries today. Sometime during that century, the household shifted from being a model for the whole of society, to becoming one place among many. There were many different social developments at work in this process. One was that the Swedish elite became less tied to the agrarian way of life. Since the household culture was based on agrarian society, with its productive and reproductive cycles, this culture began to lose its status among the elite as they became less agrarian. But since the linking of women to housework remained strong, the household’s loss of status had negative implications for the women who stayed within it. I wanted to find out how the household was characterized just before this loss of status was said to have taken place. My standpoint was similar to the one expressed by Vickery when she deconstructed the notion of a golden

98 NMA, Godegårdssamlingen vol. 16 UG to JAG December 1 1783. 99 NMA, Godegårdssamlingen vol. 15 JAG to UG January 3 1785. 100 Hasselberg 2011, pp. 355–365. See also Gray 2000; Berg 2009.

age of separate spheres: that you could choose almost any period in history and find an ongoing separation of male and female spheres.101 However, this study, and the choice of the household, is still revelatory about a shift in the household’s status, at the same time as women remained confined to it. In Ulrica Grill’s case, this development was ambiguous. Jean Abraham’s removal from Godegård was due to the nature of his work as a trader and a scientist, and these were areas where she could not step in and be his depute. That, and his long absences, meant that they both had limited insight into each other’s lives, something that is shown, for instance, in Jean Abraham’s lack of concern about servants. At the same time, Jean Abraham’s absence provided Ulrica the chance to exercise authority. The Grills’ letters give an example of a household becoming more of a female sphere, and at the same time, how the female becomes more empowered within that sphere. Ulrica would use that power to manage the iron works alone for two decades after Jean Abraham died in 1792.102 Of course this empowerment depended on a number of different factors — the wealth and comfort of Godegård, the relatively amicable relationship between the married couple — Jean Abraham could have been far more tyrannical towards his wife — and Ulrica’s strong personality, making her ready to take charge when the opportunity arose. The main factor was perhaps that Godegård was a productive estate and an iron works. Ulrica’s work there was measurable in economic terms. As for the Murrays, the role of Hedvig Charlotta seems to provide the opposite example to Ulrica. This is a woman in her early twenties who is married to an experienced professor in his thirties, a man who already has a comfortable home and a professional relationship with her father.103 She

101 See Vickery 1993. 102 Jean Abraham Grill, who had been a supporter of King Gustav III, died a short time after the king was murdered. See the foreword written by Catherine Lager- krantz in the edition of Anna Johanna Grill’s diary from 1788 which was published 1997 for some biographical details about the Grill family, in Grill et al 1997. See, also, the Grill family’s webpage for collections of biographical data, www.Grilliana.se 103 Adolph Murray wrote to his brother Philip about his medical visits and friend- ship to the Aurivillius family in RA Murrayska släktsamlingen vol. 9 AM to PM, November 10, 1780.

was in an inferior position in almost every way. Her main practical contri- bution was that she could provide a son for Adolph. Though Adolph trav- elled, he still gave her advice. There was no indication that it was necessary for her to take charge of an estate the way Ulrica did, or that she would have wanted to. However, I say this seems to provide an opposite example, because too few of Hedvig Charlotta’s letters survive for us to be able to create a clear picture of what she was like. We do know that Adolph’s letters focused on emotions and that he mainly credited her with being beautiful, but these letters fit into an ideal style of letter writing that was popular at the time. The fact that there are fewer letters between them does not have to mean that many have been destroyed — they could equally indicate that they spent more time together than apart, meaning that they had a greater chance of co-operating than the Grills. Hedvig Charlotta’s upbringing also shows that she could have helped Adolph in his work. Some letters which her father, the orientalist professor Carl Aurivillius, wrote to his daughters have survived. In letters to her sisters, he promises they can use his writing desk and encourages them to read.104 In some cases he writes about sending them specific books.105 It seems reasonable to conclude that Hedvig Charlotta received some education which would have helped her socially in the academic circles in which her father and husband moved, even though she was barred from entering the university. We know too little about her to know how she acted, but if she had used her learning in a social setting, she would have subverted the ideals espoused by the conduct books. With his knowledge of cloths and sewing, Adolph also subverted the ideals of the conduct books, as they pertained to men.106 Along with Ulrica Grill, he reveals that the household norms that seem so rigid when put into writing, could be flexible in practice, provided they were not openly challenged. The flexibility was not only necessary for women, but for men like Adolph Murray, who would have had use for housekeeping skills in his life as a bachelor.

104 See UUB handskriftsavdelningen, Carl Aurivillius, Inkomna handlingar, korrespondens. 105 UUB handskriftsavdelningen, Carl Aurivillius, Inkomna handlingar, korrespondens. 106 ‘Huru skal et Ungt Fruntimer wärdigt bilda sig’ 1787 p. 30.

I have frequently mentioned the importance of upholding a balance between contradictory ideals as the only way for the Murrays and the Grills to be able to maintain their positions within the household. However, it is possible to view these contradictions not only as restrictive, but as ambigui- ties that opened up different avenues for people to act. Some flexibility born out of necessity existed for men and women even within a higher strata of society. This could also have unintended consequences, creating situations that the normative literature of the period did not want to acknowledge, where men and women tried each other’s work, or were unexpectedly empowered by fulfilling their traditional roles.

‘God! Let Me Not Waste a Moment of This Year’

An Intersectional Perspective on the Practices of Time-Use in Gentry Women’s Households in Sweden, 1793–1839

Jessica Karlsson

On one day in the winter of 1795, Lisa Wilhelmina Mullberg forbade all visitors to the house. She planned to spend the day sewing a shoulder-stitch. However, as the main door was closed, Magister Lindblad and young Nor- berg — to Lisa Wilhelmina’s great distress — came through the second door. Lisa Wilhelmina now had to put aside her plans of sewing and instead she entertained the company with games until the late evening. Lisa Wilhel- mina’s frustration was observed by her mother, the old brukpatronessa Lisa Mullberg, who wrote about it in her diary.1 The diary note provides an insight into something that is hard to obtain through public records — the mundane every day. It provides us with the knowledge of what tasks and chores Lisa Wilhelmina, a woman belonging to the higher strata of society, was expected to perform. These were both sewing and social obligations, tasks that clearly did not coincide. It can be difficult for us to understand the demanding nature that the entertainment of guests had on women of high status. It was, however, often presented as laborious, and it became an obstacle to the tasks that needed to be performed during the day.2 The sewing could not be delegated to a servant. It was solely Lisa Wilhelmina’s responsibility. The end of the early modern period, 1750–1850, is presented by historians as a period of change for women belonging to the higher strata of

1 NMA Mullberg, 9 December 1795, vol. 9, ämnessamlingar dagböcker. 2 Steinrud 2008, p. 76.

society, such as Lisa Wilhelmina. Due to significant transitions such as re- volutions, industrializations, urbanization, and the development of new social classes, the discourse of gender was changing.3 This new discourse meant that men’s place was in public, where the idea of masculinity was being constructed, whilst women belonged in the home, the private, where ideas of femininity were being maintained. This had a real effect on the space women occupied and how they spent their time. The home — a place previously the site for both living and working — was shrinking, and instead productive work was placed outside of it. This meant that women from the higher strata of society were now expected to occupy themselves with ‘decorative’ tasks.4 It is argued that this development is primarily found in England. In Sweden, a country that experienced these changes much later, it is commonly understood that changes in gender discourse did not occur until the late nineteenth century.5 Even though there exists advice literature and ideas of gender which tells us what people during the early modern period should be doing with their time, there is still not enough knowledge nor understanding as to what they really did, or how they themselves perceived all of this.6 With the help of diaries written by four Swedish women from the gentry and richer bourgeois, this chapter considers the practice of work, meaning the tasks and chores conducted by these women, and how they perceived them. It will also consider the practices of work performed by other individuals described in the diaries. This is done in order to study the differences and similarities that were established amongst them. This will allow for a more nuanced understanding of work practices in the early modern period. What tasks and chores did these women consider important for their household and social surroundings?

3 Caine & Sluga 2000, pp. 7–10, 32, 34. 4 Vickery 1998, p. 2; Caine & Sluga 2000, pp. 32–41; Blom, Sogner & Rosenbeck 2006, pp. 182–184. 5 Ulvros 1996, pp. 333–336; Jansson 2011, pp. 236–246. 6 This lack of general knowledge has been raised by the Uppsala University based project, Gender and Work, Fiebranz, Lindström & Ågren, 2011. In Stadin 2004, ideological perceptions of what people should be doing are studied. However, what they actually did or how they perceived it are not the focus of the study.

Work and the Practices of Time-Use Studying what people did with their time during the early modern period is no easy task. Historical sources are often lacking in descriptions of work, especially work conducted by marginalized groups such as women.7 The term work is in itself a highly problematic term for this period. The historian Deborah Simonton argues that work has often been defined from a male perspective. In this definition, female tasks and chores are often not perceived as work. This means that a hierarchy exists in what is and has been viewed as important work.8 Therefore, a broader understanding of the term work is required for the early modern period. A broader term needs to include both paid and unpaid chores, and should not simply focus on occupational titles (or a lack of them). The Upp- sala University project Gender and Work has defined work as ‘the use of time with the goal of making a living’.9 This puts a direct focus on the tasks and chores performed, meaning the practices of time-use. To be able to locate these practices of time-use in historical sources, the project has fashioned a new method, ‘the verb-oriented method’, that focuses on words describing practices of time-use executed in order to make a living.10 I have studied the diaries for the tasks and chores that described what people did with their time, meaning the verbs.11 To clarify, verbs have not been studied outside of their context, information such as where, how, and who performed the action have also been collected. Value-based remarks on specific tasks or performances have also been studied.

7 Gräslund Berg et. al. 2013, pp. 337–341. 8 Simonton 1998, pp. 18–22, 26. 9 Fiebrantz, Lindberg, Lindström & Ågren 2011, p. 279. 10 Using this sort of method enables a wider collection of historical sources to be used when studying work and time-use. Sources that do not primarily focus on describing work but may describe people performing tasks or chores in the context of other subjects. For example, court records that provide testimonies of events often include descriptions of tasks and chores being performed whilst observing a crime, Fiebrantz, Lindberg, Lindström & Ågren 2011, p. 280; Gräslund Berg et al. 2013, pp. 340–341. 11 To demonstrate the fruitfulness of this method, over 350 individual verbs (tasks and chores) have been located in the diaries.

When understanding the practices of time-use and also how these were perceived, shared, and performed, gender has often been seen as an important factor.12 Gender is a well-established concept, with which it is argued that what we perceive as feminine and masculine is socially constructed. Historians have also argued that gender is not stable, but is instead historically unstable. This means that what we associate as feminine or masculine has constantly changed throughout time.13 However, there are many different ideas about how gender is constructed. The philosopher Judith Butler argues that gender is never stable nor fixed, but instead constantly performed and reimagined through different social practices and language. This creates a repertoire, and is known as a ‘performance’. During these repeated performances different sets of meanings are being socially established, which leads to a social stabilization of gender, and to norms being maintained and upheld. There is space for a performance to be performed both ‘rightly’ or ‘wrongly’, and therefore there is space to challenge norms and change perceptions of gender.14 Using ‘performance’ when studying the practices of time-use means that a task is not seen simply as a way of making a living, but also as a way of taking part in social interactions. Tasks are therefore signalling certain understandings of gender that are connected to these specific tasks.15 Including a gender perspective and the term performance is thus important when studying the complex practice of time-use. Studying gender alone might imply that all women during the early modern period performed the same tasks and had the same experience, which is clearly not the case. People during the early modern period did not only understand their lives by gender, but categories such as social belonging, civil status, and age were just as vital for how they perceived themselves and organized their lives. Therefore, the term intersectionality is central, a term still quite new in the historical field.16 The term is commonly used to explain the process by which several categories — such as gender, ethnicity, class, and

12 See Simonton 1998, pp. 1–9. 13 Stadin 2004, p. 9. 14 Rosenström, ’Inledning’ in Butler 2005, pp. 9, 14–17; Rosenström, ’Inledning’ in Butler 2006, p. 11; Butler 2006 [1999], pp. xv, 185–193. 15 Gräslund Berg et. al. 2013, pp. 348–349. 16 Tolvhed 2010, p. 59.

sexuality — together create processes of difference in identity and experience. This is a never-ending process.17 The gender scholar Nina Lykke argues that intersectionality should not be seen as where categories occasionally inter- act, but as a process which constantly creates power structures.18 Intersectionality allows for a far more complex understanding of the practices of time use during the early modern period. It also helps highlight the importance of how several categories affected people’s lives. To be able to study an intersectional process it is therefore important to study several different people. This study focuses on a number of women who kept diaries.

Studying Diaries Diaries have not previously been systematically analysed in relation to questions about work and identity in Sweden. During the early modern period diaries were of a different character to modern versions. Today, diaries are seen as a secret space in which we write our deepest feelings. During the early modern period diaries were more of a public affair. They were meant to be read by family and friends, and therefore often lacked deeper self-reflections and feelings.19 The diaries were more similar to calendars, since they were primarily used to document daily events, such as the daily work and who visited. The early modern diaries can therefore provide valuable knowledge about daily life, specifically what tasks and chores were performed. At best they can also provide valuable insight into how people perceived these daily events. Diaries are particularly helpful when studying marginalized people, such as women, since they provide important information and insights into the mind-sets of these women.20 Even though the diaries were meant to be read by others, they are primarily private documents, driven by personal interests.21 Literary scholar Eva Sjöblad argues that diaries embody the writer’s active choice in a process of selective exclusions of specific events. They do not provide an absolute

17 Tolvhed 2010, p. 60; Vallström 2010, pp. 76–77. 18 Lykke 2005, pp. 9–10. 19 Ulvros 1996, pp. 23, 28–30; Sjöblad 1997, pp. 66–67. 20 Sjöblad 1997, pp. 34, 74. 21 Ulvros 1996, pp. 23, 30.

truth, but instead reveal the subjective experience of them.22 Since this study focuses on the cultural notion of practices of time-use, the subjective tendencies and selection of events are an interesting aspect of the diaries. Since it was read by others, the text available in the diaries is most likely what the women found important, and what was interpreted as socially acceptable. This means that the diaries reflect cultural notions that were shared by the people surrounding these women. The availability of diaries from early modern Sweden is scarce, especially diaries written by women. Literary levels were low in Sweden during the early modern period, and the diaries that do exist from the period are written by people of a higher social standing and richer circumstances. Diary- writing for women did not become established until after the 1850s, with the growth of the bourgeois culture in which diary writing became a popular task.23 Diary-writing before 1790 was primarily focused on genealogy, meaning that few contain descriptions of time-use.24 This means that there is quite a small number of diaries preserved in Swedish archives, unlike other countries, such as the United Kingdom, where historians have conducted studies from a small geographic area using a large quantity of source material.25 Four diaries are used in this article. They were all written by women belonging to the gentry and higher bourgeois, living in Sweden at the end of the early modern period. The diaries spread out between the years 1793 to 1839. The women lived in different parts of the country, were in different stages of their lives, with different statuses and family situations. Although some similarities exist between them, such as their diary writing. Their diaries all consist of short notes describing daily events focusing on tasks and chores and descriptions of people they encounter. The most extensive diary was written by the noblewoman Märta Helena Reenstierna (1753–1841) (married von Schnell). Reenstierna lived on the estate Årsta outside Stockholm, which gives her diary both rural and urban aspects. Her diary was written from 1793–1839, which covers an impressive

22 Sjöblad 1997, p. 74. 23 Haettner, Larsson, Sjöblad 1991, p. 15. 24 Sjöblad 1997, p. 36. 25 Which can be studied in Vickery 1998, where she uses a vast amount of material from diaries and autobiographies from a small area, Lancashire, in England.

length of time.26 In the beginning of her diary she was married to Captain Henrik von Schnell with one child, Hans Abraham. During the years 1811– 1812, both her husband and son died, leaving her a childless widow and she never remarried.27 The second diary was written by Lisa Mullberg (*1742), a woman who besides her diary, left little trace of her life. During her writing years she lived on an old family estate, Lundgrenska in the in- lands of Sweden.28 This was an area notorious for its industrial communities, such as iron works, known as bruk. She was in fact a widow to the late Johan Wilhelm Mullberg who was a Brukspatron, meaning an owner of one of these iron works. This gave her the title of Brukspatronessa, meaning the wife of an owner of an iron works. 29 This gives her diary a rural aspect. The diary was written from 1794–1802. This means that during her writing she was a widow, but her daughter Lisa Wilhelmina and grandchildren would periodically live in her household. Mullberg was not a noble, but she was part of the social elite. The economic historian Ylva Hasselberg argues that in areas with few noble estates, such as ironwork areas, estates such as Mull- berg’s filled similar roles to noble estates, meaning that these were the places where wealth and power resided.30 The other two diaries were written by younger women. A noblewoman, Jacobina Charlotte Munsterhjelm, is the youngest writer, being only thirteen years old when the diary started. She lived on an estate in Tavastby in Elimä parish, near the Russian Boarder, which lends her diary a rural aspect. The diary was written from 1799–1801. Due to her young age she lived at

26 A selection, however, has been made, representing different stages of her life. The periods chosen are 1793–1797, the period when she was a married mother, 1813– 1817, the period just after she loses her husband and son, and 1835–1839, when she is old and going progressively blind. 27 Broman, ’Inledning’, in Reenstierna, 1985a, pp. 16–18; Sjöblad 1997, pp. 275, 280. 28 There is contradictory information about where she lived, the biography of her grandchild claims it was Lesjöfors, but reading her diary makes it clear that this was not the case since she often recorded visiting Lesjöfors indicating this was not her primary home, The biography of Johan Wilhelm Dalman, SBL, http://www.nad.riksarkivet.se/sbl (accessed 26 march 2013). 29 She was married to a brukspatron, meaning an owner of an industrialized facility (bruk), which processed raw materials (often known as iron works), NE, http://www.ne.se/ (accessed 27 March 2013). 30 Hasselberg 1998, p. 79.

home with her parents, Captain Anders Gustav Munsterhjelm and Ester Sofia Nohrström, with three of her siblings and a cousin. Hedvig Eleonora Ottiliana Liljencrantz (1797–1858) differs on several points from the other women. Firstly, she was higher up the social rank, being the daughter of a Count. She sometimes even attended the same parties as the royal family. Thus, she provides an aristocratic viewpoint. Additionally, at no point during her writings did she live at home. She lived in different places with her unnamed aunt and uncle. Large parts of the year were spent as visitors at the Countess Charlotte Lefebure’s estate Bällsta, outside Stockholm, and during the winters at her aunt and uncle’s townhouse in Stockholm. The diary, written in French, covers the years 1817–1819.

Dividing Tasks, Dividing People The tasks and chores noted in the diaries have been categorised into four main areas: textile work, social obligation, the maintenance of the household, and finally gardening, farming, and managing animals. These tasks were performed by different people who interacted with one another, and created and maintained hierarchies through tasks from different categories.

Textile Work The chores and tasks that have been categorized as textile work had a large presence in the daily routines of the women who kept the diaries. The women often specified who performed the textile task. These included both working with fabric — such as needlework — but also making the fabric. During the early modern period it was a rarity for households to buy finished fabric, which is noted in the diaries. The textile work was mainly performed by women, but women were not a unified category that all performed the same types of tasks and chores. Differences existed among them.

Producing Fabric — A Female Enterprise Producing fabrics for the household involved different tasks, such as spinning, weaving, and winding. When fabric was produced within the household,

women were the main performers of this task, but when produced outside the household, professional men were employed. Weaving was documented as performed solely by women when it took place within the household. Reenstierna frequently mentioned weaving in her diary and often performed it herself.31 Besides her, the mamsell and the maids also performed this task.32 It is evident in her diary that the maids did not always possess the skill to weave. During 1835, Reenstierna taught her maids how to weave.33 There were also women in Reenstierna’s family that did not possess this skill, which was criticized by Reenstierna who produced the fabric for these households.34 The knowledge of weaving was by no means connected to social standing, since it was lacking by both maids and women of higher social standing. Weaving was not only conducted within the household. It was documented that professional weavers were used for the task. These were professional men with titles, organized in guilds. This was the case with Munster- hjelm, who on several occasions noted using a weaver for finer fabrics for clothing.35 This means that men were only present as professionals. Reen- stierna, on the other hand, rarely used men, but instead wives of tenants on the estate and employees.36 Both women and men could be used outside the household to meet the household’s need for fabric. Yarn was needed for both the weaving produced inside and outside the household. This made spinning necessary. Spinning was, unlike weaving, only recorded as being performed by women. The task was noted by all the women except Liljencrantz. The women themselves often performed the

31 Being the only diary-writing women who noted this. Notes of Reenstierna performing the task herself: NMA Reenstierna, 13 November 1816, 7 February 1835. 32 Mamsell is short for: housemamsell, which is a fancier housekeeper. Rasmussen 2010, p. 95. Notes of the maids and the mamsell weaving: NMA Reenstierna, 7 No- vember 1816, 23 July 1835. Munsterhjelm noted a maid performing the task: 13 September 1799, 1970. 33 Reenstierna writes on 18th June 1835 that she has decided to teach the maids, and also an elder women working temporarily in the household at the time, to weave, NMA Reenstierna, 18 June 1835. 34 NMA Reenstierna, 26 June 1835. 35 Reenstierna noted receiving cashmere fabric from a weaver: NMA Reenstierna, 14 October 1816. The weavers Munsterhjelm’s household hired always weaved fabric for clothes, Munsterhjelm, 19 September 1799, 5 March 1800, 1970. 36 For example: NMA Reenstierna, 30 March 1794, 10 January 1816.

tasks — especially Reenstierna and Mullberg. Young Munsterhelm was also able to spin, meaning that women of different ages possessed the skill.37 During Reenstierna’s elder days, spinning was one of the few tasks she could perform and through which she found enjoyment. She writes on 15th June 1835, ‘In lack of other occupation and saddened to be without a task, brought in my spinning wheel, to the same as the bee or spider move my God given limbs, to my own and others use.’38 Spinning therefore became a way for Reenstierna to continue being useful to the household. Besides the diary-writing women, the female servants — maids and mamsells — also spun.39 Reenstierna often noted the quantity of materials being handed out and overseeing the tasks, placing herself as leader of the work.40 Knowledge of spinning was found within a large variety of women. Spinning was also performed by women outside the household. Both Reenstierna and Munsterhjelm recorded using nearby old women for the task. Reenstierna was also fond of using women at Stockholm’s spinnhus.41 Thus, spinning continued to be a female task outside the household. Rose- marie Fiebranz has found that in households that produced spinning for trade, men could be found at the loom. This was only if the survival of the household depended on it.42 The diary-writing women’s households were wealthy enough to use female help when extra workers were needed. This allowed the task to continue to be performed exclusively by women. As seen above, fabric was mainly produced by women of different positions within the household. Men were found performing the tasks only in

37 Notes of the diary writing women spinning: NMA Mullberg, 15 April 1794; Mun- sterhjelm, 18 June 1800, 1970; NMA Reenstierna, 12 February 1814. 38 NMA Reenstierna, 16 June 1835, my own translation. Other examples: NMA Reenstierna, 9 Jan 1835, 28 March 1835. 39 NMA Mullberg, 26 January 1795, 19 March 1795. Notes of the mamsell: NMA Reenstierna, 25 January 1814, 16 December 1836; of the maids: NMA Reenstierna, 17 April 1795, 19 March 1816. 40 Notes of Reenstierna handing out fabric to the maids: NMA Reenstierna, 1 Feb- ruary1794, 18 February 1813, 21 April 1835. 41 Example of using old women: Munsterhjelm, 24 January 1800, 1970; NMA Reen- stierna, 10 December 1815. Spinnhus was a penitentiary facility for women, where women occupied themselves with spinning. Notes of going to the spinnhus: NMA Reenstierna, 8 November 1794, 21 June 1816. 42 Fiebranz 2002, p. 363.

the capacity of professionals outside the household. It has not yet been mentioned that certain tasks, such as winding, demanded that the household performed the task collectively, and here men were found. Reenstierna’s tutor Mr Kindberg and the coachman Boberg were noted as assisting.43 The reason could be that these tasks were much heavier and time consuming than, for example, needle-work. The ethnologist Marie Steinrud found that several people, both children and men from the household, assisted when performing heavy tasks in the household she investigated.44 Norms could be transgressed when it came to heavier or time-consuming tasks.

Decorative or Useful? There are certain tasks and chores within textile work, mainly needle-work, that have been the centre of much discussion. This discussion has been highly entangled with discussions about gender, and the private and public dichotomy. The discussion focuses on whether the tasks and chores should be interpreted as decorative/ornamental or useful to the household. Embroidery is one of these textile tasks. The Art Historian Rozsika Par- ker argues that during the early modern period embroidery was considered work. However, towards the nineteenth century, this slowly changed to being viewed as leisure and as an aristocratic occupation.45 Embroidery has often been highlighted as playing an important role in shaping femininity. Parker argues that it was a way of ‘cultivating submissive femininity in women’, while Vickery argues that decorative work such as embroidery ‘demonstrated female duty’.46 These discussions mainly focus on England. In Sweden during the same period, embroidery was seen as one of the acceptable ways in which a women from the higher strata of society could earn an income. 47 The issue becomes whether embroidery had a clear presence in the diaries. What is remarkable in the diaries is the absence of the term embroidery. Only in Liljencrantz diary is it regularly mentioned, in the other diaries embroidery is only mentioned a few times. Even though certain periods and

43 NMA Reenstierna, 6 August 1796, 13 October 1794, 26 March 1814. 44 Steinrud exemplifies this with the task of washing clothes. Steinrud 2008, p. 148. 45 Parker 1984, pp. 6, 11, 138. 46 Parker 1984, pp. 2–12, both quotations are from Vickery 2009, p. 240. 47 Rasmussen 2010, p. 101.

pages are missing from the diaries, there is still enough to draw the conclusion that for some of the diary-writing women embroidery was not recorded as a regularly performed task. Why is this the case? One explanation that seems reasonable is that Reenstierna, Munsterhjelm, and Mullberg used other textile terms for embroidery. The Swedish term for sewing has historically been used as a broad term including many different sewing techniques, such as embroidery.48 Sewing has a high presence in the diaries, making this a likely conclusion. The women documented other kinds of needlework besides embroidery. One of these, as mentioned above, was sewing. All the women noted performing this task, both the older and younger women.49 There was a difference between the women based on age, the younger women were able to spend a larger portion of their time with sewing. The textile historian Ras- mussen argues that, as Munsterhjelm was only 14 years old she could spend time sewing due to the fact that she was still too young to fulfil social obligations. This was different for Reenstierna. Rasmussen argues that she demonstrated a ‘broad competence’ by performing sewing, but she could not prioritize it due to other tasks in the household that needed to be performed.50 The ability to sew is found with all the women. The female servants within the household also performed the tasks. The mamsells of both Reenstierna and Mullberg’s households sewed. Reenstierna’s mamsell performed these tasks when Reenstierna lost her eye-sight.51 The maids, on the other hand, were rarely used for assisting and sewing rougher kinds of fabric.52 This means that sewing was mainly performed by women of higher positions within the household.

48 The Swedish word for sewing is ‘sy’, SAOB, http://g3.spraakdata.gu.se/saob/ (accessed 11 February 2013). 49 Examples of sewing: RA Liljencrantz, 10 September 1817, 12 February 1819; Munsterhjelm, 27 July 1799, 1 September 1800, 1970; NMA Mullberg, 29 August 1794, 28 September 1796; NMA Reenstierna, 25 February 1794, 10 August 1814. 50 Both examples from Rasmussen 2010, pp. 114–116. 51 Examples of the mamsell sewing: NMA Reenstierna, 10 October 1796; NMA Mull- berg 6 June 1797. Reenstierna also had a jungfru who also sewed, but was not skilled since Reenstierna had to re-do it. NMA Reenstierna, 6 May 1796. 52 Munsterhjelm only mentions the maids sewing once when she describes them sewing furniture, Munsterhjelm, 22 December 1799, 1970. On one occasion Mull- berg mentions a maid sewing, a fabric called ‘blaggarn’ (blågarnsväv), a rougher sort

However, the women did not prioritize sewing in the lists of different tasks that needed to be performed. Three of them — Liljencrantz, Mullberg, and Reenstierna — all documented this. In 1817, Liljencrantz noted that for an entire day she could occupy herself with sewing, which rarely happened.53 We also saw this conflict in the introduction to this article. Lisa Wilhelmina had to put aside her sewing to entertain company. It was similar with mending. The women often performed these tasks themselves, though old Reenstierna handed it over to her mamsell.54 Only Reenstierna noted her female servants mending textile objects. As already mentioned, the mamsell performed the sewing instead of Reenstierna, using similar fabrics to those Reenstierna had previously used. The lower servants — the maids — however, were only mentioned a few times and this was in relation to mending rougher fabrics or their own clothes.55 They were never documented mending the diary-writing women’s clothing. The tasks were sometimes performed outside the household, and this is where men are found. With the task of sewing, men were present as professionals — as tailors. According to Rasmussen, Reenstierna often used tailors. They had a more advanced skill set, and would live in the household whilst

of fabric often used for work clothes. NMA Mullberg, 1 September 1794. ‘Blångarnsväv’, NE, http://www.ne.se/ (accessed 26 November 2012). 53 RA Liljencrantz, 24 November 1817. 54 Three different words were used for mending, fixing, and correcting clothes and textiles; ‘laga’, ‘lappa’, and ‘stoppa’. ‘Laga’, which is mending mostly done on clothes, ‘lappa’ is mending by patching, mostly done on clothes, ‘stoppa’ is mending by first sewing around the edges and then filling the gap with threads of textile materials alternatively over and under each other, mostly done on socks and occasionally on clothes, SAOB, http://g3.spraakdata.gu.se/saob/ (accessed 2 February 2013). They do not appear in every diary. ‘Laga’, for example, cannot be found in Mullberg’s diary, while ‘stoppa’ cannot be found in Liljencrantz’ or Munsterhjelm’s diaries. However, one of the three verbs can be found in every diary. Examples of ‘laga’: Munsterhjelm, 11 May 1799, 1970; RA Liljencrantz, 26 September 1818; NMA Reenstierna, 14 August 1793. Examples of ‘stoppa’: NMA Mullberg, 23 March 1795; NMA Reenstierna, 24 September, 14 November 1817. Examples of ‘lappa’: Munsterhjelm, 24 April 1800, 1970; NMA Reenstierna, 22 January 1794, 28 June 1814. 55 NMA Reenstierna, 29 December 1835, 30 December 1835, 18 March 1837. Reen- stierna also noted a jungfru mending, this was also a rougher fabric, a horse blanket: NMA Reenstierna, 14 November 1794, 20 November 1794.

performing the work.56 Rasmussen also highlights that both Reenstierna and Munsterhjelm used women in the local community for sewing. The latter used mamsell Charlotta Fortelin, an acquaintance. Rasmussen argues that she performed this type of work as compensation for the expenses as a result of her visits. This made her semi-professional.57 As I understand Ras- mussen’s use of the term semi-professional, it means women who periodically made a living from sewing. This work was unregulated and outside the guilds. Rasmussen points out that Reenstierna used both semi-professional women and seamstresses — mainly bourgeois women — and Reenstierna had sporadic contact with these women, only hiring them a few times.58 Both tailors and these bourgeois women were also used for the task of mending clothes.59 I have found that professionals and semi-professionals were not only present to take orders and sew, at times they also acted as teachers and advisers for the diary-writing women.60 This means that the responsibility of mending could be delegated to different people, however most often to high ranking women. The needlework seen above was primarily performed by women of higher social positions within and outside the household. When men were present, it was outside the household as professionals. It is hard to find evidence that any of these tasks were seen as decorative. In letters, Vickery found reflections on the needlework women performed and perceptions of them as useful or decorative.61 Since my material often lacks personal reflections about the tasks being performed, it is difficult to say if the women

56 Rasmussen 2010, pp. 108–112. An example of this is Herr Lundqvist who lived in the household while working. NMA Reenstierna, 22 July 1814. 57 Rasmussen 2010, p. 106. The mamsell was also used for mending clothes. Mun- sterhjelm, 26 November 1799, 13 February 1800, 10 April 1800, 9 May 1800, 1970. 58 Rasmussen noted that Reenstierna only used a noble woman once for sewing. Rasmussen 2010, pp. 120–122. 59 Reenstierna used a Fru Malm and a Mamsell Degen for mending. NMA Reen- stierna, 7 December 1815, 25 January 1835, 31 January 1835. Munsterhjelm hired a tailor. Munsterhjelm, 12 December 1799, 1970. Reenstierna hired Herr Lundqvist for reshaping and mending clothes that were too small and on another occasion for sewing and patching clothes. NMA Reenstierna, 28 July 1814, 28 September 1815. 60 Liljencrantz refers to ‘our seamstress’ Mrs Straës, who gave advice on the question of ‘toilett’, meaning on what to wear. RA Liljencrantz, 4 November 1817. Reen- stierna noted visiting Bandfabriqueurskan Lenger to learn ‘tamboursöm’, a sewing technique. NMA Reenstierna, 17 February 1793. 61 Vickery 2009, pp. 233–235.

found the task of embroidery decorative. It is clear, however, that embroidery had a low presence while other tasks such as sewing and mending were more frequently represented. It appears that the tasks noted in the diaries are hard to interpret as decorative or ornamental, since they seemed to have the main purpose of mending and creating clothes and fabric, and not in an ornamental sense. The few notes existing that commented on the performance of sewing or mending was often focused on the industriousness of the task.62 By commenting upon the industriousness of the performance of the task, the women were establishing themselves as active women.

Social Obligations The ethnologist Marie Steinrud argues that it is possible to view certain aspects of socializing during the nineteenth century as practices of work.63 This is a strange thought for someone belonging to the twenty-first century. The thought being that tasks we strongly associate with leisure, such as visiting acquaintances, entertaining guests, and writing letters, are seen as work. During the late early modern period, these were tasks that for people belonging to the higher strata were highly time consuming and necessary. Steinrud argues that these task were executed in order to establish and maintain friendships and acquaintances that could benefit the family in different ways, therefore it is possible to discuss these tasks as practice of work.64

Making Visits In 1817, Liljencrantz wrote, ‘our first round of visits, have been at more than 20 doors, without being received in a single place’.65 This enterprise was performed after the family returned home from a trip. It demonstrates the large scope of social visits. Visiting was one of the most common tasks in socialization. It had such a large presence in the women’s lives that when

62 With sewing, Reenstierna and Mullberg used the word diligently (flitigt) when the task was performed well. NMA Mullberg, 28 September 1796; NMA Reenstierna, 4 April 1793. Reenstierna criticized herself when sewing had been performed badly. NMA Reenstierna, 8 March 1796. Similar with the task of mending. NMA Reen- stierna, 4 April 1794, 6 May 1795, 13 November 1817. 63 Steinrud 2009, p. 138. 64 Steinrud 2009, p. 138. 65 RA Liljencrantz, 11 June 1817, my own translation.

days passed that they did not receive company, it was often commented on as an anomaly.66 Visits could be both formal, which Liljencrantz’s visits can be deemed as, and informal, which covered most daily visits. The daily informal visits are so common that recording them all and analysing them is its own investigation, therefore the diary-writing women’s participation, responsibility, and thoughts towards visiting in general will be discussed. All the women took part in different forms of visits. However, age is a factor in the regularity of these visits. For example, Liljencrantz, and Reen- stierna while married, made daily visits. However, for Mullberg and old Reenstierna, the visits were few, and they hardly ever made visits themselves but instead mostly received visitors. As Rasmussen mentioned previously, being young also seemed to relieve Munsterhjelm from social obligations.67 Older age also seemed to be a way of bending the rules of social obligations. The women hardly ever complained about the different obligations they had to perform, with the exception of old Reenstierna. She was weary of the different visiting acquaintance that were of no use to the household.68 This shows that not every visit was deemed beneficial. It seems that both Reenstierna and Mullberg carried the main responsibility of entertaining visitors in their households. Reenstierna’s husband often left the household for hours and that left Reenstierna with the main responsibility, and Mullberg was widowed, meaning that the responsibility was her own.69 An interesting aspect is that when Reenstierna became too old to leave her house, her servant, the mamsell, appears to have assumed some of the responsibility. The mamsell both entertained guests and made visits; it is, however, not revealed what type of visits were made. It may have been simply enquiring of health or it could have been longer visits and socialization.70 Writing letters was another task performed to maintain friendships. It was common to write to close friends and family members.71 It was time

66 NMA Reenstierna, 28 January 1838. 67 RA Liljencrantz, 1817–1819; NMA Mollberg, 1794–1802; Munsterhjelm, 1799– 1801, 1970; NMA Reenstierna, 1793–1797, 1813–1817, 1835–1839. 68 NMA Reenstierna, 18 February 1838. 69 What her husband did in town is not specified. Examples of this: NMA Reen- stierna, 17 June 1794, 15 September 1794, 15 February 1797. 70 NMA Reenstierna, 22 March 1835, 18 August 1836, 15 April 1838. 71 Examples of Reenstierna writing mother: NMA Reenstierna, 15 March 1793.

consuming and could take several days since writing was not prioritized and was often interrupted.72 Munsterhjelm, the youngest diary writer, also wrote letters often. The economic historian Ylva Hasselberg argues that within the higher social strata, letter writing was a part of a socialization process through which younger family members learned the rules of communica- tion.73 Writing letters could also be a way through which family members could perform tasks for their servants. Often the lower servants were illit- erate, and Munsterhjelm records several times writing letters for her servants.74

Multitasking Social obligations have a large presence in the women’s daily activities. How did these coincide with other tasks that the women had to perform? Steinrud found that visits often coincided with the performance of tasks connected with the household, making them highly interlinked. Steinrud argues that people tried as much as possible to avoid conflict between these two different obligations — the social life and the daily work.75 How was it for the women under consideration? Several tasks were performed while entertaining guests and three commonly performed tasks were playing cards, reading, and textile work. The first two were of a more social and leisurely nature.76 Vickery argues that textile tasks were a way of passing the time during social engagements if the

72 For example, Liljencrantz often started the day early in order to find time to write letters, and some of them took several days to finish. RA Liljencrantz, 16 September 1817, 21 September 1818. For Reenstierna, it could take several days to finish a letter due to all the interruptions, and if allowed she would write letters the entire day. NMA Reenstierna, 24 April 1817, 12 January 1835. 73 Hasselberg 1998, p. 87. 74 Munsterhjelm, 17 November 1799, 5 October 1800, 1970. She also wrote for her young sister. Munsterhjelm, 19 January 1800, 1970. 75 Steinrud 2008, p. 75. 76 Playing cards was a common task performed to entertain guests in Mullberg’s household and she often kept a close eye on what was lost or won during these games. NMA Mullberg, 29 June 1794, 5 March 1795. It was also common in Mun- sterhjelm’s household. Munsterhjelm, 14 January 1800, 7 September 1799, 1970. When the women recorded reading, it referred to reading aloud or one by one in the same room. For example, Liljencrantz’s uncle often read aloud to the family and guests. RA Liljencrantz, 15 September 1818, 3 October 1818.

company was tedious.77 This is visible in both Mullberg’s and Liljencrantz’s diaries as they complain about being without handwork, making the visits tedious.78 However, not all textile work was appropriate during visits. Ras- mussen, who has studied a larger portion of Reenstierna’s diary, found that textile tasks were changed when receiving a visit. Reenstierna went from sewing clothes to mending nets, the latter being apparently more compatible with hosting guests.79 There was, however, a larger portion of tasks that seemed to not be appropriate whilst receiving guests. Social obligations were almost always trumped other chores and tasks. This has already been demonstrated in the opening scene when Lisa Wilhelmina put aside her sewing in order to receive a visit.80 The diary of Reenstierna contains the highest concentration of this conflict between daily routines and social obligations. She had to put aside several tasks, ranging from spinning to baking, even fulfilling her own social obligations such as visiting and attending dinners, for a visiting party.81 There was, however, a few occasions when she mixed social life with daily work. When Reenstierna found herself visited by a person she found tedious or she highly disliked, she could on some occasions perform tasks during their visits, such as spinning. She would in extreme cases let the guest know that their visit was hindering her from other obligations.82 It also seems that when she became older socialization was no longer such an important obligation, since she recorded performing several tasks whilst receiving visits, such as spinning and hackling.83 Steinrud found that the women

77 Vickery 2009, p. 244. 78 Mullberg instead walked around the gardens on the estate they visited. NMA Mullberg, 6 June 1794; RA Liljencrantz, 27 February 1818. 79 Another explanation given by Rasmussen is that Reenstierna was also performing work that was not allowed, meaning textile work that should be performed by tailors. The date in question is 15 December 1796. Rasmussen 2010, p. 116. 80 Another example is provided by Liljencrantz who was to put aside her letter writing for a visit. RA Liljencrantz, 29 November 1817. 81 Baking, hackling, writing, reading, preserving food, and spinning is just a few of the tasks set aside. Examples of this are NMA Reenstierna, 21 April 1794, 7 May 1796, 23 March 1814, 15 April 1816, 8 August 1837, 28 August 1839. 82 She referred to the company as ‘fatal’ when they were tedious. NMA Reenstierna, 19 March 1814, 24 April 1816. In 1814, Captain Ingman visited and she let him know that he was hindering her. NMA Reenstierna, 17 April 1814. 83 NMA Reenstierna, 27 February 1835, 4 April 1835.

in her study were raised with the notion that social obligations should always be prioritized.84 Besides old Reenstierna, this seems to be the case in the other diaries. There was one way of getting around social obligations, and that was to completely close the house to visits, a method used by Liljencrantz, and something attempted by Lisa Wilhelmina, although she failed.85 However, as demonstrated above, it was difficult to perform simultaneously social obligations and a broad variety of tasks. By prioritizing social obligations, irrespective of whether they found them useful or not, the diary-writing women established these tasks and chores as highly important.

Gardening, Farming, and Managing Animals Before discussing the tasks mentioned in this category, it should be stated that Liljencrantz’ diary does not mention any verbs in this area whatsoever, which explains her absence from the following discussion. Another observation is that often, the women did not write who performed the tasks, especially when it came to farming.

The Garden — A Diverse Work Space The garden is an intriguing area during the early modern period. It went from being a place with a purpose of primarily securing food and income, to having a more aesthetic and social purpose. This affected not only the garden as a landscape but also as a social and gendered area.86 Jennifer Mun- roe, a scholar of English literature, found that in English seventeenth century garden literature, the garden was understood as a male space, where men of nobility had responsibility and the male profession of the gardener was introduced. Through studying women’s own accounts, she found that this was not the whole picture. Women had knowledge and authority in the garden, and were often active in this space.87 In Sweden, during this period, it was different. The historian Kekke Stadin argues that the garden was primarily a female space were noble women both planted with their own hands

84 Steinrud 2008, pp. 75, 138. 85 RA Liljencrantz, 14 November 1817. 86 Munroe 2008, p. 44. 87 Munroe 2008, p. 39.

and also introduced new plants.88 Munroe, however, argues that during the eighteenth century the English garden was developing into a female space, as men distanced themselves from decorative tasks such as planting aesthetic flowers.89 The diary-writing women’s gardens were a space where multiple people worked, people of different genders, ranks, and ages. It was also a place where a large number of tasks were performed. This makes the garden a highly complex and difficult space to research. In Reenstierna’s diary, the garden regularly features and she took the time to often note who did what, unlike farming and managing animals. Due to this large movement of people and numerous tasks being performed, it is difficult to establish a good overview of the garden. However, it is possible to draw some similarities and differences in the work being performed. In the different households, the responsibility of the garden differed. In Reenstierna’s household, the responsibility was mainly hers. She controlled what was planted in the garden, delegated and oversaw the work, and hired the gardener.90 When Reenstierna became too old to perform her responsibility, it fell to the mamsell. Reenstierna continued noting the tasks in her journal, but these notes were seemingly based on second-hand information.91 Reenstierna’s husband was not completely absent whilst he was alive, he oversaw larger jobs in the garden, such as the maintenance of paths and passages.92 He had responsibility for certain tasks within the garden, not for the entirety of the area. Mullberg lived as a widow during the duration of her writing. She never noted anyone but herself overseeing or delegating

88 Stadin 2004, p. 148. 89 Munroe 2008, p. 44. 90 Examples of planning the garden: NMA Reenstierna, 20 May 1794; overseeing the gardens: NMA Reenstierna, 23 March 1794, 20 May 1814; hiring the gardener: NMA Reenstierna, 2 February 1814; giving orders: NMA Reenstierna, 13 April 1797. 91 Notes on the mamsell: NMA Reenstierna, 4 August 1837, 4 September 1838. On certain days, Reenstierna had no information since nobody updated her. NMA Reenstierna, 12 August 1835. 92 Example of her husband having responsibility: NMA Reenstierna, 13 June 1796, 23 June 1797, 26 May 1797.

work within the garden.93 This indicates that the garden was her responsibility. In Munsterhjelm’s diary, the garden was largely absent. The only par- ent noted as being in the garden was her father.94 It could be argued that he carried out orders from her mother; however, as we have seen from both Mullberg and Reenstierna, these women were active in the garden. This meant that the garden was the responsibility of people with the highest position within the household, and it was often a female responsibility. How- ever, men could also be responsible for the garden. The garden appears to have been an area where everybody connected to the household pitched in. This is exemplified by Reenstierna’s diary with the task of picking fruits, berries, vegetables, and peas. She recorded herself, her mother, husband, son, the maids, the mamsell, the gardener, her tutor Mr Kindberg, the farmhands and their wives, performing the task at different points.95 As indicated by this shared labour, the people in the highest positions within the household — the family — also worked with their own hands in the garden. Both Reenstierna and Mullberg performed different tasks, such as planting, cleaning, husking peas and berries, and caring for trees.96 As also indicated above, Reenstierna’s mother, son, and husband also performed tasks connected to the garden. Munsterhjelm and her younger sister Beata were even given their own plots in the garden to plant and manage.97 The management of the garden was learned at a young age.

93 Examples of overseeing the garden: NMA Mullberg, 16 June 1797; ordering the people: NMA Mullberg, 5 December 1794. 94 She recorded her father ‘fixing/mending’ the garden; however she did not specify the tasks: Munsterhjelm, 17 May 1800, 1970; and also picking berries in the garden: Munsterhjelm, 12 October 1799, 1970. 95 Examples of several family members picking vegetables: NMA Reenstierna, 10 September 1795, 29 August 1797; of maids: NMA Reenstierna, 18 August 1794, 16 July 1839; of the gardener: NMA Reenstierna, 30 August 1796, 10 October 1839; of mamsell: NMA Reenstierna, 4 September 1813; of farmhands: NMA Reenstierna, 3 August 1814; of farmhands’ wives: NMA Reenstierna, 8 August 1814; of Herr Kindberg: NMA Reenstierna, 8 September 1793. 96 Examples of taking care of trees: NMA Reenstierna, 27 May 1797; planting: NMA Reenstierna, 20 October 1797; NMA Mullberg, 11 May 1797; picking: NMA Reen- stierna, 19 August 1793; sowing: NMA Mullberg; 10 May 1797; cleaning: NMA Mullberg; 13 October 1800; husking: NMA Reenstierna, 28 August 1813; NMA Mullberg, 9 September 1794. The exact verb used is ‘rensa’, it seemed, however, to be another word for ‘sprita’, and therefore the term husking has been used. 97 Munsterhjelm, 18 June 1799, 1970.

This meant that except Liljencrantz, gardening knowledge was found in all the diaries. Besides the family, there was one other authority figure in the area, namely the gardener. Mullberg hired Mr Jolander seasonally, who functioned as a gardener, and recorded having unspecified tasks and maids as his assistants.98 Reenstierna, on the other hand, had a full-time gardener on her estate, who performed different tasks.99 This relationship was trouble- some. She noted in 1814 that she plucked and cut carrots, a task the gardener saw as his, leading him to — in a drunken state — threaten to throw everybody out of the garden.100 This meant that the task, which was his privilege to perform, was more important to protect than to submit to the women who had authority over the garden. The diary-writing women, their families, and the gardener did not of course work alone in the garden. Both female and male help was found, and there seemed to be certain gender lines in terms of how the work was distributed. There seemed to be a large female presence in the garden. Both Reenstierna and Mullberg noted their maids performing several different tasks, for example planting.101 In Reenstierna’s household, the farmhands’ wives also assisted, and sometimes extra female work was hired.102 These women’s tasks were often directed towards the smaller plants. In Reen- stierna’s garden, the men’s work was directed towards the larger trees, moving larger portions of soil, and reaping the garden, and cleaning paths. It was mainly the farmhands who were performing these tasks, but on a few occasions other workers around the household were also found performing

98 NMA Mullberg, 30 April 1794, 7 April 1795, 20 April 1795. 99 For example, planting: NMA Reenstierna, 17 August 1797, 26 April 1813; trimming hedges: NMA Reenstierna, 16 June 1794, 29 April 1813; taking care of trees: NMA Reenstierna, 23 May 1837; cleaning the garden: NMA Reenstierna, 15 July 1797. 100 NMA Reenstierna, 24 September 1814. 101 Maids working: Munsterhjelm, 31 August 1799, 1970; NMA Mullberg, 30 April 1794, 21 April 1802; NMA Reenstierna, 13 August 1795; of working alongside the diary-writing women: NMA Mullberg; 13 October 1800; NMA Reenstierna, 13 Au- gust 1796. 102 The farmhands’ wives performed tasks such as watering: NMA Reenstierna, 23 June 1836, 14 February 1837. Extra workers were dalkullor and they performed work such as planting, digging, and picking fruit and vegetables. Notes of dalkullor: NMA Reenstierna, 11 April 1796, 16 April 1796, 13 April 1797, 27 July 1839.

this work.103 Other male workers were also found in the garden performing unspecified work often alongside the gardener.104 This most likely explains the lack of specifications. That said, the maids were the most commonly recorded workers in the garden.

Farming Farming took place on all the women’s estates, however it is difficult to create a clear picture of this from the diaries. It is hard to establish why this is the case since several of the women noted observing the farming, meaning that they seemed to be at least aware of it.105 The fact that farming was rarely mentioned in the diaries indicates that it was not a topic of interest or a priority for the women. The responsibility for farming seemed to be placed in male hands: men who were family members. Munsterhjelm’s father was responsible for farming; whereas it was Reenstierna’s husband, and after his death she leased her farming to her brother and later her nephew.106 This responsibility meant making decisions and taking initiative on events such as harvest and sowing, and overseeing the work in the field, including the counting and measuring of the grain.107 Mullberg, on the other hand, did not make any notes of this kind, making it difficult to draw any conclusion. Unsurprisingly, these men were not found in the fields themselves. A large number of the descriptions of who performed the tasks did not specify

103 This being the miller, the coachman, and the tutor. Examples of farmhands: NMA Reenstierna, 16 August 1793, 20 June 1795 8 December 1813, 22 July 1835; of the tutor Kindberg: NMA Reenstierna, 15 April 1794, 9 May 1795; of the coachman Boberg: NMA Reenstierna, 27 June 1814, 29 June 1813; of the miller and Boberg: NMA Reenstierna, 21 June 1817. 104 Reenstierna, for example, had garden-farmhands (trädgårdsdrängar), and Mullberg hired extra men (dagskarlar). NMA Reenstierna, 28 May 1813. NMA Mullberg, 3 December 1794. 105 NMA Reenstierna, 26 July 1814; Munsterhjelm, 31 July 1799, 6 August 1799, 22 August 1800, 1970. 106 Broman, ’Inledning’ in Reenstierna 1985a, pp. 23–24. 107 Munsterhjelm, 11 July 1799, 30 July 1799, 27 July 1799, 1970. Examples of Reen- stierna’s husband: NMA Reenstierna, 21 July 1794; of her brother: NMA Reen- stierna, 7 November 1815; of her nephew Abraham: NMA Reenstierna, 26 July 1837, 17 August 1837.

who worked in the fields. They used term such as ‘the people’ or ‘the farmers’, making it difficult to draw any specific conclusions.108 There was, however, some information that makes it possible to see certain patterns. Men were the most commonly documented performers of tasks related to farming, such as distributing grains and manure. Both Mullberg and Reenstierna recorded men — for example, farmhands and coachmen — driving in hay.109 At Reenstierna’s estate, women were also recorded as fulfilling the task of driving in hay. It was, however, unspecified who did what and what this task actually meant.110 Only men are recorded as performing the task on their own. It is similar with the task of distributing manure, where men — such as a gardener and farmhands — were recorded as the primary performers. Farmhands both assisted the gardener and performed the distribution of manure on their own.111 Dalkullor, meaning women who originated from the Swedish region of Dalarna and who worked in other regions, were also found performing the task alongside the men.112 However, due to the fact that they never performed this task on their own, it is likely they had an assisting role. During the early modern period in Sweden, managing horses was strongly connected with men, which explains why men were so dominant in these tasks.113 This means that male servants were the typical performers of various tasks in farming, while women had more assisting roles. This seemed also to be the case with reaping on Reenstierna’s estate, where women — maids and dalkullor — were described as only temporarily joining

108 NMA Reenstierna, 27 July 1796, 1 September 1835, 8 August 1837; NMA Mull- berg, 6 August 1799; Munsterhjelm, 11 July 1799, 28 September 1800, 1970. 109 Reenstierna even recorded her son performing this task: NMA Reenstierna, 29 July 1796; of the Coachman: NMA Reenstierna, 9 October 1816. NMA Mullberg, 19 March 1795, 17 March 1797. 110 Reenstierna noted that her mamsell, the farmhand Nordström, two dalkullor, a husband in reference to the latter, and the local Kyrkvaktare, Lindholm, were present when driving in hay. NMA Reenstierna, 20 August 1837. 111 Notes of Boberg: NMA Reenstierna, 26 July 1814; of farmhands: NMA Reen- stierna, 13 July 1794, 30 July 1796. 112 Dalkulla, SAOB, http://g3.spraakdata.gu.se/saob/ (Accessed 29 February 2016). Examples of Dalkullor helping: NMA Reenstierna, 18 May 1815, 23 October 1817; of maids helping: NMA Reenstierna, 11 December 1813. 113 Fiebranz 2002, p. 140.

in with the work, meaning that men most likely performed the larger part of the work.114 The female servants found in farming assisted, but there was one area where women performed the most tasks, and this was working with tobacco on Reenstierna’s estate.115 Reenstierna took significant interest in tobacco, mostly because it was a large income source for the household and because it is a fragile plant.116 The gardener was present with the planting, but when it came to working with tobacco — a task not specified — only woman were present. Maids, dalkullor and wives of employees performed the task.117 One women — the gardener’s wife — was even noted as overseeing the other women’s planting of the tobacco.118 No other women were given the responsibility of overseeing farm work. Managing the tobacco was an area where women could assume higher responsibility — similar to the garden. Farming was a male dominated area. The responsibility lay with the men who were related to the diary-writing women, while employees who held lower positions within the estate performed the work in the fields. Female servants were found assisting men, and managing their own area of work: namely working with tobacco. Farming was not an area in which the diary- writing women became highly involved since they left few notes about the work, and they did not personally perform any of the work, unlike their involvement with gardening.

114 It was the farmhands (NMA Reenstierna, 13 July 1794) and the coachman (NMA Reenstierna, 26 July 1814) who performed the work. Note of women helping: NMA Reenstierna, 24 July 1837. 115 The women — maids and dalkullor — also assisted in other tasks such as threshing (NMA Reenstierna, 1 October 1835) and making ditches (NMA Reenstierna, 18 April 1836). 116 Reenstierna, for example, made notes when the tobacco was being planted (NMA Reenstierna, 14 May 1813), and regarding the state of the crops (NMA Reenstierna, 4 June 1814), and also recorded overseeing the tobacco on several occasions (NMA Reenstierna, 19 July 1817); Broman, ‘Inledning’ in Reenstierna 1985a, p. 24. 117 Notes of dalkullor working with tobacco: NMA Reenstierna, 2 October 1797, 1 September 1816; of maids: NMA Reenstierna, 17 August 1836, 30 August 1837; of wives: NMA Reenstierna, 31 August 1814. Reenstierna also mentioned ‘womenfolk’ working with tobacco: NMA Reenstierna, 12 September 1817. 118 NMA Reenstierna, 7 June 1836.

Animal Maintenance In Sweden, managing animals has often been described by historians as having a strict gender polarization. Fiebrantz argues that horses were a male responsibility, while other animals were the responsibility of women in rural settings.119 Reenstierna is the diary keeper who documents the managing of horses, and it was clearly a male area. She had a full-time coachman. One of his tasks was transporting the family but, if he fell ill, farmhands could step in.120 No female servants were ever noted as performing this task. Other tasks that conducted by the coachman was ensuring that the horses were shoed and the carriages were in good condition, and he also tended to the horses in the stables.121 On several occasions, the task of taking care of the horses led to conflict between Reenstierna and her different coachmen. One coachman thought tending to the horses was not his responsibility, whilst another improperly delegated his tasks to a farmhand, demonstrating that there existed different perceptions of what was seen as the coachmen’s responsibilities.122 There was, however, hardly any notes made on who took care of the larger animals on the estates. There are notes on the smaller animals, such as poultry. Reenstierna cherished her poultry and devoted time to care for them herself — both feeding them and cleaning up after them.123 Besides Reenstierna, servants of lower status on the estate — maids, older women, and young boys — took care of the poultry. This was revealed when the animals were injured or lost.124 Intrestingly, people of low status and the

119 Fiebranz 2002, pp. 138–142. 120 Reenstierna could also drive (NMA Reenstierna, 31 March 1817); however, when a servant had the task it was always men. Notes of the coachmen driving: NMA Reenstierna, 1 May 1835; of farmhands: NMA Reenstierna, 12 September 1813. 121 Notes of managing wagons: NMA Reenstierna, 24 April 1813; shoeing: NMA Reenstierna, 21 April 1813. 122 NMA Reenstierna, 9 December 1794. Reenstierna commented that the coachman Nils let the farmhand Hagberg perform his tasks like he was his servant. NMA Reenstierna, 25 May 1817. 123 NMA Reenstierna, 5 July 1793, 27 May 1796, 4 May 1797. 124 Both the maid Greta and Mor Svahn had responsibility for taking care of the geese, and both mismanaged this task by not counting goslings, which lead to several losses. NMA Reenstierna, 26 August 1796, 16 April 1795. In 1794, Reenstierna’s husband fired a young boy for not herding geese properly. The same boy had also

woman with the highest status within the household performed similar tasks. Perhaps Reenstierna’s love for poultry explains why she performed something that otherwise seemed to be a low-ranked task. The tasks performed in the barn were not often recorded. Mullberg documented visiting the barn every morning to count the sheep.125 This was an overseeing task, fitting to her station. Both Reenstierna and Mullberg had barn-maids, and Reenstierna writes in 1796 that wolves had killed a pig since the barn-maid Stina had forgotten to lock the barn at night.126 This is the only note that describes a task that seemed to be the responsibility of a barn-maid. Slaughter was a task that included a broad variety of people on the estates, even the diary-writing women themselves. Both Reenstierna and Mull- berg were both present slaughtered smaller animals.127 There was a gendered division when it came to slaughtering animals and this was based on the size of the animal. On Reenstierna’s estate, men were often found slaughtering larger animals, such as calves, pigs, and lambs. These men held different positions on the estate: the gardener, the farmhands, the coachman, and the foreman.128 Besides these men, Reenstierna also hired the local smithy for slaughtering pigs and lamb.129 Women on Reenstierna’s estate, on the other hand, were mostly in charge of slaughtering smaller animals, such as poultry. These women were maids, elderly women, and also the mamsell.130 There were some exceptions to this gendered division, such as a farmhand’s received a spanking earlier that year for not looking after smaller animals on the estate. NMA Reenstierna, 21 April 1794, 19 November 1794. 125 NMA Mullberg, 27 May 1794. 126 NMA Reenstierna, 7 December 1796. 127 Mullberg slaughtered a calf (NMA Mullberg, 16 August 1797), while Reenstierna (NMA Reenstierna, 14 December 1816) slaughtered geese. Mullberg describes on several occasions her absence from slaughtering, indicating that it was a task she often attended. NMA Mullberg, 3 November 1796. 128 Notes of the gardener slaughtering animals: NMA Reenstierna, 20 April 1839; the foreman: NMA Reenstierna, 11 April 1815; farmhands: NMA Reenstierna, 20 October 1815, 26 August 1837; Boberg: NMA Reenstierna, 21 October 1837. On Mullberg’s estate the farmhands also were recorded slaughtering an unspecified animal: NMA Mullberg, 12 December 1800. 129 NMA Reenstierna, 26 September 1814, 20 November 1837, 22 April 1839. 130 For example: NMA Reenstierna, 17 November 1794, 24 February 1813, 9 Octo- ber 1837. Mullberg also noted a maid slaughtering an unspecified animal: NMA Mullberg, 22 August 1796.

wife slaughtering an ox.131 This demonstrates that there was room for trans- gressing the gendered divisions. There is one area relating to the maintenance of animals during the early modern period in Europe that has been strongly identified with women: namely, dairying.132 The diaries reveal surprisingly little information about dairying.133 Of the small amount of information that does exist, it is evident that it only involved women, especially related to the responsibility for milk. Mullberg noted several times overseeing the milking and the distribution of it to the people on the estate.134 This reveals that the responsibility referred to the milk itself, not to the task of milking. Reenstierna noted that her mamsell temporarily had the responsibly for milking and between 1813 and 1815 she leased the milking to a tenant whose wife was responsible for milking during this period.135 This reveals that it was women of higher positions within the household that had this responsibility. Churning — a task performed in the household — is the only task frequently described. Both Mull- berg and Reenstierna recorded their maids churning, the latter also noted her mamsell performing the task.136 Munsterhjelm and her sister both had small churns of their own, where they produced butter.137 This demonstrates that certain tasks were learned at a young age.

131 NMA Reenstierna, 16 November 1797. 132 Simonton 1998, pp. 31, 122–125; Fiebranz 2002, p. 138. Osterud observes in America that both men and women had the responsibility together during the nineteenth century. Osterud 1991, pp. 149–155. 133 Milking only appears once as verb, being performed by a maid: NMA Mullberg, 22 July 1797. Reenstierna mentions women with work titles such as milk-mother, milk-wife, and milk-maid working on the estate. Reenstierna recorded them performing tasks other than milking, such as running errands to town. NMA Reenstierna, 16 November 1793, 17 October 1794, 1 July 1796, 31 October 1815. 134 NMA Mullberg, 28 August 1794, 23 December 1794, 22 July 1797. 135 The mamsell’s involvement was revealed when Reenstierna scolded her for not performing it. NMA Reenstierna, 6 May 1797. Ekmark was a clerk, who hired a place on the grounds from 1811 to 1815. Broman, ‘Personförteckning’ in Reen- stierna 1985a, p. 487. Reenstierna was often in conflict with Fru Ekmark since she did not receive the correct amount of milk. NMA Reenstierna, 25 April 1814. In 1814, Ekmark moved the cows to another farm. NMA Reenstierna, 7 June 1814. 136 Notes of churning of maids: NMA Reenstierna, 27 February 1794, 13 August 1814, 5 August 1836; of the mamsell: NMA Reenstierna, 6 May 1814, 18 December 1837. 137 Munsterhjelm, 10 March 1800, 1970.

Steinrud observed in her study that dairying was deemed such an important area for the noble women she considered, that they did almost everything themselves, and were highly reluctant to leave it to others.138 This investigation of dairying contradicts Steinrud’s result. The absence of verbs surrounding dairying, especially milking, indicates that these tasks were not important enough to be performed by the diary-writing women themselves, but could be delegated to women of lower standing (unlike textile tasks). However, dairying was a task strongly connected with women, a conclusion that supports previous research.

Maintenance of the Household In contrast with the previous chapter, all the diary-writing women performed tasks and chores within this area. They also recorded to a much greater extent who performed the tasks pertaining to the maintenance of the household.

Fighting Dirt In the early modern period, keeping the house clean was the fundamental purpose of a woman’s domestic tasks. As the domestic ideals grew during the nineteenth century, so did the fight against dirt. Simonton argues that a clean house became more important, and refers to this as the ‘battle against dirt’.139 This phrase is chosen since it involves different tasks and chores. In the diaries, these different tasks were performed by both the diary- writing women themselves and several other female servants. The tasks were often divided amongst the women of higher and lower positions. Some of the tasks were performed exclusively by women of lower positions, with the diary-writing women playing no practical role. One of these tasks was scrubbing the floors. Of the notes available from Reenstierna and Mullberg, it was primarily the maids who performed this task.140 If extra help was required, the diary-writing women never joined in

138 Steinrud 2008, p. 148. 139 Simonton 1998, pp. 91–102. 140 NMA Mullberg, 16 April 1802; NMA Reenstierna, 28 September 1793, 13 March 1813, 2 May 1835. Munsterhjelm, on the other hand, used the term ‘they’.

themselves, but instead hired in extra female help. Munsterhjelm recorded the participation of local village girls, whilst Reenstierna used the wives of tenants and employees, but also temporary workers on the estate such as dalkullor and elderly women.141 The scrubbing of floors was therefore always delegated downwards within the household hierarchy. There was a similar situation when it came to cleaning clothes. This also was also a difficult task and in Reenstierna’s household it involved dragging the fabric to a nearby lake — all year round — and washing or boiling it (known as byk). Again, the maids performed most of the work, and if they could not wash all the clothes, extra help was recruited.142 The difficult nature of the work is probably one reason why the diary-writing women did not play a practical role. This did not, however, mean that the diary-writing women themselves were not involved in the tasks of fighting dirt. They instead occupied themselves with more delicate tasks, such as washing finer clothes.143 Both Reen- stierna (and later her mamsell) and Mullberg noted that they performed cleaning.144 Reenstierna — unlike Mullberg — specified the details of this cleaning. It involved keeping clothes in order, polishing the silver, dusting

A likely conclusion is that this refers to the maids since they regularly performed the task. Munsterhjelm, 29 July 1799, 5 April 1800, 1970. 141 Munsterhjelm, 25 October 1800, 1970. Examples of assisting wives scrubbing: NMA Reenstierna, 25 April 1795, 20 January 1813, 25 November 1837; of dalkullor: NMA Reenstierna, 3 July 1835, 21 August 1835; of elderly women: NMA Reen- stierna, 17 April 1813, 11 February 1815, 4 August 1815. 142 Examples of maids boiling clothes: NMA Reenstierna, 9 July 1794; maids washing fabrics: NMA Reenstierna, 5 May 1794, 15 April 1835; elderly women washing fabrics: NMA Reenstierna, 16 December 1793, 29 August 1814; employees’ wives: NMA Reenstierna, 10 September 1814, 26 September 1814. Mullberg once mentioned a maid doing ‘byk’: NMA Mullberg, 13 December 1797. 143 Munsterhjelm, 5 August 1799, 28 August 1800, 1970; NMA Reenstierna, 19 May 1794, 11 May 1796. 144 When describing cleaning or putting things in order several different verbs were used, all with similar meanings. ‘Städa’: NMA Mullberg; 4 December 1794; NMA Reenstierna, 25 February 1794, 28 July 1836; ‘stöka’: NMA Mullberg, 5 December 1794, 16 December 1796; NMA Reenstierna, 14 December 1794, 24 May 1836; ‘i ordningställa’: NMA Mullberg; 23 May 1797; NMA Reenstierna, 5 April 1796; ‘rangera’: NMA Reenstierna, 10 June 1835; ‘putsa’: NMA Reenstierna, 3 November 1797; ‘röja’: NMA Reenstierna, 7 December 1814; ‘rusta’: NMA Reenstierna, 16 February 1795; ‘damma’: NMA Reenstierna, 9 June 1796, 23 May 1835.

windows and paintings, and cleaning cupboards.145 On occasion the maids would assist, and if they performed this type of work on their own, it was primarily performed in the kitchen, such as when they scrubbed tin.146 When the maids failed to perform their tasks, Reenstierna noted that she or her mamsell stepped in to be ‘the cleaner’ for the day.147 This meant that the women of higher position within the household could perform the task of cleaning with their own hands unlike the task of scrubbing. Men were also found in the cleaning process; however, their tasks were more directed towards moving furniture to facilitate the women’s cleaning tasks.148 As previously mentioned, the diary-writing women also washed finer clothes. Both Reenstierna and Munsterhjelm noted performing this finer type of washing. It involved, for example, washing ribbons and finer and more delicate clothing.149 Besides being finer washing, the task never required the women to leave the house to perform it. Reenstierna also was found taking part in the regular washing, but this was as more of an over- seer. She chose which clothes were to be washed, counted them, and also ensured that the fabric was washed and returned to its rightful place.150 This helped her establish her role as the housemother — the leader. The ethnologist Angela Rundquist states that the noble woman’s close overseeing of clothes is due to the fabrics economic worth, and also since the fabric was a product of valued female work.151 This role was also established with the

145 For example: NMA Reenstierna, 28 July 1796, 28 July 1814, 29 August 1835, 6 May 1836. 146 Examples of maids assisting: NMA Reenstierna 27 July 1793, 19 July 1795; of tasks focused towards the kitchen: NMA Reenstierna, 1 October 1793, 31 March 1815, 22 December 1816, 16 May 1817, 25 June 1835. 147 NMA Reenstierna, 22 July 1796, 18 October 1797, 17 May 1836. 148 Examples of Boberg assisting: NMA Reenstierna, 19 March 1814, 14 October 1815, 2 January 1816; of her husband: NMA Reenstierna, 2 October 1795. 149 Munsterhjelm, 5 August 1799, 28 August 1800, 1970; NMA Reenstierna; 19 May 1794, 11 May 1796. When Reenstierna could no longer perform this, her mamsell took over: NMA Reenstierna, 14 April 1835, 12 August 1837. 150 The mamsell would later take over these tasks. Notes of putting away clothes: NMA Reenstierna, 14 February 1794, 1 October 1814; of the mamsell: NMA Reen- stierna, 15 July 1839; of counting laundry: NMA Reenstierna, 20 June 1795, 16 June 1817; of the mamsell: NMA Reenstierna, 8 December 1836. Rundquist argues that taking care of fabrics such as undergarments and linens had been a female responsibility for centuries, Rundquist 1989, p. 201. 151 Rundquist 1989, pp. 200–201.

task of mangling. A task that seemed to involve a broad array of people on the estate, such as the maids, extra female assistants, and also men, for example the gardener.152 Reenstierna never took part in performing this task, but she recorded it in 1816, when she demonstrated to the maids how to fold clothes whilst mangling in a better and quicker way.153 By demonstrating her knowledge to the servants, she was also asserting her authority as the housemother in governing how the mangling was performed.

Producing Sustenance Households were largely self-producing during the early modern period. Sustenance was created and processed by the household, and even if food was bought it was processed by the household. It has been argued that this was largely a female activity.154 Food management was also recorded by the diary-writing women as primarily a female activity in their households. These tasks were often performed in the kitchen, which was a female area. Baking and making sausages from the slaughtered meat were the most commonly recorded tasks. Mull- berg and Reenstierna often performed these tasks themselves, and when Reenstierna was too old, the mamsell took over.155 Munsterhjelm noted that her mother and sisters baked ginger bread, pastries, crisp bread, and rusks. Munsterhjelm often assisted, most likely learning the tasks.156 They often

152 Examples of maids mangling: NMA Reenstierna, 18 December 1813, 11 July 1839; of the mamsell: NMA Reenstierna, 29 May 1813, 18 December 1837; of assisting wives: NMA Reenstierna, 16 June 1814, 1 July 1836; of dalkullor: NMA Reen- stierna, 6 May 1815; of elderly women: NMA Reenstierna, 16 May 1795, 26 Sep- tember 1815. Notes of farmhands mangling: NMA Reenstierna, 29 May 1813, 28 September 1835; of the gardener: NMA Reenstierna, 23 September 1813, 31 March 1835. 153 NMA Reenstierna, 10 October 1816. 154 Hunt 2009, p. 146. 155 Reenstierna noted to a much larger extent baking and making sausages, since this was something she did continuously throughout the years, while Mullberg left sporadic notes. Notes of baking: NMA Mullberg, 17 December 1794, 14 April 1795; NMA Reenstierna, 16 April 1794; of making sausage: NMA Mullberg, 12 December 1794; NMA Reenstierna, 28 November 1795; of the mamsell baking: NMA Reen- stierna, 9 April 1839; of making sausage: NMA Reenstierna, 30 January 1835. 156 Examples of her mother baking: Munsterhjelm, 20 March 1800, 20 October 1800, 1970; of her sisters: Munsterhjelm, 13 August 1799, 18 July 1799, 18 August 1799, 5 December 1800, 1970.

performed the task along with female servants — mamsells and maids — and on rare occasions these servants also baked and made sausages on their own.157 Reenstierna was also sometimes accompanied by employees’ wives and elderly women.158 A few times she even recorded men assisting, such as her coachmen, the gardener, and a garden farmhand. These men did not make the buns, instead they assisted with carrying bread from the oven and managing the oven.159 With that said, she mostly noted performing the task of baking on her own. Since she produced over 2,000 pieces of bread it is possible that she was assisted but did not note this in her diary, instead taking full credit.160 Knowledge of producing bread and sausages was found amongst different types of women within the household. On celebratory occasions, Munsterhjelm and Reenstierna recruited outside help to bake. Munsterhjelm’s household recruited the help of an acquaintance — Mrs Ottelin — who assisted with the pastries.161 Commenting in the published version of her diary, Bo Lundqvist argues that Mrs Ottelin was probably highly knowledgeable about baking, explaining why she assisted.162 Simonton refers to the possession of certain knowledge as being

157 Examples of baking performed by the diary-writing women: NMA Reenstierna, 31 August 1793, 22 December 1797; of making sausage: NMA Mullberg, 16 Decem- ber 1794, 29 September 1800; NMA Reenstierna, 18 November 1797, 13 April 1835. Examples of the maids alone; baking: NMA Mullberg, 19 April 1794, 22 De- cember 1796; NMA Reenstierna, 9 October 1795, 18 May 1816; making sausage: NMA Reenstierna, 30 November 1814. Mullberg often referred to a ‘L.C.’ who has not been found in the records (VA FiKA, AI;6), L.C. often performed female-oriented tasks such as making food and picking wool (NMA Mullberg, 16 December 1794, 7 April 1797), it is therefore my conclusion that she was a mamsell. Notes of her baking: NMA Mullberg, 7 April 1795, 21 April 1795; of making sausages: NMA Mullberg, 12 December 1794. 158 Example of helping wives to bake: NMA Reenstierna, 3 December 1814, 10 July 1835; by elderly women: NMA Reenstierna, 2 March 1815, 9 October 1817; of helping wives to make sausages: NMA Reenstierna, 30 November 1814, 2 December 1814. 159 NMA Reenstierna, 17 May 1813, 20 December 1837. 160 Over fifty notes is of her doing it herself, while around fifteen is of her being assisted. NMA Reenstierna, 1793–1797, 1813–1817, 1835–1839. 161 Munsterhjelm, 2 April 1800, 3 April 1800, 28 June 1800, 1970. 162 This conclusion was drawn from the range of finer pastries she was asked to bake, Lundqvist, ‘Kommentar’ in Munsterhjelm 1970, p. 119.

‘skilled’.163 Reenstierna received help from a baker, who was also a tenant on her estate, Mr Gahm. His profession explains why he performed a task mostly carried out by women.164 It is not recorded why these two did actually assist, perhaps it was in Mr Gahm’s terms of tenancy, or perhaps they did it in order to maintain a good relationship with the household. Cooking the daily food is a task mostly left unrecorded, with the exception of Reenstierna’s diary. On occasion, she performed the tasks herself and supervised the preparations. This was taken over by the mamsell when Reenstierna became old.165 During Reenstierna’s younger years, while she was entertaining, it was the mamsell’s responsibility.166 The maids often assisted both Reenstierna and the mamsell, and assumed responsibility if the mamsell was absent.167 This shows a clear hierarchy in the division of work, where responsibility trickled down. Reenstierna and her mamsell could, however, also take over the maids’ responsibilities, claiming, for instance, that they were the cook for the day. What specific tasks this included is not revealed.168 As shown, cocking food was primarily a female task, which included women from different positions within the household. Alcoholic beverages were also produced in the household — beer and punch. Brewing was a vital task performed to make beer. Both Mullberg and Reenstierna performed this task themselves, but they also noted instructing

163 Simonton writes; ‘To be skilled was to be possessed of ‘skill or knowledge properly trained or experience’. Simonton 1998, p. 76. 164 Broman, ’Personförteckning’ in Reenstierna 1985b, p. 488. Notes of assisting: NMA Reenstierna, 7 July 1813, 23 December 1814; of on his own: NMA Reen- stierna, 22 December 1813, 14 April 1815. He was also recorded baking for other tenants on the estate: NMA Reenstierna, 22 December 1815. 165 NMA Reenstierna, 5 December 1796, 18 August 1797. Notes of the mamsell cooking (‘koka mat’): NMA Reenstierna, 15 November 1836, 14 February 1838; of cooking (‘laga mat’): NMA Reenstierna, 21 February 1836, 9 July 1836. 166 Something that becomes clear in 1813 when Reenstierna noted the mamsell becoming cross because a lower servant performed the task. She clearly saw this as her responsibility. NMA Reenstierna, 3 March 1797. 167 Examples of accompanied by the maids: NMA Reenstierna, 22 August 1837, 19 April 1839; of taking over responsibility: NMA Reenstierna, 15 August 1836; of performing it on their own, unusual: NMA Reenstierna, 21 January 1838. 168 Notes of herself being the cook: NMA Reenstierna, 5 April 1795, 22 July 1796, 17 September 1796; of the mamsell: NMA Reenstierna, 24 June 1835, 27 November 1837.

maids to perform it.169 This result differs from that of Steinrud, who found that the noblewomen of her study distanced themselves from the production of alcoholic beverages, leaving it to men.170 However, the historian Christopher Pihl shows that brewing in sixteenth century Sweden was performed by women on a small scale close to the household, but when it became large scale and professionalized, the men took over.171 In Reenstierna’s household, men only assisted; her coachman Boberg assisted in rarefying and drafting beer.172 Additionally, the men were responsible for producing alcohol outside the household, such as brännvin.173

Taking Care of the Sick and Poor Taking care of the sick and the poor was included in the wide range of responsibilities and tasks performed by women belonging to the higher strata.174 Teaching children to write was one of these tasks. This time-consuming chore was performed by Liljencrantz. Liljencrantz, who rarely noted servants, did, however, have daily interactions with one, a chambermaid called Little Lotta. Liljencrantz taught her to write and count. Liljencrantz also taught two other students. One left unnamed, whose mother was too poor to let her learn literacy.175 The second was the gardener’s youngest daughter.176 This was a sort of charity, since Liljencrantz did not seem to

169 Mullberg noted being interrupted by company who came in when she brewed, implying that it was not ashamed to be seen brewing. NMA Mullberg, 17 March 1795, 19 April 1802; NMA Reenstierna, 18 December 1793, 19 December 1796. Notes of maids brewing: NMA Reenstierna, 24 March 1794, 22 November 1814, 22 April 1836. 170 Steinrud 2008, p. 148. 171 Pihl argues that when it became specialized, meaning large scale, regulated and ‘skilled’ it became male-coded. Pihl 2012, pp. 82–87. 172 NMA Reenstierna, 7 July 1814, 6 May 1817. 173 Reenstierna was the only one who mentioned this, and she recorded men having the responsibility for the distilling, and her husband had contact with these men who performed these tasks. NMA Reenstierna, 26 August 1794, 11 July 1795, 7 February 1797. 174 See Steinrud, 2008 pp. 158–164, who discusses these responsibilities under the headings ‘work’. 175 Notes of teatching Lilla Lotta: RA Liljencrantz, 15 September 1817, 9 March 1818. Other students: RA Liljencrantz, 2 October 1818. 176 RA Liljencrantz, 5 October 1818.

receive any form of payment. Liljencrantz taught the girls every day — from 10 to 11 — making it a significant part of her daily routine. Another task that fell on the female members of the household was taking care of the sick: they would hand out medicine and stay by their sickbed. All the diary-writing women recorded themselves or women around them performing these tasks. For Reenstierna, this responsibility extended to her entire estate, taking care of her sick employees and giving them medicine.177 Mullberg also took care of the sick, for example her grandchildren.178 Mun- sterhjelm also noted that she and her sisters took care of sick people, such as sitting by their grandmother’s bed and looking after a boy in the nearby village.179 If the women could not perform the task of nursing, they could seek the assistance of other women, for example elderly women and acquaintances.180 This result is similar to that of Steinrud, who found that women often took care of ill family members, and if this could not be done female family members were drafted in.181 The women called in by the diary-writing women were not family members, but even so they were women, which demonstrates that these tasks could be delegated to other women if necessary.

Management In order to make sure that the household was run properly, tasks that can be referred to as management were performed. These tasks ranged from hiring servants, making sure that the household ran smoothly when the housemother was not present, as well as keeping accounts of household expenses. This was mainly performed by the housewife or her husband — the leaders

177 Examples of her nursing people on the estate or distributing medicine: NMA Reenstierna, 16 February 1813, 8 September 1816; of the mamsell: NMA Reen- stierna, 28 January 1836, 8 April 1839. 178 NMA Mullberg, 4 June 1794, 30 June 1794, 6 November 1796. 179 Examples of taking care of a sick boy: Munsterhjelm, 7 February 1800, 1970; of watching over the grandmother: Munsterhjelm, 2 February 1800, 9 February 1800, 1970. 180 Reenstierna relied on an elderly women called Mor Svahn to look after her son, whilst Mullberg relied on Mrs Roman to take care of her grandchildren. NMA Reen- stierna, 6 July 1797; NMA Mullberg, 7 November 1796. 181 Steinrud 2008, p. 160.

of the household. This means that the following discussion will focus on Reenstierna and Mullberg, and since for the most part they were of writing as widows, their husbands are largely absent from the following discussion. Hiring staff was one of these management tasks. Whilst married, Reen- stierna shared this responsibility with her husband. Reenstierna hired the female servants, as was the case for Munsterhjelm’s household, were she recorded her mother hiring female servants.182 Reenstierna’s husband was primarily responsible for hiring male servants, and this passed to Reen- stierna when he died.183 Reenstierna also hired the gardener, this was probably since the garden was primarily her responsibility. Writing letters also had a role in management. Mullberg frequently cor- responded with her mamsells whilst away for longer periods. The letters’ topics were rarely mentioned in the diary. However, in 1795 she noted writing to one of the mamsells about ‘household affairs’.184 It is reasonable to presume that this was often the topic when she wrote home, delegating her responsibility to the highest ranking servant in the household. The diary- writing women also wrote business letters, sending money or ordering sup- plies for themselves or the household.185 Managing accounts and keeping inventories was also a part of house management. Both Mullberg and Reenstierna managed inventories, ranging from lists of the gifts they handed out, eggs produced on the estate, and lists describing the cost of dinner parties.186 Reenstierna also noted in her diary that she kept lists of the silver, the glass, the porcelain, and the linen she

182 NMA Reenstierna, 5 March 1795, 4 August 1817; Munsterhjelm, 3 January 1800, 1970. 183 Reenstierna did, however, hire one farmhand herself during the years her husband was alive. NMA Reenstierna, 3 August 1794, 4 August 1795, 8 August 1795. Reenstierna. 184 NMA Mullberg, 14 March 1795. 185 For example, ordering construction material for the household: NMA Mullberg, 12 January 1797, 29 September 1797; sending money: NMA Reenstierna, 12 No- vember 1800. Munsterhjelm, who was not a housemother also ordered things by letters, mainly textiles. Munsterhjelm, 4 April 1800, 1970. 186 The lists can be viewed in the published versions of Reenstierna’s diary, ‘Bilagor’ in Reenstierna 1985a, 1985b, 1985c, and the machine written version of Mullberg’s diary, Mullberg 1794–1802, NM. Example from Reenstierna, in 1835 she recorded counting the income and expenditure of the previous year: NMA Reenstierna, 1 February 1835.

owned.187 Rundquist argues that through performing these types of tasks women were emphasizing their areas of power within the household.188 They kept and governed these lists themselves, but when it came to the accounts they often needed some extra male assistance. Mullberg noted re- civeing help from Director Magnelius for counting her money, whilst Reen- stierna used both her nephew and Herr Lundberg for overseeing her bills and paperwork.189 Besides this, the diaries themselves can be seen as a form of accountancy. In these books the women often noted the incomes and money spent, as well as how time was managed. Mullberg and Reenstierna often noted the household costs and incomes in their diaries. The younger women did not note financial matters as regularly, but they still recorded how their time had been spent, implying that all the women kept some form of accountancy.

Conclusion In this study I have studied four diaries written by women belonging to the higher strata of society. The focus has been on the practices of work described in the diaries, performed by themselves, and the people, surrounding them. Below I will discuss and emphasize certain result and conclusions found in this article.

Performativity Similarities, differences, and hierarchies were being created through the practices of work. These were based mainly on gender, social belonging, position within the household, age, and marital status. This does not exclude other possible categories involved in constructing the daily performances of people, these have simply been the most visible. In the different diaries, the

187 NMA Reenstierna, 10 April 1795. 188 Rundquist 1989, p. 205. 189 Magnelius used to be inspector on Mullberg’s father’s bruk, and now seemed to be neighbours with Mullberg, FiKA (Va AI:4, AI: 5). NMA Mullberg, 19 October 1800. Reenstierna’s nephew helped her calculate the annual bills: NMA Reen- stierna, 13 March 1837; while Mr Lundberg helped her with sorting out the papers she had collected: NMA Reenstierna, 13 August 1839. Gustaf Fredrik Lundberg was a choral singer, Broman, ’Personförteckning’ in Reenstierna 1985c, p. 431.

practices of work have been presented as rather conflict free. Of those con- flicts that do exist, these have often been differing interpretations of whose responsibility or privilege it was to perform a certain task. Whilst different categories were being asserted through performances, it has also been observed that these were often ways for people to break the norms. This was seen with the woman slaughtering an ox. Osterud found in her study of diaries that when someone crossed a gender line, language was used to mark this transgression as still belonging to the person usually performing the task. This asserted the gendering of the task.190 In the diaries considered in this study, this type of language was rarely used. The norms and hierarchies being established through performing tasks and chores seemed to not be thought of as rigid, instead there was room for boundaries to be constantly crossed.

The Household and the Housemother The household was an important factor for the work performed. The different people belonged to a household, and it created a framework around the performed tasks and also determined who performed the tasks. Pihl argues that the household can be interpreted as a social model, through which people understood hierarchies.191 This has been observed in this study: positions within the household were constantly present and being established in conjunction with other cultural categories and they were creating hierarchies between individuals. The household was not a closed border. The diary-writing women often documented hiring extra female help from outside the household, women who were wives of tenants, wives or widows from the local community, who earned extra income for their household whilst performing the tasks. Simonton argues that during the early modern period hiring extra help was a common strategy performed by women so they could put aside domestic responsibilities in search of a living.192 From the diary-

190 Writing that they helped or with which they assisted, Osterud, 1991, pp. 140, 161. 191 Pihl 2011, pp. 39–41. 192 Simonton 1998, p. 22.

writing women’s perspective, it became a strategy in the sense that it pre- vented them from performing heavy and dirty tasks themselves, allowing them to maintain their position as the housemother who oversaw the work. Even though there was a desire to focus on the different array of people performing tasks in the diaries, there has been an obvious focus on the diary- writing women, mainly due to the fact that their voices are the loudest since they were the creators of the sources. It is through their eyes that we are observing the tasks and chores. Judging from the diaries, the women perceived themselves as highly active, often noting performing tasks with their own hands, and even if they delegated, they were present to oversee the work. In this way, the older women — Reenstierna and Mullberg — were asserting themselves as leaders, as the housemother. The housemother is truly a creation of the intersectional process; it could not exist without the multitude of people to whom they delegated and divided tasks. In this respect, this study confirms previous research on women of similar stature, for example Rundquist and Steinrud. They have all highlighted the importance of the idea of the housemother, and emphasized that the responsibility of the housemother was not only to supervise the household, but also to decide when and how work should be executed, and to be able to perform every task themselves.193 This has been visible throughout my study. The housemother was not a fixed position. Reenstierna noted that with almost every task, when she got too old to perform them herself her mamsell took over, this included tasks such as overseeing. Reenstierna therefore re- signed her role as household leader, and it became placed on a woman of lower standing, a servant. Reenstierna seemed to have mixed emotions about the transition. It was obvious that she relied deeply on the mamsell for performing her tasks, and she seemed to appreciate it.194 Perhaps it was not

193 Ulvros 1996, p. 57; Steinrud 2008, p. 145. Vickery makes a similar argument in an English context, that in order for the servants work to be of good quality, the elite mistress of the household needed to be able to perform the tasks themselves. Vickery 1998, p. 147. 194 She refers to the mamsells work performance as ‘good’, ‘diligent’, and with ‘a good will’, examples of this: NMA Reenstierna; 12 September 1835, 10 May 1836, 28 January 1837, 23 March 1837. In 1837 she writes, ‘mamsell managed everything — God bless all honest and modest people.’ A similar quote can be found in; ‘only mamsell troubles with everything, and God let her keep good health!’ NMA Reen- stierna, 21 April 1837.

evident that the mamsell should be taking this responsibility, acting outside her own work-role. However, Reenstierna did not fully accept stepping back. Often Reenstierna called herself ‘old’, ‘useless’, and ‘a wretch’, since the ways in which she could contribute to the household had become extremely limited.195 Reenstierna also lost her say in how tasks were performed around the household, instead certain employees, such as the mamsell, began to make decisions, and in 1835 she writes, that she was ‘not amused by them which now are half younger and governs everything’.196 When turning old, she could no longer perform the tasks connected with the housemother, such as overseeing. By not performing the role of the housemother, Reen- stierna was no longer the absolute leader and her usefulness to the household significantly decreased. Being useful was important for both Reenstierna and Mullberg. Even though they had servants who in theory could perform all the work, they still chose to perform tasks with their own hands. Vickery argues that female household leaders belonging to the elite had to be active and knowledgeable in order to ensure that the household tasks were being performed.197 In the Swedish case, there seemed to be more going on than just ensuring the household tasks were performed, being hands on and industrious seemed to also reflect the image of oneself. This is evident from the verse quoted by Reenstierna, and from which this chapter draws its title: ‘In heaven the writing says;/ Every moment used poorly/ God! Let me not waste/ a moment of This year!’198 Both Reenstierna and Mullberg were quick to criticise themselves if they had passed a day not being useful, for example when they had been hin- dered by visitors.199 This means that even though entertaining company was important enough to be prioritized, it was not always seen as industrious.

195 An example of this was ‘mamsell manages everything — in the household and me the wretch sat and spun some’: NMA Reenstierna, 25 July 1837. The Swedish word for old is ‘gammal’, for useless is ‘usling’, for a wretch is ‘stackare’, examples of this: NMA Reenstierna 6 Jan 1835, 20 June 1837, 24 October 1839. 196 NMA Reenstierna, 16 July 1835. 197 Vickery 1998, p. 147. 198 NMA Reenstierna, 1 January 1801. 199 Notes of not being useful: NMA Mullberg, 6 April 1794, 24 March 1795, 11 April 1795; NMA Reenstierna, 1 September 1794, 4 November 1797, 10 February 1817, 4 February 1836.

Reenstierna also felt the need to note that she had been occupied and useful even though there was little to show for it.200 For Reenstierna, it was important to perform ‘real work’. This was often housework-oriented tasks and chores performed by her own hand.201 If this was not done, Reenstierna risked being ‘vain’.202 The importance of being useful is reconfirmed: being useful and performing real work meant doing textile or indoors oriented tasks, but also performing these tasks themselves with their own hands. What about the younger women? Several researchers have argued that the upbringing of young women from the higher strata of society focused on learning the tasks in the household, so as to be able to lead the household once married.203 Munsterhjelm proved that she could perform a large set of tasks at a young age, for example working with textile, gardening, and baking. That said, she rarely provides us with information about learning these tasks, of describing being taught the ways of the household or about how to lead it. Liljencrantz’s diary hardly mentions any tasks indicating that she was learning the ways of the household, mainly because she was not present in her own household during her writings. Hence, there is little evidence in the diaries of a learning process for the younger women. Tasks were instead presented as already known.

The End The borders between private and public have not been investigated in this study. It is, however, relevant to comment on the concept. Through this study it is evident that the household was still a place where diverse work and a wide range of production took place. The diary-writing women, especially Reenstierna and Mullberg, presented themselves as active and highly valued and this was linked to being useful and industrious. They played a significant role in the management of not simply the home, but the whole

200 For example, in 1796 she writes; ‘I cleaned and had all sorts of tasks though nothing real appeared to be accomplished.’ NMA Reenstierna, 31 March 1796. 201 NMA Reenstierna, 16 August 1796, 5 May 1813, 16 December 1815. 202 NMA Reenstierna, 15 September 1796, 5 January 1797, 10 June 1797. 203 For example, Stadin argues that even the richest noble girl had to learn the tasks of the household, she was only spared from the heaviest tasks. Stadin 2004, p. 148. Similar conclusions can also be found in Steinrud 2008, p. 140.

estate, and in the production of items needed for the household, often assisting with their own hands in a range of different tasks. Their work can hardly be interpreted as strictly ‘decorative’.204 The diary-writing women often worked in relation to the home. Did this mean they were private? Steinrud, whose study does actually investigate the borders of ‘private and public’, argues that these women were public, ‘because their activities affected several people than just themselves.’205 I would like to agree, these women came in constant contact with such a large range of people both during the practices of work and through their social obligations, and this took part in several cultural contexts. Seeing their occupations as strictly private, as in closed up or shut away, would be to disregard all of this. In this study, I interpreted what was deemed as important according to the areas of tasks and chores that were most regularly commented upon and through which the diary-writing women were present themselves. There areas were textile work, the garden, and work performed inside the household. Other areas, such as socializing, were important since they were prioritized, even if the diary-writing women did not always describe it as useful work. In this, roles seemed to come into conflict with one another, the women wanting to perform their work but also having to entertain company, the housemother seemed not always to mesh well with the role of the hostess. This demonstrates that there were different aspects shaping and forming what was deemed as important. Did this make other areas less important? It need not imply that the other areas were of less importance for the household, but instead that these areas were either someone else’s responsibility. Diaries become a window into the complex ideas and practices governing the way these women, and the people around them, spent their time. The diaries were also a part of an ongoing conversation, a way for these women to feel useful by noting time spent and their own industriousness. They produced a framework around what was seen as important and high- lighting the areas of responsibility. In the final years of Reenstierna’s writings, when she was losing her role as housemother, there was one task which no one could take away from her, a task which made her useful and let her

204 Similar conclusions were drawn by Ulvros about the bourgeois women in southern Sweden during the nineteenth century. Ulvros 1996, pp. 333–334. 205 Steinrud 2008, p. 224.

keep a sense of supervision: the writing of her diary.206 Diary-writing truly was a performative act in its own right.

206 NMA Reenstierna, 18 June 1836, 3 June 1837.

‘An Amusing and Useful Pastime’

Knitting as a Performance of Femininity

Hanna Bäckström

Time was, when the knitting needles were restricted to the farmhouse and the servants’ hall; of late years, fashion, that all-powerful regulator of everything related to female occupations, has allowed their introduction into the drawing-room, in furtherance of those schemes miscalled charitable, which require a constant supply of pretty articles, useless for every purpose except to get rid of the hours which, but for their aid, might not be so innocently disposed of.1

In the early nineteenth century, something changed in the drawing-rooms of upper strata households: A new kind of knitting emerged, taking its place among other fancy needlework as a distinctively feminine and fashionable occupation. The practice was seen by some as frivolous, as we see in an article in The Magazine of Domestic Economy in 1838, quoted above. Here, an anonymous correspondent shuns the new fashionable practice of knitting pretty, useless articles, advocating the ladies to knit stockings instead — a chore that was already practiced in upper strata households before this date. This critique of frivolous knitting correlates with the emergence of a new kind of publication — knitting handbooks. Before 1830 only a few publications including knitting instructions had been published in Europe, but now a multitude of handbooks describing both fancy and plain designs for knitting various objects were printed in German and English. In the 1840s knitting handbooks of similar content and composition were published in the vernacular languages of several North European countries, indicating the existence of a trend that trans- cended national borders. These knitting handbooks — together with a few knitted objects scattered in museums and private collections — are proof of

1 ‘On Knitting’ 1838, p. 260.

a genteel knitting practice which is scarcely ever mentioned in other written sources of the period. Most of the written history of knitting in Sweden focuses on displaying the knitted objects themselves. When social practices around knitting are explored, it is the stories of the poor, the peasants, and the professional manufacturers that are told.2 This gives the false impression that knitting had no place among the wealthy. Among peasants in the nineteenth century, knitting warm and durable socks, caps and mittens was an important part of daily household work. Knitting also played a role in the creation and preservation of social roles and certain modes of interaction as games were played and stories told during the long evenings spent knitting.3 When it comes to the upper strata of society, knitting as a social practice has not been thoroughly explored. By viewing knitting as a cultural practice, the aim of this study is to explore the purpose of knitting in the everyday lives of people from the upper strata of society in the middle of the nineteenth century. The first knitting handbooks in Swedish were published in the 1840s. These four publications, filled with both fancy and plain designs, are the main sources used to discuss the purpose of knitting in the everyday lives of upper-strata Swedes. The first knitting handbook published in Swedish is a lace-knitting handbook, Mönster till spets-stickning och hålsöm med åtföljande beskrifning och plancher (Patterns for lace-knitting and hemstitching with accompanying descriptions and plates), written by a Swedish noblewoman, Maria Magdalena Charlotta Olivecrona.4 The other three Swedish knitting handbooks are all compilations of foreign publications: Emma Hennings’s Charlotte Leanders stickbok (Charlotte Leander’s knitting book) is a compilation of the most popular German knitting handbooks of the time;5 Nya mönster till spets-stickning m.m. samt spets-virkning (New patterns for knitting lace etc. and crocheting lace) is a collection of lace-patterns from the same author;6 En ny stickbok, med 67 nya anvisningar att med yllegarn sticka schärp,

2 For example: Wintzell 1976; Johansson 2001. 3 Bäckström 2011. 4 Olivecrona 1843; Second edition 1845. 5 Hennings 1848. Charlotte Leanders stickbok is a compilation of Hennings’s series of fourteen booklets, Anweizung zur Kunst-Strickerei (Instructions in art-knitting), published in Erfurt 1843–1845). 6 Hennings 1844.

schawlar, toffsar, fransar, kuddar, muffar m.m. (A new knitting book, with 67 new descriptions for knitting with wool: belts, shawls, tassels, fringes, cushions, cuffs etc.), is a collection of assorted knitting patterns edited by one of the most prominent authors of needlework handbooks in Britain, Frances Lambert.7 Using the four Swedish knitting handbooks from the 1840s as a starting point, I will discuss how knitting as a handicraft is framed and described in order to fit into the world of genteel women. Was knitting viewed as a household chore or a leisure activity? By analyzing the kind of knitting patterns and objects described in the knitting handbooks, you get a glimpse of what a genteel woman of the time was expected to care about how she was supposed to use her time. The circumstances around the publishing of these books are explored in order to place the knitting handbooks into a wider context. Some brief remarks on the handbooks as a part of an international trend will also be provided.

Knitting as an Object of Research The everyday chores of noblewomen in the nineteenth century are today often associated with plain and decorative sewing — not knitting — even though knitting was practiced in gentry homes, and seen as an essential female skill.8 In her study of the everyday lives of bourgeoisie women in the south of Sweden from 1790 to 1820, the historian Eva Helen Ulvros puts knitting and sewing in the context of household work by stating that these skills were included when educating young girls to become good housewives.9 Here, knitting is mentioned as a chore that — along with other textile

7 Lambert 1847. 8 For an example of research where embroidery is emphasized as the prime female virtue, see Parker 1984. Although knitting is a handicraft that has been widely practiced by both the upper and lower strata of North Europe during early modern times, the practice of knitting is not a popular topic of academic research. This might be due to the modern perception of knitting as a leisure activity. However, brief accounts of the history if knitting can be found in popular publications, for example Rutt 1987; Nargi 2011; Black 2012. Among these, Rutt gives the most comprehensive account of the history of knitting, although his results are in need of reevalua- tion, and Black gives the most recent and revised picture. 9 Ulvros 1996, p. 58.

handicrafts — plays a part in the formation of female identity, or the incul- cation of femininity into young girls. Previous research on the function of textile handicrafts in upper strata households has focused on plain and decorative sewing among Anglo-Saxon gentry.10 In these studies, the broad term ‘needlework’ is often used to encompass plain and decorative sewing as well as crochet and knitting, making no or little distinction between the very different textile handicrafts encom- passed by the term. In Swedish the term arbete (work) was often used when referring to textile handicrafts, which makes it hard to investigate through written manuscripts the extent of the performance of different kinds of needlework in the everyday lives of Swedish noble and gentry women. This has been noted by Jessica Karlsson in her study of chores described in the diaries of Swedish gentry women, 1793–1839.11 The meaning of the term arbete in this context is interchangeable and can encompass mending, sewing, and knitting, making it synonymous with the English term ‘needlework’. Besides the imprecise references to arbete, the diaries of Swedish gentry women contain brief notes on knitting performed within and outwith the households, making diaries an indispensable complementary source as part of a bigger investigation of knitting practices in Swedish gentry households. Diaries in combination with preserved objects, can be used to investigate the material aspects of how knitting was practiced in gentry households in Sweden. 12 The knitting handbooks provide an excellent source for studying the ideals surrounding knitting during the nineteenth century. These publications are normative, in the sense that they tell us what kind of knitting the readers were encouraged or expected to perform. This information is interpreted as an indication on how the handicraft was perceived by contemporaries. By examining different aspects of the handbooks, norms surrounding knitting in upper strata households can be revealed and discussed: The content of these manuals — in essence patterns for different kinds of objects — show what the readers were expected to knit; the ways in which the objects and patterns are described show what kind of knowledge the reader needed

10 See, for example: Parker 1984; Goggin 2009; Vickery 2009. 11 Karlsson 2013, p. 31. 12 In the author’s ongoing PhD-project the international knitting and crochet trend of the nineteenth century is investigated through a wider survey of diaries, preserved objects and patterns published in several North European countries.

to possess to understand and use them; prefaces, postscripts and comments accompanying the patterns reveal the authors’ and translators’ views on the specific handicrafts. By comparing the views expressed and the information given in the handbooks with preserved objects and other written sources, knitting as a cultural practice can be explored. While this study focuses on the knitting handbooks themselves, making only a few references to complementary sources, a more comprehensive investigation of the performance and perception of knitting in Swedish gentry homes is underway.13 The handbooks are viewed not only as texts, but as material objects that project someone’s agency, taking part in and interacting in a social context. Objects can embody and project human agency, they perform social and cultural work, and in this way enable the social world to happen.14 The handbooks can even be seen as agents in themselves, inspiring women to knit what they suggest and in that way inculcating femininity and taste.

A Brief History of Published Needlework Instructions Patterns for needlework have been published since the middle of the sixteenth century. These early embroidery and bobbin lace pattern collections were not intended for professional use, but for amateurs, and were often dedicated to noblewomen, which suggests domestic use.15 The first known pattern collection that explicitly contained knitting designs is the third part of Rosina Helena Fürst’s Model-buchs (pattern books), first printed in Nürn- berg in 1676.16 These early pattern collections did not contain any descriptions of how to use the designs, nor did it include comments on which patterns that were intended for which needlework technique. Any design for counted stitch embroidery could, in theory, be used for knitting, which makes it impossible to determine when the first patterns that were used for knitting was published. The publication that is considered to be the first

13 The author’s ongoing PhD-project, commenced in 2014. 14 This theoretical understanding of objects as agents is inspired by Styles & Vickery 2007, pp. 21–22. 15 Paludan 1991, p. 13. 16 Fürst 1676.

known pattern collection containing detailed written descriptions of how to knit was published in 1800 by two Germans, Friedrich Ludwig Lehmann and Johann Friedrich Netto.17 The instructions in this book are described by the knitting historian Richard Rutt as ‘obscure’, suggesting that they are hard to understand for readers in our time.18

Needlework Handbooks Written by Women, for Women The Swedish handbooks used in this study differ from the earlier pattern collections in two ways: They are all written by women, and they contain both illustrations and written descriptions of how to knit various kinds of patterns and objects.19 The earliest knitting handbook presently known that can be said to fall into the same category as the Swedish examples was published in Germany in 1831.20 Several manuals written by German or British women during the 1830s suggest that this way of publishing knitting patterns was an international phenomenon, developing in both Germany and Britain simultaneously.21 Some of the earliest needlework handbooks are written for use in the education of poor girls, while others are written by women from the upper strata of society, addressing fellow ladies of leisure. The four Swedish knitting handbooks are all aimed at this second target group, which is clearly expressed in their prefaces.

17 Netto & Lehmann 1800. 18 Rutt 1987, pp. 104, 107. 19 Netto & Lehmann 1800 contains instructions and illustrations of a similar type, but is written by a man. The knitting handbooks of the 1830s and 1840s distinguish themselves by both being published by women and containing instructions with associated illustrations. They also distinguish themselves by their format. The knitting books of the 1830s and 1840s measure roughly 10 times 15 centimeters, while Netto’s & Lehmann’s book is much larger, printed on paper measuring around 30 times 50 centimeters. 20 Pauker 1831. 21 For example: Pauker 1835; Watts 1837. Knitting patterns were privately published by Jane Gaugain in 1836, and her first collection was printed in 1837, the title of which has not been disclosed in any previous research. Listed in bibliography by Potter 1955, p. 104.

TO THE SWEDISH LADIES

Each period has its fashions, its whims, its different ideas, not only in general, but also in the smallest of details. The handicraft of genteel women has also varied, according to the period’s different tempers and requirements. In one period bobbin lace was practiced widely, another period padded satin stitch was sewn; — then there came the time of tapestry seam, which now however has had to leave room for knotting, knitting, and crochet, most especially the latter two. Since I am myself sincerely amused with these easy, nimble and portable handicrafts, and in which I have acquired some skill, I have thought that I might have given many of my compatriot genteel women both an amusing and useful pastime, by choosing to translate and adjust according to Swedish fashions, Charlotte Leander’s Knitting Book, which in Germany, where ladies are exquisitely skilled in domestic handicraft, has acquired a great deal of attention and, where of which in a short period of time 10 or 11 editions have been published.22

The quoted preface is written by the Swedish author Wilhelmina Stålberg as an introduction to her translation and compilation of the most popular German knitting handbooks of the time, Anweizung zur Kunst-Strickerei, originally written by Emma Hennings.23 Here, knitting is treated as a fashion trend, in a similar vein to our anonymous contributor to The Magazine of Domestic Economy, albeit in a more positive way.24 Stålberg frames knitting as a fashionable, amusing, and useful domestic handicraft, addressing her fellow Swedish ladies. Knitting handbooks written by women, for women, became very popular during the 1840s. In Britain, around 80 knitting handbooks and handbooks with a mixed content of knitting, crochet, and embroidery descriptions were published during this decade. The Swedish knitting handbooks can be further divided into two categories: Two of them are short booklets with mixed content and very brief instructions, the first containing lace designs for both knitting and crochet and the other instructions in lace knitting and hemstitching embroidery.25 The other two are more comprehensive publications containing more detailed instructions for surface patterns, objects, and lace, to be knitted in

22 Hennings 1848, p. 1 (author’s translation). 23 Hennings 1843–1845. 24 ‘On Knitting’ 1838, p. 260. 25 Olivecrona 1843; Hennings 1844.

wool, silk, or cotton. Since the lace knitting booklets are little more than collections of lists of stitches with corresponding illustrations, they play a minor role in this study. Emphasis is instead placed on the more varied and detailed content of Charlotte Leanders stickbok and En ny stickbok.26 While these handbooks may be the first comprehensive knitting instructions that were published in Swedish, it is important to note that other ways of spreading the practice and knowledge of knitting were already in use, and continued simultaneously throughout the nineteenth century. The rudi- mentary skills needed to perform textile handicrafts were primarily passed on orally. The basics of how to knit was taught to genteel women by their mothers, grandmothers, or hired teachers, at a pension or in the home, as part of their education in how to become good housewives. Even if the genteel women were not expected to sit and knit stockings all day, they were expected to know how to do it. Patterns were memorized, practiced, and shared by knitting samplers. These slips made of white cotton yarn could often be several metres long, covered with a different surface pattern for every ten centimeters (see plate 1).27 Handwritten copies of some descriptions from Charlotte Leanders stickbok and Mönster till spets-stickning och hålsöm show that the practice of copying the instructions was also a way of distributing knitting patterns.28 The handwritten copies further suggest that the knitting patterns were considered desirable. It is possible that it was hard to get hold of an original copy of the handbooks, or that the demand was higher than the supply. Although knitting handbooks are published in Britain continuously throughout the nineteenth century, the four Swedish knitting handbooks of the 1840s are the only ones of their kind published in Swedish. In the 1850s, journals for women containing patterns and descriptions for various needlework techniques appeared on the Swedish market, replacing the handbooks as the primary vernacular mediator of needlework patterns.29 A comment in a Swedish crochet handbook of the 1840s suggests that foreign

26 Lambert 1847; Hennings 1848. 27 For example NM.0136497 ‘Stickningsprov’ dated 1842. 28 Nordiska museet: NM.0206841; Vänermuseet: 2010:0229. 29 For example: Nyaste journal för Damer 1854–1864.

96 Plate 1. Knitted sampler, dated 1842 (NM.0136497). Letters ‘C W’ and ‘1842’ knitted in red cotton yarn, the rest of the sampler in white. Foto: (Karolina Kristensson), © Nordiska museet. needlework handbooks were available in Sweden, but at a higher price than the Swedish handbooks.30

30 Den nyaste wirkboken 1849, p. 3.

97 During the 1840s, there was a demand for Swedish knitting handbooks, as stated by Maria Magdalena Olivecrona in the preface to her lace knitting booklet:

Among the many finer handicrafts, which knowledge belong to our sex, you can with reason count lace-knitting and hemstitching. Nevertheless one has experienced complaint, when this knowledge encounter considerable obsta- cles in the difficulty to obtain suitable patterns, and, on this ground, most ladies are forced, either to leave up to memory how these works are executed, or also through written essays preserve what knowledge thereof they have obtained.31

Olivecrona is clearly stating that it was hard to obtain suitable patterns for performing finer needlework in Sweden at this time. Publishing handbooks in Swedish might have been an attempt to make it easier to obtain patterns, even though multiple foreign handbooks could be obtained abroad. Being the first to publish a knitting handbook in Swedish in 1843, Olivecrona is setting the stage for the following handbooks. The prefaces in the knitting handbooks indicate that the authors or translators practiced knitting themselves. In the next section the lives and motives of these authors are explored.

The Publishing Context of the Knitting Handbooks The four Swedish knitting handbooks are written by women, for women. This is also true for most of the multitude of German and British handbooks published during the 1840s. This section explores the circumstances surrounding the publishing of knitting handbooks. Who were the authors, and why did they publish knitting handbooks?

Maria Magdalena Charlotta Olivecrona Maria Magdalena Charlotta Olivecrona, the author of Mönster till spets-stickning och hålsöm, lived in the university town of Uppsala.32 Olivecrona published her handbook at the age of twenty-two under the initials M. C. S, the

31 Olivecrona 1843, Preface (author’s translation). 32 Olivecrona 1843.

S standing for her maiden name Schenson. She married the noble academic and later justice chancellor Knut Olivecrona in 1848.33 At their wedding, a member of the Lewenhaupt noble family was a bridesmaid along with a judge’s daughter, this is suggestive of the section of society with which the Olivecronas socialized.34 Olivecrona passed away in 1854, after suffering from an illness for the last couple of years.35

Frances Lambert The author of En ny stickbok — Frances Lambert — is one of the most re- nowned publishers of needlework manuals of her time in Britain.36 Based in London, she published handbooks for various types of needlework, embroidered for the Queen, and owned a repository for fancy needlecraft. 37 Although her handbooks were immensely popular, published in up to ten editions, little is known about her life. Her handbooks were published under her maiden name even after her marriage, and her married name has not been disclosed by any scholars that mention her in their work.38

Emma Hennings Two of the Swedish knitting handbooks are adaptations of the German author Emma Hennings’s work. She published a large amount of handbooks in various kinds of fancy needlework, including knitting, crochet, and embroidery. Hennings’s needlework manuals were extremely popular in Ger- many, some of them were published in over ten editions, yet very little is known about her life and the circumstances surrounding the publication of her manuals. We can presume that Emma Hennings was situated some- where in the vicinity of Erfurt, since that is where her handbooks were first published. Her most popular knitting handbooks, Anweizung zur Kunst-

33 Knut Olivecrona, Svenskt biografiskt lexikon. 34 UUB Knut Olivecrona’s private archive: ‘Hågkomster samlade från en lång lefnad’ 1817–1868 Bd 1–2, K284 pp. 1–2. 35 UUB Knut Olivecrona’s private archive: ‘Hågkomster samlade från en lång lefnad’ 1817–1868 Bd 1–2, K284 pp. 1–2. 36 Lambert 1847. 37 Rutt 1989, p. 113. 38 For example: Potter 1955; Rutt 1987; Ledbetter 2012.

Strickerei, a series of fourteen booklets, were published in dozens of editions.39 The content of the Swedish editions of her work — Charlotte Leanders stickbok and Nya mönster till spets-stickning m.m — has been selected from this series.40

The Case of Wilhelmina Stålberg and the Role of the Translator Three of the four Swedish knitting handbooks are translated either from German or English, but in only one case is the identity of the translator known. The compilation of Emma Hennings’s most successful handbook, Charlotte Leanders stickbok, is translated by one of the most prolific female authors in Sweden at that time, Wilhelmina Stålberg (1803–1872). Viewing herself as mainly a poet, she published both novels, articles, and poems, and acted as an editor for women’s magazines.41 She had a large readership audience in Sweden, and some of her novels were translated into German and Danish under the pseudonyms Fru Carlen and Onkel Adam.42 Stålberg also worked as a translator of German, French, and English literature, and it is in her role as a translator of knitting and crochet manuals that she will be discussed here. Stålberg was placed in an orphanage as a young child and was adopted by a field accountant, Carl Fredrik Stålberg and his wife Maria Christina Molander. According to the foster father’s probate inventory, they led a comfortable, wealthy life.43 After the death of her foster father in 1829, she continued to support herself and her mother through her writing, and by teaching language and making gloves and tulle caps and selling them to glov- ers and retailers.44 Stålberg lived her whole life in Stockholm and never married. Although she did not write a knitting handbook of her own, her influ-

39 Pataky 1898, p. 483. 40 Hennings 1848 & 1844. 41 Johansson 2013. 42 Nordisk familjebok (bd 27) 1918, pp. 557–558; Eriksson 1973, p. 4. These pseudonyms were also used by the publishers for other Swedish female authors that were published abroad, for example Emilie Flygare-Carlén. 43 Eriksson 1973, p. 7. 44 Ny Illustrerad Tidning 1872, p. 249.

100

ence on Charlotte Leanders stickbok is visible. She has contributed with a preface, and chosen and modified the instructions in the handbook. She also published compilations of crochet patterns from the authors Frances Lam- bert, Emma Hennings, and Minna Korn.45 Stålberg enjoyed knitting, as she states in the preface to Charlotte Leanders stickbok.46 In the other two translated handbooks, the translators’ names are not mentioned. Since Stålberg was a well-known author at the time, putting her name on the handbooks might have been part of a marketing strategy. The handbooks were published during a time when female authors were not as accepted as male authors. Although Stålberg was published widely, she is not commonly known today. She was commemorated in an obituary on the front page of Ny Illus- trarad Tidning, where her historic novels were described as her most memo- rable pieces of work. Her poems, novels, and crochet handbooks were also mentioned.47

Why Publish Knitting Handbooks? Olivecrona, Lambert, and Stålberg explain their motives for publishing knitting handbooks in similar ways. They all address the subject of knitting as something that brings amusement or as a pleasant occupation for fellow genteel women, and they express a wish to supply patterns to meet an existing demand. Stålberg states clearly that she enjoys both knitting and crochet, and has acquired some skill in these handicrafts. In this section I will address the question of whether the publishing of knitting handbooks can be seen as way of gaining economic or social capital. Let us first address the question of economic gain. In Germany and Brit- ain — where the most successful knitting handbooks were published in dozens of editions — the business of publishing needlework manuals must have been lucrative. Both Lambert and Olivecrona published handbooks before they were married, suggesting a need of income to support themselves. Stål- berg made a living on writing and translating, making it highly likely that there was an economic incentive for publishing an edition of a popular, foreign knitting handbook.

45 Lambert 1847; Stålberg 1848. 46 Hennings 1848. 47 Ny Illustrerad Tidning 1872, pp. 249–250.

101

A price is printed on the covers of two of the knitting handbooks. The small lace knitting booklet Mönster till spets-stickning och hålsöm and the more comprehensive handbook En ny stickbok both cost twenty-four skilling banco, a sum equivalent to the wages for a day’s labour by a man in the countryside, making the handbooks relatively cheap from an upper-strata perspective.48 The modest price makes it plausible that the handbooks were not considered luxury goods. Presumably they were aimed at the aspiring bourgeoisie rather than the wealthiest nobility. If information on how many handbooks were printed in one edition, and if the sum given from the publishers to the authors was known, it would be possible to draw conclusions about the economic gain of publishing knitting handbooks in Sweden during the 1840s. Unfortunately, extant information about the number of editions and wages for authors has not been detected. Another question is whether or not the authors gained any social capital from publishing a knitting handbook, or if it boosted their social status. Writing handbooks in knitting, crochet and other feminine handicrafts seems to have been an acceptable source for income of genteel women. Us- ing Lambert’s The Hand-Book of Needlework as an example, Parker argues that by publishing needlework manuals, women were given means to make their voices heard in the public space.49 This handbook not only contains patterns and instructions, but brief historical expositions of the needlework techniques. In the preface, Lambert thanks her husband for ‘his assistance in some of the historical notices’. Since history was something women were not supposed to write, could this be interpreted as a way for Lambert to stay within the delineated space of her gender? She also thanks her husband for allowing her to use her maiden name on the title page, since this is the name she had become known under.50 Lambert made a name for herself by publishing needlework manuals, and received good reviews in several British magazines.51 Women could receive recognition for authoring this kind of publications, but they were mocked if they tried to take part in public debates on science or politics. This view is visible in the educational ideals of the time. In conduct books and literature, women with ink stained hands,

48 Lagerqvist 2011, p. 138. 49 Parker 1989, pp. 21–22. Lambert 1842. 50 Lambert 1842, p. vii. 51 Parker 1989, p. 22.

102

who studied and wrote the wrong things, are put in contrast to the ideal woman’s white, graceful hands, preferably displayed through needlework such as embroidery and knitting.52 The use of pseudonyms or abbreviations instead of the authors’ full names contradicts Parkers view that publishing needlework manuals was an unproblematic and even admirable task for upper class women to pursue. While Lambert readily displays her maiden name in her handbooks, her married name is never mentioned, except by the initials ‘F.S’.53 When it comes to the Swedish knitting handbooks, all four are published under pseudonyms. Maria Magdalena Charlotta Olivecrona uses an abbreviation, ‘M.C.S’, the S standing for her maiden name, Schenson, Frances Lambert is disguised as Jenny Lambert or Miss Lambert and Emma Hennings hides behind the name Charlotte Leander. In an afterword, the translators or editors of En ny stickbok refer to themselves as ‘we’, suggesting that several people were involved in the translation, editing, and publishing process, without taking any credit for their work. Several of the contemporary Swedish crochet handbooks were published by book sellers in collaboration with womens’ associations, where the members chose to remain anonymous.54 Possibly Lambert’s En ny stickbok was also translated by a womens’ association. The only one in the publishing process of knitting handbooks in Swe- den who did not hide behind a pseudonym is Wilhelmina Stålberg, perhaps because she was already known as a writer and translator. In light of the authors’ reluctance to publish under their own names, and in that way take credit for their work, it is not possible to say that the authors of the knitting handbooks gained any visible social capital by publishing these manuals. When it comes to economic capital, further research is needed to confirm or refute the notion that publishing knitting handbooks was a considerable source of income.

52 Bjurman 1988, p. 51. 53 Lambert 1842, p. vii. 54 For example: Den nyaste wirkboken 1849.

103

Content of the Knitting Handbooks The knitting handbooks contain a huge variety of surface patterns and patterns for objects of different kinds. Nya mönster till spets-stickning m.m. is mostly devoted to knit and crochet lace, but it also contains a few patterns for knitting children’s caps. Mönster till spets-stickning och hålsöm contain patterns for knitted lace and some designs for the embroidery technique hemstitching, though the hemstitching patterns consist only of illustrations on a plate, lacking any corresponding written descriptions. When explaining the lack of descriptions, the author makes hemstitching seem like a manda- tory or natural skill that every woman possesses:

Regarding in turn patterns for Hemstitching, all explanation ought to be superfluous, as every woman, never so little used to this work, immediately realize, how plate N:o 2 should be used.55

The two lace knitting handbooks mentioned above are thin, consisting of twenty-two and thirty-five pages respectively. The other two handbooks are more voluminous, and contain a wider variation of patterns for different uses. Charlotte Leanders stickbok and En ny stickbok contain descriptions of garments and accessories, home furnishings, surface patterns without specified use, and some lace-patterns of the same kind as in the smaller booklets. Two thirds of the patterns in Charlotte Leanders stickbok and one third of the patterns in En ny stickbok are surface patterns. In most cases the area of use is specified in the title, for example ‘An easy way to knit chair cushions, purses etc.’ or ‘Scottish purse pattern’.56 Ten percent of the surface patterns in Charlotte Leanders stickbok and six percent in En ny stickbok lack a specified area of use, implying that the reader was expected to possess adequate skills to be able to apply the pattern to an object of their own choosing. Excluding surface patterns without specified use, the patterns in the knitting handbooks can be divided into three different categories: garments and accessories, home furnishings, and lace.

55 Olivecrona 1843, p. 2. Translated from Swedish by the author. 56 Lambert 1847, p. 30; Hennings 1848, p. 130.

104

Garments and Accessories Roughly half the descriptions in Charlotte Leanders stickbok and En ny stickbok are of garments or surface patterns intended for garments. The largest part of the garment patterns do not have a specified user group. The second largest group of garment patterns is children’s wear. The authors state clearly which patterns are meant for children and men, labeling them ‘for men’ or ‘child’s’. It is plausible that the rest of the garment patterns — without a specified user group — are intended for women to wear. The garment patterns clearly intended for men are few in number: a nightcap, two suspenders, and a pair of detachable sleeves. A pattern labeled ‘German purse’ is also intended for men.57 Patterns of garments intended for children include some lace caps, socks — as in plate 2 — and a couple of upper body garments. The upper body garments vary in design, from a simple bodice intended for wearing closest to the body, to a dainty little sweater with a lacy surface pattern to be knitted in cotton, and an outer garment called a ‘Cassaweyka’, knitted in a thick combination of stitches called brioche knitting, and trimmed with dense fringes.58 Garment patterns that are described without specifying the wearer are caps, stockings, shawls, detachable sleeves, cuffs, and belts. Overall, all objects in the handbooks are fairly small, or — when it comes to patterns for bedcovers — consist of small pieces that are sewn together after they have been knitted. There are no descriptions of large garments for adults, although you can find one description of a surface pattern named ‘thick pattern for a sweater’ in En ny stickbok.59 Since all other patterns for upper body garments are for children, this pattern is probably intended for a child’s sweater. Most of the surface patterns intended for garments are purely decorative, latticed patterns made up of holes made by winding the yarn around the needle between two stitches — and the decreases needed to keep the width of the work fixed — while the descriptions for whole garments are mostly plain and more utilitarian in their design.

57 Lambert 1847, p. 29. 58 Hennings 1848, pp. 84, 87 & 112. 59 Lambert 1847, p. 51.

105

Accessories such as bags and purses take up five percent of Charlotte Leanders stickbok and nine percent of En ny stickbok. Most of them are supposed to be knitted in silk and some of them are to be knitted with beads. In Charlotte Leanders stickbok some remarks on how to knit with beads are included.60 One of the purse patterns is intended for ‘a strong purse for gentlemen’, showing that knitted purses were not exclusive to women.61

60 Hennings 1848, p. 133. 61 Lambert 1847, p. 29.

106

Home Furnishings A small yet still evident category of patterns in the knitting handbooks are meant for home furnishings such as cushions, bedcovers, blankets, and doi- lys.62 Charlotte Leanders stickbok also contain patterns for a footstool and a ‘coffee warmer’, an object much like a tea cozy, used to keep a cup of coffee warm. A doll’s cushion in Nordiska museet, knitted in colourful wool yarn, shows similarities with the patterns for a ‘brioche’ cushion in En ny stickbok and a footstool in Charlotte Leanders stickbok.63 The doll belonged to a little girl, Ebba Mannerström, who lived a tragically short life between 1843 and 1848. She received the doll and its accessories as a gift from her grandmother, Baroness Fina Mannerström. It is possible, but not proven, that the baroness made the doll’s accessories.

Lace Some of the lace patterns belong in the home furnishing category, since their use is specified for lining curtains, knitted or netted serviettes, and sofa or resting cushions. Most of the laces, though, lack specifications for their use. Knitted lace from the mid nineteenth century can be found on toy accessories and home furnishings in the Nordic Museum collections, but there is a lack of preserved examples of knitted lace on garments.64 They were possibly used to decorate underwear garments, that were worn out and therefore not preserved. According to the textile ethnologist Anna-Maja Nylén, knitted lace was a cheaper alternative to expensive sewn or bobbin made lace.65 A collection of twelve strips of knitted cotton lace in The Nor- dic Museum shows similarities with the lace patterns in the knitting handbooks (see plate 3).66 They were knitted in the middle of the nineteenth century by Teckla Cavalli, born in 1820 in Göteborg and married to an

62 Doily=small decorative and often round cloths. 63 NM.0116003A–Ö; Lambert 1847, p. 24; Hennings 1848, p. 93. 64 Example of toy accessory: NM.0114826 ‘Dockmössa’. 65 Nylén 1975, p. 297. 66 NM.0273556.

107

apothecary.67 One of the laces is identical to a pattern in Olivecronas Mön- ster till spets-stickning och hålsöm.68 The other laces are made up in the same style, with the same combinations of stitches found in the handbooks, but they don’t correspond entirely with any of the patterns. This collection of lace shows that lace of the kind that is described in the knitting handbooks was indeed made in the middle of the nineteenth century, and possibly points to other available patterns, or to the personal creativity of the maker. The lace descriptions in the knitting handbooks come in varying degrees of difficulty, from just a couple of stitches repeated again and again, to intricate patterns thirty stitches wide and ten rows long. In diaries from the beginning of the nineteenth century, gentry women sometimes mention handicraft projects. In three examined diaries, stockings are the most common object to be knitted.69 Did the introduction of the knitting handbooks, with their variety of different patterns for knitted objects, change the repertoire of these knitters? A wider survey of extant knitted objects and written sources from the time needs to be conducted in order to answer this question.

Materials and Tools for Knitting Previous research on the history of knitting paints a picture of the early nineteenth century as a golden age of cotton knitting, describing masterful counterpanes and delicate lace knitted in thin cotton yarn.70 The Swedish knitting handbooks display quite another picture. While the two lace knitting handbooks do not explicitly say what kind of yarn should be used, preserved objects and instructions on lace patterns in the other two handbooks indicate that they are indeed intended to be knitted in cotton yarn. When it comes to the two more comprehensive knitting handbooks, however, cotton is not the most common material indicated for use.

67 RA, Folkräkning 1910, Göteborgs och Bohus, Göteborgs Vasa. (Almfelt Nobilis Cavalli, Tekla Elisabet, b. 1820, line fourteen). 68 Olivecrona 1843, p. 21; 1845 pp. 21–22. 69 NMA: Reenstierna’s diary, Mullberg’s diary; Munsterhjelm & Lönnqvist 1970. 70 Wintzell 1980, p. 64; Nargi 2009, p. 56.

108

Different kinds of cotton yarn are mentioned as the preferred material in less than one fifth of the descriptions. Objects knitted in cotton are night- caps, children’s caps, bedcovers, cuffs, and lace. The majority of patterns are instead meant to be knitted with different kinds of wool yarn. A certain kind of brightly coloured wool yarn called ‘zefir’ is by far the most common material, specified in forty percent of the patterns in En ny stickbok, and a few times in Charlotte Leanders stickbok. In the latter, the type of yarn is specified in only a few of the descriptions. Besides wool and cotton, another material — associated with wealth and luxury — is also mentioned in the knitting handbooks: silk. The objects in- structed to be knitted in silk are mostly purses and bags of different kinds, some decorated with beads in gold, silver, steel, or enamel. In a few cases, several different materials are recommended for the same pattern, leaving it up to the reader to choose between silk and wool. A variety of different cotton, silk, and wool yarns are mentioned, suggesting that these materials were widely available in shops. Many of these materials were imported. The knitting handbooks were published during a

109

time when these goods were in a transition from being exclusive to becoming available to a wide section of society. The tools for knitting — mainly knitting pins — are crucial for what kind of knitting that can be performed. By changing the size of needles, the size of the stitches can be modified, affecting the density and structure of the knitted fabric. Too thick knitting pins — in relation to the yarn that is used — create a sloppy, loose result, and too thin needles can result in a stiff fabric. Being able to match the yarn with the right size of needles is a skill required to use the knitting handbooks, since specific instructions on this matter are not included in most of the patterns. Today, knitting patterns usually contain a declaration of what size of needles and type of yarn to use. This, however, is not a natural component of a majority of the descriptions in the knitting handbooks of the 1840s. In the lace knitting handbooks, material is only mentioned once: ‘cotton yarn No. 40’ should be used for knitting a child’s cap.71 Otherwise, the reader is expected to know what kind of yarn and size of needles to use when knitting lace. More frequently than the other two authors, Lambert provides instructions for materials and the sizes of needles to be used. This is not surprising since she invented what she calls a ‘filière’. This standard needle gauge was used for measuring the size of knitting needles which was used in Britain until 1977.72 She also worked in a repository for fancy needlecraft, a kind of shop where yarns were sold. Before the introduction of Lambert’s needle gauge, no standardized knitting needles existed. The needle gauge is based on the British standardized steel dimensions. Since Sweden imported knitting needles during this time, it is not entirely unlikely that they were imported from Britain, thus matching Lambert’s standard filière.73 The lack of any mention of standardized knitting needle sizes in the other handbooks suggests that standardized knitting needles was a novelty, gradually spreading from Britain with the help of knitting handbooks such as Lambert’s.

71 Hennings 1844, p. 24. 72 Lambert 1842, p. 92; Rutt 1987, p. 113. 73 ‘Utdrag af General-Sammandragen öfver Rikets Import och Export’, Post- och Inri- kes tidningar 12 April 1832, p. 31.

110

Illustrations, Terms, and Abbreviations This section addresses the way in which the knitting patterns are presented in the handbooks. Illustrations, terms specific for knitting and eventual abbreviations of these terms are used in different ways in the handbooks.74 These descriptive tools reveal aspects of the knitting practice not visible elsewhere. Patterns for various kinds of objects are presented in two different ways. Either a complete description of both the knitting and eventual sewing together of different parts are presented, or the instruction for a surface pattern is given only by listing all stitches and rows needed to complete one unit of the pattern. When instructions are needed on how to assemble knitted parts into a finished object, they are either very brief, or nonexistent. This omission of instructions implies that the reader was expected to possess adequate skills to be able to piece the objects together of their own accord. In some of the descriptions, the reader is also expected to judge by themselves how many rows are needed to complete an object, for example a sleeve or a cap. Although the handbooks provide patterns and instructions on how to knit different objects, none of them give thorough instructions on the basics of knitting. The reader is supposed to already master the handicraft and be familiar with the basics of plain and purl stitches, how to increase and decrease, and how to cast on and cast off. This makes it clear that knitting was already a widely known handicraft among Swedish women before the arrival of Swedish knitting handbooks in the 1840s. The assumption that the readers should already be familiar with knitting is further emphasized by the phrase, ‘Surely there are few ladies, who cannot knit stockings’, in Charlotte Leanders stickbok.75

Illustrations All four Swedish knitting handbooks contain illustrations of some kind. The detail varies, either depicting the shape of a whole object in a sketchy

74 Terms specific for knitting are, for example, the words used for different kinds of stitches, such as plain, purl, decrease, increase, etc. 75 Hennings 1848, p. 3.

111

manner, or meticulously showing all the stitches making up a surface pattern. Through knitting samplers following selected patterns in each of the knitting handbooks, a discrepancy between the illustrations and the knitted samples has been detected. The illustrations show idealized or simplified versions of the described patterns. Also, many of the descriptions contain printing errors that were detected during the process of making the samplers. In Olivecrona’s Mönster till spets-stickning och hålsöm, there is a plate with illustrations of all the lace patterns and hemstitching designs. This system of collecting all the illustrations on a plate is also used in the other lace knitting booklet, Hennings’s Nya mönster till spets-stickning m.m. Olivecrona’s illustrations are worth some extra scrutiny. Mönster till spets-stickning och hålsöm was printed in two editions, the first in 1843 and the second in 1845. When putting the plates beside one another, it becomes apparent that they were drawn by two different people. No part of the designs are drawn in the same way in both of the plates. A possible explanation for the differences in the illustrations could be that new engravings were needed for printing the second edition, and a different engraver was hired. Furthermore, the illustrations are simplistic, looking more like sewn lace than knitted. No knitting stitches are depicted, instead the various elements of the patterns — for example, holes of different sizes — have been drawn. The illustrations in Char- lotte Leanders stickbok are quite different, more like schematic accounts for each stitch made in the patterns. A third type of illustration — primarily used in En ny stickbok — represents the shape of the objects to be knitted.76

Terms and Abbreviations All four knitting handbooks use different terms for the stitches in their descriptions. Either the terms for the stitches and techniques are written out in full, or they are shortened or replaced by single letters or abbreviations. In En ny stickbok and Charlotte Leanders stickbok the amount of details in the descriptions vary depending on what kind of pattern is described. Either a list of the individual stitches is provided, or a more expansive description is given in plain text. The first way of describing is mostly used for laces and

76 Lambert 1847.

112

other surface patterns, while the second is used for bigger garments where the shape of the object is formed by knitting an exact number of rows and decreasing or increasing on the right places. A combination of lists of stitches and full sentences is used for shaped objects with elaborate surface patterns, for example in the pattern for a child’s sock in Charlotte Leanders Stickbok (see plate 2).

Olivecrona has engineered an abbreviation system of her own, where all techniques are replaced by single letters to avoid the ‘tiring prolixity’ of patterns where each stitch is spelled out even though the same stitches are repeated throughout the description (see plate 4 for an example).77 To guide the reader she explains which letter signifies what stitch in the beginning of Mönster till spets-stickning och hålsöm. Lambert also includes a list of knitting terms in the beginning of En ny stickbok. In Henning’s Nya mönster till spets- stickning m.m., a list of abbreviations is also included. In Charlotte Leanders

77 Olivecrona 1843, Preface.

113

stickbok, on the other hand, no terms are specified in the beginning of the handbook. It was necessary for the reader to be familiar with knitting terms in order to use it. The fact that the terms vary slightly between the different handbooks suggests that no standardized terminology of knitting existed at this time. Lambert’s knitting handbooks are characterized by inconsistency. It seems like the author has just gathered patterns from various sources without standardizing them. In her opus magnum, The Hand-book of Needlework, one of the descriptions is even written in French, under the heading ‘Bon- nets de nuit d’hommes’ (Night caps for men).78 In the preface to the same book, Lambert apologizes for the inconsistency, stating that ‘It has been written at intervals snatched from my other employments, and I trust that the accuracy of the details will obtain that indulgence its literary merits cannot demand’.79

Translation or Adaptation? Three of the four Swedish knitting handbooks are of foreign origin, translated from German or English.80 Both Hennings and Lambert have published several handbooks in their original languages, not only in knitting, but also in other needlework techniques such as crochet and embroidery. Both published handbooks with mixed content as well as handbooks containing only knitting patterns. When comparing the Swedish handbooks with their foreign counterparts, there is not a single edition that entirely corresponds with the translated handbooks. The handbooks were not only translated, but adapted, or ‘adjusted for Swedish fashions’, as the translator Wilhelmina Stålberg put it.81 The word ‘translation’ should be understood in a wider sense than expected, because the translators not only converted the handbooks just as they were — they chose what patterns to include and made small changes here and there to the instructions. This somewhat liberal translation practice is not unique to this context. Before copyright laws

78 Lambert 1842, p. 194. This description has been translated into Swedish in Lam- bert 1847 p. 18. 79 Lambert 1842. 80 Lambert 1847; Hennings 1844, 1848. 81 Hennings 1848, p. 2.

114

were established through the Bern convention in 1886, it was common to make additions and exclusions of large parts of a literary work during translation.82 This section explores the ways in which the Swedish handbooks differed from their foreign equivalents. The most evident difference concerns the size or scope of the publications. The Swedish handbooks are far shorter and fewer than both their German and British counterparts. Stålberg’s ‘translation’ of Emma Henning’s Anweisung zur Kunst-Strickerei is drastically shortened, comprising 140 pages compared with the approximately 600 pages long original publication. Stålberg, and the unknown translators of the other handbooks, handpicked and sometimes modified patterns from several different publications during the translation process. Short and simple patterns and patterns with illustrations seem to have been favoured over long, complicated patterns without illustrations. Anweizung zur Kunst-Strick- erei contains multiple patterns for gloves and lace cuffs, of which none have been chosen for the Swedish edition. No reasons for the inclusion or exclu- sion of certain patterns are provided. In Charlotte Leanders stickbok, the translator shows that her view on the use of certain patterns differs from the original author’s intentions. In Anweizung zur Kunst-Strickerei, the pattern ‘Königin von England’ (Queen of England) is recommended for caps and stocking gussets.83 Stålberg has found other uses for the pattern:

This pattern can be used on caps, but is particularly pretty to knit on sleeves. Hereto an exceptionally fine yarn is required. You can also knit so called Anti-Macassars, where this pattern is recommended; but round about there should be an edging with a different pattern. It is excellently beautiful and well suited for the background on a child’s apron.84

The translators of Lambert’s knitting book have taken a more explicit stand against certain kinds of patterns, stated in an afterword:

It would have been fairly easy to give instructions for the manufacture of many kinds of fringes, rouleaues, laces and various other kinds of trimmings,

82 Stålhammar 2015, pp. 30–34. 83 Hennings 1843–1845, part 2, p. 34. 84 Hennings 1848, p. 57 (author’s translation). An antimacassar is a small cloth placed on couches and armchairs to protect them from the oil that was used in people’s hair.

115 but these shall — although they cost much in time and effort — nevertheless never endure a comparison with the simplest of the articles, of which we have the knitting loom to thank for.85

Furthermore, the translators express their difficulty in finding the right materials and aiding tools for making these kinds of trimmings. Why bother to try to make something that cannot compete with available buyable goods? ‘Dozens of beautiful patterns for knitted silk purses’ are also excluded, with the argument that even though they are as costly as the crocheted or embroidered ones, they fall behind them just because they are knitted.86 Ap- parently there was a difference between the perceived worth of knitted and crocheted purses. Furthermore — according to the translators — footwear for children, cuffs, shawls, and warm sweaters are interesting, beautiful, and useful articles; however, it is not worth expending as much time on them as others often do. By criticizing the knitting of certain objects, the translators are describing an existing knitting practice. Their comments also show that there were varying views on what was worth making. Let us return to the differences between Anweizung zur Kunst-Strickerei and its Swedish adaptations. The German series contains a large number of pattern charts, for knitting in two colours or with beads.87 These have been left out of the Swedish editions, with one mentionable exception: the ‘coffee warmer’ pattern in Charlotte Leanders stickbok.88 This pattern also holds the most obvious differences between the original German publication and the Swedish ‘translation’. The pattern has been subject to alterations and additions, as well as the removal of key elements concerning the appearance of the finished object. How a coffee warmer is meant to be used is explained by the Swedish translator, but not in the original German publication. The object is described as ‘a luxury item hitherto unknown in our country, which for all reasons is used by putting it over a coffee cup so it does not get cold. It can be a useful acquisition for ladies who must give Christmas presents to gentle-

85 Lambert 1847, pp. 61–62 (author’s translation). 86 Lambert 1847, pp. 61–62 (author’s translation). 87 These pattern charts consist of regular small squares, as in a graph, every square representing one stitch. 88 Hennings 1848, p. 101 (author’s translation).

116

men.’89 According to Anweizung zur Kunst-Strickerei, the coffee warmer should be knitted with cotton yarn in different hues.90 In the Swedish translation, the type of yarn is not specified for this pattern. Neither is dyed cotton yarn mentioned anywhere else in the Swedish knitting handbooks, suggesting that dyed cotton yarn was not common in Sweden, but evidently used in Germany in the 1840s. The differences between the descriptions continue, this time regarding the pattern of leaves decorating the edge of the coffee warmer. In the original version, they should be knitted with yarn in one brown and three green nuances, in the Swedish version a totally different instruction is given, along with a pattern chart depicting acorns, which has been taken from another part of Anweizung zur Kunst-Strickerei.91 How to proceed with the acorn pattern is described in this way: ‘The edge pattern on the plate is sewn with gold braids, but it is extraordinarily beautiful if knitted with cut gold-, steel- and enamel-beads’92 The two ornaments adorning the sides of the coffee warmer are provided as charts in the original description, but they are excluded in the Swedish version. Instead, the reader is told to go to a ‘tapisseri store’, where you could buy charts with patterns suitable for this kind of work.93 Why does the Swedish translator favour the charts from the needlework store over the ones provided in Anweizung zur Kunst-Strickerei? A possible explanation is the wish to conserve space in the Swedish translation. None of the really extensive patterns in Anweizung zur Kunst-Strickerei were chosen for the translation, suggesting a desire to keep the handbook short. Other small differences exist between the patterns in Anweizung zur Kunst-Strickerei and Charlotte Leanders Stickbok. The German handbook mentions the age that a particular garment is aimed at, for example: ‘Ein Kinder- stiefelchen für ein Kind von 1 Jahre passend’ (A children’s boot suitable for a one year old child).94 These age group indications have not been trans- ferred to Charlotte Leanders stickbok. The translator seems to have chosen

89 Hennings 1848, p. 101. 90 Hennings 1843–1845, part 11 & 12, p. 83. 91 Hennings 1843–1845, part 7 & 8. 92 Hennings 1848, p. 102. 93 ‘Tapisseri’ is equivalent to the English terms ‘Berlin wool work’ or ‘needlepoint’. 94 Hennings 1843–1845, part 13, p. 9.

117 what information is important, and shortened the instructions accordingly. In other cases, the colours of the yarn suggested in the original publication has been subject to change, or simply omitted. The modifications mentioned above could be the result of adjusting the handbook for Swedish fashions, as the translator stated in the preface to the handbook. Although no direct evidence has been found for the use of German and British knitting handbooks in Sweden at the same time as — or before — the Swedish handbooks were published, the fact that short descriptions have been favoured over long ones, and pattern charts in the foreign counterparts have not been reprinted, suggests a wish to provide cheaper alternatives.

Analysing the Context of the Knitting Handbooks In the prefaces to the knitting handbooks, the authors describe knitting as a multifaceted handicraft that is performed for many different purposes: knitting is domestic, pleasant, useful, a fun leisure or pastime activity, a means of possible employment if extra income is needed, a handicraft performed both by the poor and the wealthy, and performing it skillfully has the possibility of earning the knitter praise.95 This section discusses the function of knitting as depicted in the handbooks in relation to previous research on female handicraft practice, contemporary conduct literature, and visual culture. Thorstein Veblen’s theories on conspicuous consumption and leisure are tested as a possible explanatory model.

Knitting as an International Trend The existence of similar knitting handbooks in Germany, Britain, and Swe- den shows that the kind of knitting described in the handbooks was part of a continental trend. According to Rutt, the first British knitting handbook was published around 1835, when an ‘explosion of knitting’ took place among the educated classes.96 Knitting handbooks were also published in

95 Lambert 1847, pp. 4–5; Hennings 1848, pp. 1–2. 96 Rutt 1987, pp. 10, 103.

118

Germany during the 1830s, and the trend spread to Sweden from both Brit- ain and Germany. In the 1840s, the knitting trend connected women from different countries through their handicraft practice. Why did knitting become such a wide spread trend at this time? There are several factors to be considered. Firstly, materials such as fine cotton yarn and colourful wool intended for Berlin wool work appeared on the market. The cotton yarn was a product of improvements in the construction of spinning machines and trade with India.97 The dyed wool yarn called zefir, mentioned in the handbooks, was also used for embroidery. Rutt states that the colourful wool yarn used in gros-point embroidery influenced the knitting trend.98 Gros-point was popular in Germany before the end of the Napoleonic war. When the war ended in 1815, both the fashionable embroidery technique, and the fine wool yarn used for it, spread to Brit- ain.99 Another important factor important in the spreading of the knitting trend is the considerable changes in the printing and publishing trades that took place during the nineteenth century. Mechanization of the printing process led to mass production and popular commodification of literature in general.100 The effect on the trade with needlework patterns can be seen in the large number of needlework manuals that were published in Britain during the middle of the nineteenth century. Infrastructural improvements also played a part in the increased use and distribution of literature, including needlework handbooks.101 The Göta channel — stretching from the east to the west coast of Sweden — was built in 1832, providing a faster way to transport goods and mail. The first railway in Sweden was built in 1849, making its influence on the distribution of the first knitting handbooks nonexistent.. The postal network also played a part in disseminating the handbooks. Charlotte Leanders stickbok could be obtained through subscription. Through advertisements in newspapers such

97 Nargi 2009, pp. 54, 56. 98 Rutt 1987, p. 112. 99 Lambert 1842, p. 38; Rutt 1987, pp. 111–112. 100 Hoagwood, Ledbetter & Hoagwood 2005, p. 5. 101 Ulvros 1996, pp. 305–306 lists some societal changes affecting the dissemination of literature during the first half of the nineteenth century.

119 as Aftonbladet and Post- och Inrikes tidningar, information on how to subscribe was disseminated.102 The technical and infrastructural developments surely had an impact on the possibility to engage in fancy needlecraft such as knitting. The most important factor, however, was not the existence of the material conditions for dissemination, but the existence of a social context for the knitting trend, and a group of people who practiced the handicraft within this social context. The knitting handbooks of the 1840s seem to address the lower gentry and bourgeoisie. Although there were differences, the culture of the upper strata of society was very similar in the whole of Europe at this time. Values and norms on suitable tasks for women were similar, and this enabled the trend of fancy knitting to spread from Britain and Germany to Sweden, and to thrive in all these countries in similar conditions.

‘Surely There are Few Ladies, Who Cannot Knit Stockings’ — Knitting as a Female Virtue Previous research concerning the formative functions of handicrafts has focused on embroidery as a female virtue. Parker states that during the eighteenth century, embroidery played a role both in maintaining the class position of the household and the female gender role. Performing embroidery signified docility, obedience, and love of the home, this made an embroi- dering woman a good wife and mother. Embroidery also signaled a life of leisure, and the economic means to afford such a life. In the nineteenth century, the connection between embroidery and femininity was deemed natural. ‘Women embroidered because they were naturally feminine and were feminine because they naturally embroidered.’103 What about knitting? In her research, Parker focuses on embroidery, ne- glecting to mention other handicrafts that occupied women’s time. How- ever, in the knitting handbooks and in magazine articles such as the article on knitting in The Magazine of Domestic Economy, there are hints suggesting

102 Aftonbladet 27 March 1848; Post- och Inrikes tidningar 1 April 1848. 103 Parker 1984, p. 11.

120

that knitting fell into the same category as embroidery when it came to displaying and inculcating female virtue.104 In forewords and afterwords, authors and editors share views on knitting as a feminine virtue and a useful task. In the preface to Charlotte Leanders stickbok, the translator Wilhelmina Stålberg states that knitting is ‘both an amusing and useful pastime’ for genteel women, addressing the women’s wish for pleasure and fun as well as useful chores to fill up their time. When it is deemed ‘useful’, knitting is described as the kind of fun that fits into the responsible female role of housekeeper. A copper etching by Elias Martin from 1778 picturing a knitting woman with the caption, ‘A little each day. Who is happy if not the industrious?’, shows that knitting and feminine thrift were already coupled at the end of the eighteenth century (see plate 5).105 A woman’s hands should never be idle — this was taught at a young age, through textile handicrafts such as embroidery and knitting. The item produced by knitting might not have been the most important motivation to knit — simply showing that you were thrifty might have been more important. Furthermore knitting made it possible for women to display their white, graceful hands — a symbol of pureness, idleness and privilege — as opposed to the dirty, calloused hands of the working woman, or the ink stained hands of women who spent too much time writing and reading.106 Different ways of holding the knitting needles are more or less effective, and can contribute to a thicker or more latticed result. Surprisingly, when an author of knitting handbooks gave advice on how to hold the knitting needles, creating a beautiful object or doing it in the fastest and most effective way was not the main concern. Instead, she emphasized holding the knitting pins in a graceful way. When arguing for the German way to knit — holding the yarn over the fingers of the left hand — Lambert says that ‘[…] the position of the hands is more graceful when thus held.’107 Holding the

104 ‘On Knitting’ 1838, p. 260. 105 UUL: ‘Litet hwar dag: Hvilken är lycklig om icke den arbetsamme?’ Copper etching by Elias Martin 1778. No 56 of Martins Schola, third part. Martin’s copper etch- ings were widely distributed during his life time. 106 Bjurman 1988, p. 51; Rundqvist 1989, p. 197. 107 Lambert 1847, p. 61.

121 knitting needles like a pen was another method popular among British ladies who knitted delicate lace during the nineteenth century.108 This way of knitting is both uncomfortable and slow, but puts the knitter’s hands in a different, ‘more elegant’ angle than when holding the needles under the palms of the hands, as it is usually done. The view of knitting as a good way of displaying feminine hands is still evident in 1877, as stated in The Ladies’ Guide to Needlework, where the method of holding the knitting needle like a pen is described: ‘[…] when these rules are observed, no feminine employment is better calculated to display a pretty hand and graceful motions than knitting.’109 In other social contexts, knitting has played a role in creating and upholding bonds between women. In a project where social practices and perceptions of knitting in late nineteenth century Swedish peasant homes were investigated, this aspect of knitting was evident.110 Knitting was performed during evenings, while stories were told and games were played. Design researcher Joanne Turney also ties knitting to familial bonding. While her research focuses on modern day art and domestic knitting, she skillfully puts her finger on some of the conceptions of knitting that shapes our view of the handicraft today. According to Turney, knitting has historically been taught to children (particularly girls), by their mothers and grandmothers, creating a bond over the generations as knowledge was shared. The chore had multiple purposes: to inculcate thriftiness into young girls; to teach them an occupation to perform if they needed to make their own money; and to create a bond between women of different generations.111 The knitting handbooks give no explicit evidence for social practices surrounding knitting where affinity is created in an upper-strata context. Implicitly, though, the authors express kinship when sharing knitting patterns with fellow women.

108 Rutt 1987, pp. 17–18. 109 Frost 1877, p. 75. 110 Bäckström 2011. 111 Turney 2009, p. 12.

122

123 As shown above, the objects described in the knitting handbooks are either meant for adorning oneself, the home, children, or male relatives. By knitting for their children, women manifested their motherly qualities. Love for husband and home was expressed when knitting a comfortable nightcap or a footstool. Care for the family and home were ideal qualities for upper strata women during the nineteenth century, expressed in the conduct literature of the time.112 By knitting home furnishings or garments for children and husbands, women displayed their love for home and family that was expected of them. Knitting less utilitarian objects, such as delicate lace and bead worked bags, displayed grace and frailty as well as thriftiness and skill. Lambert mentions less useful and necessary ‘grannlåtssaker’ (fripperies) that can be knitted: bags, purses, and other small objects decorated with beads, adding that they are often executed with great skill and delicacy.113 Let us return to the concerned correspondent in Magazine of Domestic Economy, urging women to knit stockings instead of useless, pretty articles. Was there a reason for this concern? Did the handbooks encourage women to spend their precious time on making useless articles? The Swedish knitting handbooks contain instructions for knitting both practical and decorative objects. Through the wording in prefaces and comments in the knitting handbooks, knitting is primarily presented as a useful occupation, not only in a pragmatic, material sense, but as a way of expressing femininity. The very first chapter in Charlotte Leanders stickbok includes instructions for knitting the most durable and beautiful stockings. This skill is introduced with the words, ‘Surely there are few ladies, who cannot knit stockings’, showing that the knitting of stockings was still regarded an important, feminine task.114 Why was it important to display your femininity, and for whom? One possible explanation is the surplus of women during the first half of the nineteenth century in combination with a lower marriage rate than previously in Sweden. According to the ethnologist Eva Lis Bjurman, the increased competition for marriage made it more important than ever before

112 For an investigation where conduct books of the time are used, see Bjurman 1988. 113 Lambert 1847, p. 5. 114 Hennings 1848, p. 4.

124

for bourgeoisie girls to live up to female ideals.115 If a woman did not secure a marriage she could end up living her life in poverty. Only unmarried women were allowed to have a profession, but the jobs open for women were scarce and underpaid. Bjurman speculates that it might have been more important for upwardly striving bourgeoisie to uphold ideals of femininity than for the already established nobles.116

Knitting as a Way to Display Wealth In the knitting handbooks, exclusive materials such as imported cotton, colourful wool, silk, and beads are recommended for the patterns. Using exclusive materials to make decorative objects signals wealth in more than one way. Firstly, using expensive materials require wealth. Secondly, being able to spare the time to make non-utilitarian objects also signals wealth. Knit- ting delicate lace does not fulfil any primary need. A woman spending some of her time knitting lace or purses decorated in beads could implicitly be boasting about a well-functioning household with enough servants to allow the mistress of the house some spare time. Furthermore, the tools used to knit could be used to signal wealth. Dur- ing the nineteenth century, knitting pins were normally made of steel for finer gauges and wood for thicker gauges. Knitting pins of more exclusive materials such as silver and ebony were also in use.117 In 1800, Märtha Hel- ena Reenstierna — the housemother on Årsta gård — mentions that she knitted with her new silver pins while visiting a friend’s house.118 To consciously buy and display expensive things to show wealth or status has been labeled conspicuous consumption by Thorstein Veblen. Using your time for unproductive activities is another way to display wealth, which Veblen calls conspicuous leisure. He states that leisure connotes non-productive use of one’s time, which can be performed on the basis of two un- derlying motives: ‘(1) from a sense of the unworthiness of productive work, and (2) as an evidence of pecuniary ability to afford a life of idleness.’119 In

115 Bjurman 1988, p. 14. 116 Bjurman 1988, p. 24. 117 Lambert 1842, p. 92; Hennings 1848, p. 125. 118 NMA Märta Helena Reenstierna’s diary 15 January 1800. 119 Veblen & Banta 2007 [1899].

125

this case, motive number two is relevant. Furthermore, Veblen states that a gentleman of leisure can indulge in leisured activities both in the public and the private space, and that the latter needs to be accounted for with some kind of tangible, indirect evidence, comparable to the products of the labour of handicraftsmen and servants. When describing the motivation behind performing acts of conspicuous leisure, Veblen refers to the habits of gentlemen, but I argue that conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure can be used to explain the fancy handicrafts performed by women. Knitting with extravagant tools and materials is an act that both displays conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure, and at the same time demonstrates ideal female skills. In this way, women could perform conspicuous, non- productive tasks and still conform to the ideal of never having idle hands. Displaying the finished object is only part of the performance, and might not even have been the purpose of the act. Knitted, crocheted, and embroidered objects, produced by the family’s women and displayed in the home, could be viewed as proof of the family’s wealth. Parker uses this argument concerning embroidery.120 However, the possibility to sell knitted objects as a way of gaining an extra income also existed at the time. Knitting and crocheting purses and lace might also be a cheaper alternative to buying more expensive goods. The remarks on knitted purses being worth less than crocheted and embroidered ones can be interpreted as pointing in that direction. The materials mentioned in the knitting handbooks, brightly coloured wool and silk, beads in various materials and thin cotton yarn, were originally expensive and exclusive. However, as trade and mechanical industry increased during the nineteenth century, these materials became cheaper and available to a wider section of society. It would be overly simplified to read all knitting patterns in the knitting handbooks as tools of expressing wealth. Including both pragmatic and extravagant knitting patterns could, on the other hand, be interpreted as a way of making the handbooks appeal to a wide target group with different economic circumstances. Another way to display wealth is to perform knitting as charity. In the preface to En ny stickbok, Lambert praises the many functions of knitting.121

120 Parker 1989, p. 11. 121 Lambert 1847, p. 4.

126

Knitting is described both as a handicraft performed by the poor to clothe themselves and provide employment, and by women as a pleasurable way to help the poor. Knitting as charity further highlights a desirable female trait: to be compassionate and be a morally responsible member of society. Today, domestic tasks undertaken by women in the home are viewed as leisure rather than work, veiling the work women have been doing in a blanket of modern day assumptions. The modern-day definition of work as a task practiced at a workplace, away from home, to earn money, is not entirely relatable to the work conducted by gentry and bourgeoisie women in the home during the nineteenth century.122 They may not have viewed their fancy needlework as leisure time activities.

Concluding Remarks This study has investigated the social function of knitting in upper strata households by focusing on four Swedish knitting handbooks from the 1840s. By investigating the authors, the content of the handbooks, and how knowledge about knitting was packaged and presented, I have arrived at some conclusions and identified further questions to be explored. Through investigating the authors’ living conditions, the social signifi- cance of publishing a knitting handbook has been discussed. In the 1840s, publishing knitting handbooks in Britain and Germany was a lucrative business. The large number of knitting handbooks published in dozens of editions shows that there was a demand for this kind of publication. Similar handbooks published in several Northern European countries shows that knitting was an international trend at the time. The Swedish handbooks were somewhat less successful in comparison to their foreign counterparts, although three of them were popular enough to be reprinted as second editions.123 In prefaces and afterwords, the authors and translators expressed their own interest in knitting, yet other reasons for publishing the knitting handbooks may have existed. However, the Swedish knitting handbooks give no

122 Turney 2009, p. 21. 123 Olivecrona, 1843; Hennings 1844; Lambert 1847.

127 obvious evidence in themselves that publishing, translating, or authoring a knitting handbook provided significant economic or social capital. The object patterns included in the knitting handbooks, and the way in which knitting is described, connote a leisure time activity rather than com- pulsory household work. Yet the picture is not clear cut. Knitting exclusive but unnecessary accessories using ivory pins, silk, and beads can be interpreted as an act of conspicuous consumption: as the tools, materials and the end product was associated with wealth. Other object patterns in the knitting handbooks, such as a bodice for a child or suspenders knitted in cotton yarn, had more practical purposes. The numerous patterns for knitted laces cannot be interpreted as luxurious. Rather, knitted lace was substitute goods, cheaper imitations of expensive sewn or bobbin lace. A large number of the patterns in the handbooks are surface patterns, garments or accessories that are indicated directly or indirectly to be used by women, which shows that knitting could be performed to adorn oneself, or for the women’s own pleasure. An equal amount of the patterns are meant for adorning children, men, or the home, in other words, to benefit someone other than the knitter herself. The diverse contents of the knitting handbooks, exclusive accessories, pragmatic garments, or substitute objects for more expensive goods, show that knitting could be performed for several different objectives. Both the content and the form of address in the knitting handbooks indicate the upper striving bourgeoisie or gentry as the target audience — placing the practice in the lower upper strata of society. To put the knitting practice of upper strata women of the 1840s in perspective, a parallel can be drawn with ideals tied to knitting in the early and the late twentieth century, using the work of design researcher Joanne Tur- ney.124 According to Turney, in the early twentieth century, knitting was associated with the economic and practical skills valued in the housewives of that time. Later — in the 1960s — representatives of the early feminist movement shunned knitting, treating it like a waste of women’s time and associating it with a submissive female position. In turn, the post-feminist movement reclaimed knitting as an enjoyable, luxurious, and totally volun- tary pastime activity, suitable for a free woman dispensing her own time.

124 Turney 2009, p. 11.

128

Researchers today are sometimes too eager to understand the textile practices of wealthy nineteenth century women as just a way to conform to the ideals of the time, missing the personal experience of performing the tasks. By knitting the decorative or useful objects described in the knitting handbooks, women could enjoy themselves, conform to gender ideals such as gracefulness and thrift, and strive for upwards mobility by presenting themselves as a suitable wife, or make their families look wealthy in the eyes of others. The practice of knitting thus encompasses several different underly- ing motives. Knitting out of need for a particular object, representation of the self through conforming to ideals, and knitting as a way to spend one’s time in an enjoyable way, while being seen to be doing something productive. I interpret the knitting handbooks as a medium for expressing ideals governing or inspiring the knitting practice, rather than evidence for how the actual practice would have looked. The relationship between ideal and practice is presently being studied in a larger project, where knitting and crochet handbooks of the 1840s are being studied alongside preserved objects and personal documents such as diaries and letters.125 Knitting is a handicraft practiced in a variety of different social contexts throughout time. Depending on context, the task of knitting can be described in different ways and imbued with a multitude of meanings: a practical household task, amusing and useful pastime, a skill, an art, and a means for extra income. Seeing knitting not only as a productive task, but as a social and cultural practice, the material and written evidence of the handicraft can be used to explore questions of cultural and personal identity and hierarchies. I have shown how the knitting handbooks of the 1840s present knitting as an amusing as well as useful task for upper strata women to perform, where useful should be understood in a wider sense than just practi- cality. In the handbooks, knitting is treated as a practice that promotes certain feminine identity traits, desirable within the social sphere of gentry and bourgeoisie — it was a performance of femininity.

125 The author’s ongoing PhD-project.

129

References

Primary Sources

Riksarkivet, Stockholm (Swedish National Archive) Tosterupssamlingen Det äldre arkivet; II Ehrensvärdska papper, d. Biogr handl rö- rande flera medlemmar av Ehrensvärdska fam (Liljencrantz)

Släktsamlingen Murrayska volumes 9–10

Folkräkning 1910, Göteborgs och Bohus, Göteborgs Vasa

Nordiska museet, Stockholm Ämnessamling dagböcker Märta Helena Reenstierna’s diary 1793–1839 (Reenstierna) Lisa Mullberg’s diary 1794–1802 (Mullberg)

Godegårdssamlingen volumes 15 & 16. NM.0136497 Knitted sampler NM.0206841 Handwritten copy of parts of Olivecrona 1843 NM.0116003A–Ö Doll’s accessories NM.0114826 Knitted cap for a doll NM.0273556 Knitted lace

131 Uppsala University Library (UUB) Carl Aurivillius, inkomna handlingar, korrespondens ‘Litet hwar dag: Hvilken är lycklig om icke den arbetsamme?’ Copper etching by Elias Martin 1778 Knut Olivecrona’s private archive: ’Hågkomster samlade från en lång lefnad’ 1817–1868 volumes 1–2, K284

Vänermuseet 2010:0229 Handwritten copy of parts of Hennings 1848

Värmlandsarkiv, Karlstad (VA) Filipstad kyrkoarkiv (FiKA) Husförhörslängder

Printed Primary Sources Aftonbladet (1830–). Den nyaste wirkboken innehållande de modernaste och mest användbara wirkmöns- ter 1 (Stockholm 1849). En fullkomlig ägta hustrus bild, tecknad efter den målning, som finnes i ordspråks- bokens sidsta capitel (Göteborg 1787). Frost, Sarah Annie, The Ladies' Guide to Needle Work, Embroidery, etc. Being a complete guide to all kinds of ladies' fancy work (New York 1877). Fürst, Rosina Helena, Model-Buchs Dritter Theil von unterschiedlichen Vögeln, Blumen und Früchten (Nürnberg 1676). Grill, Anna Johanna, Resedagbok från England, 1788 (Stockholm 1997). Hennings, Emma, Anweizung zur Kunst-Strickerei 1–14 (Erfurt 1843–1845). Hennings, Emma, Charlotte Leanders stickbok (Stockholm 1848). Hennings, Emma, Nya mönster till spets-stickning m.m. samt spets-virkning 1 (Stockholm 1844). Hushållningsjournal (1776–1813).

132

Lambert, Frances, En ny stickbok, med 67 nya anvisningar att med yllegarn sticka schärp, schawlar, toffsar, fransar, kuddar, muffar m.m. (Stockholm 1847). Lambert, Frances, The Hand-Book of Needlework 5 (London 1842). Liljencrantz, Leonore, Leonore Liljencrantz journal 1817–1819: Från Vallen- tuna herrgårdar till Stockholms salonger (Vallentuna 2003). Meyer, Andreas, Huru skal et ungt fruntimer wärdigt bilda sig? (Göteborg 1787). Munsterhjelm, Jacobina Charlotta, Jacobina Charlotta Munsterhjelms dag- böcker 1799–1801 (Helsingfors 1970). Netto, Johann Friedrich & Lehmann, Friedrich Leonhard, Die Kunst zu stricken inn ihrem ganzen Umfange (Leipzig 1800). Nyaste journal för damer (Helsingborg 1854–1864). Olivecrona, Maria Magdalena Charlotta, Mönster till spets-stickning och hålsöm med åtföljande beskrifning och plancher, first edition (Uppsala 1843). Olivecrona, Maria Magdalena Charlotta, Mönster till spets-stickning och hålsöm med åtföljande beskrifning och plancher, second edition (Göteborg 1845). ‘On Knitting’, The Magazine of Domestic Economy 3, (London 1838). Pauker, Juliane, Neuestes Musterbuch von 103 ausgezeichnet schönen Strick-Mus- ter-Touren (Regensburg 1831). Pauker, Juliane, Neueste Strick-Schule (Regensburg 1835). Post- och Inrikes tidningar (1821–). Reenstierna, Märta Helena, Årstadagboken: Journaler från åren 1793–1839, 1: 1793–1812 (Stockholm 1985). Reenstierna, Märta Helena, Årstadagboken: Journaler från åren 1793–1839, 2: 1813–1825 (Stockholm 1985). Reenstierna, Märta Helena, Årstadagboken: Journaler från åren 1793–1839, 3: 1826–1839 (Stockholm 1985). Stålberg, Wilhelmina, Den nya wirkboken (Stockholm 1848). Watts, Misses, The Ladies' Knitting and Netting Book for 1837 (London 1837).

Secondary Sources Alm, Mikael & Vahlne, Bo, Överkammarherrens journal 1778–1826: Ett gus- tavianskt tidsdokument (Stockholm 2010). Andersson, Gudrun, Stadens dignitärer: Den lokala elitens status- och maktmani- festation i Arboga 1650–1770 (Stockholm 2009). Benner, Mats & Widmalm, Sven, Kunskap (Malmö 2011).

133 Berg, Anne, ‘Medelklassens fruntimmer. Fruntimmersbildningen och skap- andet av medelklasskvinnor, ca 1780–1820’, in Berg, Anne & Enefalk, Hanna (eds) Det mångsidiga verktyget: Elva utbildningshistoriska uppsatser (Uppsala 2009). Berkner, Lutz, ‘The Stem Family and the Developmental Cycle of the Peas- ant Household: An Eighteenth-Century Austrian Example’, in American Historical Review 2 (1972). Bjurman, Eva Lis, ‘Ögat i spegeln: Om unga flickors behag och bildning under 1800-talets första årtionden’, in Arnstberg, Karl-Olov & Bjurman, Eva Lis (eds) När var tar sin (Stockholm 1988). Black, Sandy, Knitting: Fashion, Industry, Craft (London 2012). Blom, Conny, ‘Om kvinnliga befattningshavare vid Stockholms barnhus’, in Österberg, Eva (red.) Jämmerdal och fröjdesal: Kvinnor i stormaktstidens Sverige (Stockholm 1997). Blom, Ida, Sogner, Sølvi & Rosenbeck, Bente, Kvinnor i västvärlden från re- nässans till nutid: Renässans, reformation och revolution (Stockholm 2006). Brown, Carolina, Skönhetens mask: Historia om kropp och själ, ideal och verklig- het (Stockholm 2011). Burke, Peter, What is Cultural History? (Cambridge 2004). Butler, Judith, Könet brinner! Texter, natur och kultur (Stockholm 2005). Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York 2006 [1999]). Butler, Judith, Genus ogjort: Kropp, begär och möjlig existens (Stockholm 2006). Bäckström, Hanna, ‘Ett fruntimmer får aldrig sitta fåfäng: Sociala frågor kring stickning i allmogesamhället under 1800-talets slut’, unpublished bachelor’s thesis (Uppsala 2011). Caine, Barbara & Sluga, Glenda, Gendering European History 1780–1920 (London 2000). Clark, Alice, Working Life of Women in the Seventeenth Century (London 1919). Davidoff, Leonore & Hall, Catherine, Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class 1780–1850 (London 1987). Eriksson, Erik, ‘Signaturen Wilhelmina’, Bokvännen (Stockholm 1973). Fiebranz, Rosemarie, Jord, linne eller träkol? Genusordning och hushållsstrategier, Bjuråker 1750–1850 (Uppsala 2002).

134

Fiebranz, Rosemarie, Lindberg, Erik, Lindström, Jonas, & Ågren, Maria, ‘Making verb count: The research project “Gender and Work” and its methodology’, in Scandinavian Economic History Review 59:3 (2011). Frängsmyr, Tore, ‘Den gudomliga ekonomin: Religion och hushållning i 1700-talets Sverige’, in Lychnos (1971–72). Frängsmyr, Tore, Ostindiska kompaniet: Människorna, äventyret och den ekonomiska drömmen (Höganäs 1976). Gillgren, Peter & Snickare, Mårten, ’Introduction: By the Tomb of St Gene- sius’, in Gillgren, Peter & Snickare, Mårten (eds) Performativity and Per- formance in Baroque Rome (Farnham 2012). Goggin, Maureen Daly & Tobin, Beth Fowkes, Women and the Material Cul- ture of Needlework and Textiles, 1750–1950 (Farnham 2009). Goodman, Dena, Becoming a Woman in the Age of Letters (Ithaca 2009). Gray, Marion, Productive Men, Reproductive Women: The Agrarian Household and the Emergence of Separate Spheres during the German Enlightenment (Ox- ford 2000). Grill, Claes Lorentz, Anteckningar om Godegårds socken och Godegårds gods i äldre och nyare tider (Stockholm 1866). Gräslund Berg, Elisabeth et al., ‘Praktiker som gör skillnad: Strategiska val i forskningsprojektet “Genus och arbete”’, in Historisk tidskrift 133:3 (2013). Haettner Aurelius, Eva, Larsson, Lisbeth & Sjöblad, Christina, Kvinnors självbiografier och dagböcker i Sverige 1650–1989: En bibliografi (Lund 1991). Hajnal, John, ‘Two Kinds of Preindustrial Household Formation Systems’, in Wall, Richard (ed.) Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge 1983). Hansen, Anna, Ordnade hushåll: Genus och kontroll i Jämtland under 1600-talet (Uppsala 2006). Hansson, Stina, ‘Brevets väg från bunden till fri form: Brevskrivning och retorikundervisning’, in Helgeson, Paulina & Nordenstam, Anna (red.) Brevkonst (Stockholm 2003). Harnesk, Börje, Legofolk: Drängar, pigor och bönder i 1700- och 1800-talens Sve- rige (Umeå 1990). Harvey, Karen, The Little Republic: Masculinity and Domestic Authority in Eigh- teenth-Century Britain (Oxford 2012).

135

Hasselberg, Ylva, Den sociala ekonomin: Familjen Clason och Furudals bruk 1804–1856 (Uppsala 1998). Hasselberg, Ylva, ‘Om konsten att hushålla’, in Björnsson, Anders & Mag- nusson, Lars (red.) Jordpäron: Svensk ekonomihistorisk läsebok (Stockholm 2011). Helgeson, Paulina & Nordenstam, Anna, Brevkonst (Eslöv 2003). Hirdman, Yvonne, Genus: Om det stabilas föränderliga former (Malmö 2001). Hoagwood, Terence A, Ledbetter, Kathryn; & Hoagwood, Terence, Colour’d Shadows: Contexts in Publishing, Printing, and Reading Nineteenth-Century British Women Writers (New York 2005). Jansson, Karin Hassan, ‘Föreställningar om kön och arbete – några forsk- ningsteman’, in Jacobsson, Benny & Ågren, Maria (red.) Levebröd: Vad vet vi om tidigmodern könsarbetsdelning? (Uppsala 2011). Jansson, Karin Hassan, ‘When Sweden Harboured Idlers: Gender and Lux- ury in Public Debates, c. 1760–1830’, in Rydén, Göran (ed.) Sweden in the Eighteenth-Century World: Provincial Cosmopolitans (Farnham 2013). Johannisson, Karin, Det mätbara samhället: Statistik och samhällsdröm i 1700- talets Europa (Stockholm 1988). Johansson, Per Göran, Gods, kvinnor och stickning: Tidig industriell verksamhet i Höks härad i södra Halland ca 1750–1870 (Lund 2001). Karlsson, Jessica, ‘“God! Let me not waste a moment of This year”: An In- tersectional Perspective on the Practices of Time-use in Gentry Women’s Households in Sweden 1793 to 1839’, unpublished master’s thesis (Uppsala 2013). Lagerqvist, Lars O, Vad kostade det? Priser och löner från medeltid till våra dagar (Lund 2011). Laslett, Peter, Family Life and Illicit Love in Earlier Generations: Essays in His- torical Sociology (Cambridge 1977). Ledbetter, Kathryn, Victorian Needlework (Santa Barbara 2012). Legnér, Mattias, Fäderneslandets rätta beskrivning: Mötet mellan antikvarisk forskning och ekonomisk nyttokult i 1700-talets Sverige (Helsinki 2004). Liliequist, Jonas, ‘“Flep eller hustyrann”: En diskurs om manlighet, makt och auktoritet i 1600- och 1700-talets Sverige’, in Warring, Anette (red.) Kvinder på Tværs (Roskilde 2000). Lindroth, Sten, Kungl. Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens historia 1739–1818, 1:1: Tiden intill Wargentins död (Stockholm 1967).

136

Lykke, Nina, ‘Nya perspektiv på intersektionalitet: Problem och möjlig- heter’, in Kvinnovetenskaplig tidsskrift 2:3 (2005). Löwendahl, Marie, Min allrabästa och ömmaste vän! Kvinnors brevskrivning under svenskt 1700-tal (Göteborg 2007). Meijer, Bernhard, et al., Nordisk familjebok: Konversationslexikon och realencyk- lopedi (Stockholm 1918). Munroe, Jennifer, Gender and the Garden in Early Modern English Literature (Aldershot 2008). Müller, Leos, The Merchant Houses of Stockholm, c. 1640–1800: A Comparative Study of Early-Modern Entrepreneurial Behaviour (Uppsala 1998). Nargi, Lela, Knitting around the World: A Multistranded History of a Time-Hon- ored Tradition (Minneapolis 2011). Nylén, Anna-Maja, Hemslöjd: Den svenska hemslöjden fram till 1800-talets slut (Lund 1975). Olausson, Magnus, Den engelska parken i Sverige under gustaviansk tid (Stock- holm 1993). Osterud, Nancy Grey, Bonds of Community: The Lives of Farm Women in Nine- teenth-Century New York (Ithaca 1991). Paludan, Charlotte & De Hemmer Egeberg, Lone, 98 mønsterbøger til broderi, knipling og strikning: 98 Pattern Books for Embroidery, Lace, and Knitting (Kø- benhavn 1991). Parker, Rozsika, The Subversive Stitch: Embroidery and the Making of the Femi- nine (London 1984). Pataky, Sophie, Lexikon deutscher Frauen der Feder: Eine Zusammenstellung der seit dem Jahre 1840 erschienenen Werke weiblicher Autoren, nebst Biographieen der lebenden und einem Verzeichnis der Pseudonyme (Berlin 1898). Personne, Nils, Svenska teatern: Från Gustaf III:s död till Karl XIV Johans an- komst till Sverige, 1792–1810 (Stockholm 1914). Pihl, Christopher, Arbete: Skillnadsskapande och försörjning i 1500–talets Sverige (Uppsala 2012). Pleijel, Hilding, Hustavlans värld: Kyrkligt folkliv i äldre tiders Sverige (Stock- holm 1970). Potter, Esther, ‘English Knitting and Crochet Books of the Nineteenth Cen- tury’, in The Library: A Quarterly Review of Bibliography 5:10 (1955). Rasmussen, Pernilla, Skräddaren, sömmerskan och modet: arbetsmetoder och ar- betsdelning i tillverkningen av kvinnlig dräkt 1770–1830 (Stockholm 2010).

137 Rundquist, Angela, Blått blod och liljevita händer: En etnologisk studie av aristo- kratiska kvinnor 1850–1900 (Stockholm 1989). Runefelt, Leif, Hushållningens dygder: Affektlära, hushållningslära och ekono- miskt tänkande under svensk Stormaktstid (Stockholm 2001). Runefelt, Leif, Dygden som välståndets grund: Dygd, nytta och egennytta i frihets- tidens ekonomiska tänkande (Stockholm 2005). Rutt, Richard, A History of Hand Knitting (London 1987). Rydén, Göran, Hammarlag och hushåll: Om relationen mellan smidesarbetet och smedshushållen vid Tore Petrés brukskomplex 1830–1850 (Uppsala 1990). Rydén, Göran, ‘Liberty: Eskiltuna Fristad: The Beginnings of an Urban Ex- periment’, in Rydén, Göran (ed.) Sweden in the Eighteenth-Century World: Provincial Cosmopolitans (Farnham 2013). Sabean, David Warren, Property, Kinship in Neckarhausen 1700–1870 (Cam- bridge 1998). Simonton, Deborah, A History of European Women’s Work: 1700 to the Present (London 1998). Sjöblad, Christina, Min vandring dag för dag: Kvinnors dagböcker från 1700-talet (Stockholm 1997). Sjögren, Mikael, Fattigvård och folkuppfostran: Liberal fattigvårdspolitik 1903– 1918 (Stockholm 1997). Stadin, Kekke, Stånd och genus i stormaktstidens Sverige (Lund 2004). Steinrud, Marie, Den dolda offentligheten: Kvinnlighetens sfärer i 1800-talets hög- reståndskultur (Stockholm 2008). Styles, John & Vickery, Amanda (eds), Gender, Taste, and Material Culture in Britain and North America, 1700–1830 (New Haven 2007). Stålhammar, Mall, Att översätta är nödvändigt (Stockholm 2015). Tolvhed, Helena ‘Intersektionalitet och historievetenskap’, in Scandia 76:1 (2010). Turney, Joanne, The Culture of Knitting (Oxford 2009). Ulvros, Eva Helen, Fruar och mamseller: Kvinnor inom sydsvensk borgerlighet 1790–1870 (Lund 1996). Vallström, Maria, ‘Att göra skillnad, om migration, arbete, och kön i skogs- arbetarbyar 1950–1975’, in Scandia 76:1 (2010). Veblen, Thorstein & Banta, Martha, The Theory of the Leisure Class: Oxford World’s Classics [Elektronic resource] (2007 [1899]).

138

Vickery, Amanda, ‘Golden Age of Separate Spheres? A Review of the Cate- gories and Chronology of English Women’s History’, in Historical Jour- nal 36:2 (1993). Vickery, Amanda, The Gentleman’s Daughter: Women's Lives in Georgian Eng- land (New Haven 1998). Vickery, Amanda, Behind Closed Doors: At Home in Georgian England (New Haven 2009). ‘Wilhelmina Stålberg’, Ny Illustrerad Tidning (Stockholm 1872). Wintzell, Inga, Sticka mönster: Historiskt om stickning i Sverige (Stockholm 1976).

Lectures/Papers Jansson, Karin Hassan, ‘Doing Household, Performing Power: Agency, Au- thority and Space in Early Modern Sweden’, at the conference Practices and Performances: Between Materiality and Morality in Pre-Modernity, Sig- tuna (Sweden), 21–23 August 2014. Eibach, Joachim, ‘Doing House and Neighbourhood’, at the conference Eu- ropean Social Science History Conference, Vienna (Austria), 23–26 April 2014.

Websites NE, http://www.ne.se/ SAOB, http://g3.spraakdata.gu.se/saob/ SBL, http://www.nad.riksarkivet.se/sbl www.grilliana.se www.murrayska.se

139

Opuscula Historica Upsaliensia

1. Thomas Lindkvist: Plundring, skatter och den feodala statens framväxt. Or- ganisatoriska tendenser i Sverige under övergången från vikingatiden till tidig medeltid, 3:e upplagan 1995 2. Jan Lindegren: Varat, staten och diket. Tre historieteoretiska uppsatser, 1988 (slutsåld) 3. Sven A. Nilsson: På väg mot militärstaten. Krigsbefälets etablering i den äldre Vasatidens Sverige, 1989 (slutsåld) 4. György Nováky: Sockersjudare och kompanihandel. Motsättningen mellan ka- pitalistisk produktion och feodal handel under 1600-talet, 1989 (slutsåld) 5. Stellan Dahlgren & Kekke Stadin: Från feodalism till kapitalism. Skatter- nas roll i det svenska samhällets omvandling 1720–1910, 1990 6. Aleksander Kan: Nikolaj Bucharin och den skandinaviska arbetarrörelsen, 1991 7. Anders Florén: Genus och producentroll. Kvinnoarbete inom svensk bergshan- tering, exemplet Jäders bruk 1640–1840, 2:a reviderade upplagan 1995 8. Att forska i det förflutna. Forskarskola i Historia 1991, Anders Florén & Peter Reinholdsson (red.), 1992 (slutsåld) 9. Current Research at The Department of History Uppsala University, 1992 (slutsåld) 10. Ann-Sofie Ohlander: Det bortträngda barnet. Uppsatser om psykoanalys och historia, 1993 (slutsåld) 11. Kekke Stadin: Maktkamp på Arboga redd. Sjöfart inom skrå och aktiebolag, 1993 12. Ironmaking in Sweden and Russia. A survey of the social organisation of iron production before 1900, Göran Rydén & Maria Ågren (eds.), 1993 13. Hernán Horna: Five Essays on Post Colonial Latin American History, 1994 14. Gudrun Andersson Lennström & Marie Lennersand: Sprickor i muren. Funktion och dysfunktion i det stormaktstida rättssystemet, 1994

15. Jaak Naber: Motsättningarnas Narva. Statlig svenskhetspolitik och tyskt lokal- välde i ett statsreglerat samhälle, 1581–1704, 1995 16. Per Olof Sjöstrand: Hur Finland vanns för Sverige. En historia för national- stater, 1996 17. Järnkvinnor. Bergslagens kvinnodagar 1995, Åsa Karlsson (red.), 1996 18. Vägen till Blåkulla. Nya perspektiv på de stora svenska häxprocesserna, Linda Oja (red.), 1997 19. Främlingar – ett historiskt perspektiv, Anders Florén & Åsa Karlsson (red.), 1998 20. Anders Florén: Vallonskt järn. Industriell utveckling i de södra Nederlän- derna före industrialiseringen, 1998 21. I nationens intresse. Ett och annat om territorier, romaner, röda stugor och statistik, Lars Petterson (red.), 1999 22. State Policy and Gender System in the Two German States and Sweden 1945– 1989, Rolf Torstendahl (ed.), 1999 23. När studenten blev modern – Uppsalas studenter 1600–1850, Henrik Ågren (red.), 1999 24. Bedrägliga begrepp. Kön och genus i humanistisk forskning, Gudrun Anders- son (red.), 2000 25. Lydia Wahlström. Till hundraårsminnet av hennes doktorsdisputation 1898, Gunilla Strömholm (red.), 2000 26. Guises of Power. Integration of society and legitimisation of power in Sweden and the Southern Low Countries ca 1500–1900, Maria Ågren, Åsa Karls- son & Xavier Rousseaux (eds.), 2001 27. Nationalism och nationell identitet i 1700-talets Sverige, Åsa Karlsson & Bo Lindberg (red.), 2002 28. Sociala nätverk och fält, Håkan Gunneriusson (red.), 2002 29. Med börd, svärd och pengar. Eliters manifestation, maktutövning och repro- duktion 1650–1900, Gudrun Andersson, Esbjörn Larsson & Patrik Winton (red.), 2003

30. Hans och hennes. Genus och egendom i Sverige från vikingatid till nutid, Maria Ågren (red.), 2003 31. En helt annan historia. Tolv historiografiska uppsatser, Samuel Edquist, Jör- gen Gustafson, Stefan Johansson & Åsa Linderborg (red.), 2004 32. När oväsendet tystnat. Efterspelet till uppror och religiösa konflikter 1670– 1860, Marie Lennersand & Linda Oja (red.), 2004 33. Reine Rydén: Marknaden, miljön och politiken. Småbrukarnas och ekobön- dernas förutsättningar och strategier 1967–2003, 2005 34. Att rätt förfoga över tingen. Historiska studier av styrning och maktutövning, Johannes Fredriksson & Esbjörn Larsson (red.), 2007 35. Gud, konung och undersåtar. Politisk predikan i Sverige under tidigmodern tid, Peter Ericsson (red.), 2007 36. En problematisk relation? Flyktingpolitik och judiska flyktingar i Sverige 1920– 1950, Lars M Andersson & Karin Kvist Geverts (red.), 2008 37. Scripts of Kingship. Essays on Bernadotte and Dynastic Formation in an Age of Revolution, Mikael Alm & Britt-Inger Johansson (eds.), 2008 38. Ett nödvändigt ont. Statsskuld och politik i Förenta Staterna och Sverige 1780– 1870, Max Edling & Patrik Winton (red.), 2009 39. Det mångsidiga verktyget. Elva utbildningshistoriska uppsatser, Anne Berg & Hanna Enefalk (red.), 2009 40. Sammanflätat. Civilt och militärt i det tidigmoderna Sverige, Maria Sjöberg (red.), 2009 41. Det vita fältet. Samtida forskning om högerextremism, Mats Deland, Fredrik Hertzberg & Thomas Hvitfeldt (red.), 2010 42. Kommers. Historiska handelsformer i Norden under 1700- och 1800-talen, Gudrun Andersson & Klas Nyberg (red.), 2010 43. Goda exempel. Värderingar och världsbild i tidigmodern svensk sakprosa och tillfällesdikt, Henrik Ågren (red.), 2010 44. Förskolans aktörer. Stat, kår och individ i förskolans historia, Johannes West- berg (red.), 2011

45. Kulturtransfer och kulturpolitik. Sverige och Tyskland under det tjugonde år- hundradet, Andreas Åkerlund (red.), 2011 46. Henrik Ågren: Kejsarens nya kläder. Historiebruk och kulturarv under tidigmodern reformation och modern revolution, 2011 47. Levebröd. Vad vet vi om tidigmodern könsarbetsdelning? Benny Jacobsson & Maria Ågren (red.), 2011 48. Enhancing Student Learning in History. Perspectives on University History Teaching, David Ludvigsson (ed.), 2012 49. Auktoritet i förvandling. Omförhandling av fromhet, lojalitet och makt i reform- ationens Sverige, Eva-Marie Letzter (red.), 2012 50. Från sidensjalar till flyktingmottagning. Judarna i Sverige – en minoritets historia, Lars M Andersson & Carl Henrik Carlsson (red.), 2013 51. Hanna Enefalk: Skillingtryck! Historien om 1800-talets försvunna massme- dium, 2013 52. Esbjörn Larsson: En lycklig Mechanism! Olika aspekter av växelundervis- ningen som en del av 1800-talets utbildningsrevolution, 2014 53. Performing Herself. Everyday Practices and the Making of Gender in Early Modern Sweden, Mikael Alm (ed.), 2017