The Peasant Imagined

Social Imaginary and Social Order in Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Century Sweden

Master thesis, 60 credits, Spring 2017 Author: Jakob Håkansson Supervisor: Mikael Alm Seminar chair: Margaret Hunt Date of defence: May 23rd, 2017

HISTORISKA INSTITUTIONEN

Abstract

The purpose of this thesis is to illuminate how the Swedish peasantry was perceived by the Swedish Burgher, Clerical, and Noble Estates during the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. By studying the Diet protocols of each Estate from three Diets, and by applying the concept of social imaginary, it considers what a peasant was perceived to be, who was perceived to be a peasant, and how these perceptions changed. The period under investigation is a time when the orders of society began to change and the peasantry underwent a process of radicalization. It is also a time when the way people perceived themselves changed, from a perception of “the self” heavily influenced by the collective, to a more individualistic one. These circumstances made the Estates question the traditional ideal of what a peasant was, re-writing the social script of the peasantry to include new attributes, duties, and virtues than it did a century earlier. Three main categories are used and aims at exploring the peasantry’s perceived social dignity, political role, and economic function, each representing its respective order in estate society. The study has shown how the Estates perceived peasants to be simple, uneducated, and foolish in the early stages of the Age of Liberty (1718–1772), and that the social dignity of a peasant was fundamental in conceptualizing what and who a peasant was. This changed towards the end of the century and became much more diverse and complex during the early nineteenth century. By the early 1820’s, the Noble and Clerical Estates perceived them as competent, responsible, and as being capable of betterment and upward mobility in a spiritual and worldly sense. The Burgher Estate perceived them as self-righteous, rustic, and intrusive as they had begun to invade their cities, steeling their livelihood, and thus threatening their entire existence as an estate. The economic transformations of the period also proved how the economic function of the peasantry was now to a larger degree emphasized as the determinative factor of what social dignity and political role they should have.

Keywords: Peasantry, peasant, social imaginary, social order, estate society, identity.

i

Acknowledgements

It has been a privilege to have been given the opportunity to write this thesis, and there are so many I want to give a special thanks to for having aided me with advice and guidance throughout the process of writing it. I would like to start by expressing my deepest gratitude towards my supervisor Mikael Alm without whom this project would have been difficult to finish. His encouraging and inspiring words of support have in many ways changed my own attitude towards and understanding of the study of history. I also want to give a special thanks to my fellow EMS students and those who I studied with during my bachelor. You all have continuously given me cause for useful reflection and similarly guided me throughout my five years at Uppsala University. I have also had the privilege to participate in the Early Modern Cultural History node which has broadened my historical knowledge and given me valuable reflections by participating at workshops at the universities in Oldenburg and York. The time I have spent at the Vasa Museum and on the Kajutanprojektet is also entirely thanks to the node. I would therefore like to express my deepest thanks to its research leaders Mikael Alm, Johan Eriksson, and Maria Schildt, and of course to Fred and Emma Hocker who took me in and showed me the amazing collection of historical artefacts that the Vasa ship contains. Last but not least, thank you Kristina for always being there for me when I needed you the most. You have never stopped believing in me and I would not have had the courage or energy to finish this thesis if it was not for you. I have you to thank for everything.

ii

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... i Acknowledgements ...... ii Table of Contents ...... iii CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION ...... 1 A Society of Orders and Estates ...... 2 Perceiving Peasants in Context of Social, Political, and Economic Change ...... 4 Theoretical Framework ...... 7 Social Imaginary ...... 7 The Ancien Régime of Identity and the Modern Regime of Selfhood ...... 9 Social Structural Time ...... 10 Approaching the Sources ...... 11 The Practice of Keeping Records ...... 11 Selecting Protocols ...... 12 Methodology and Operational Questions ...... 13 Thesis Outline ...... 16 CHAPTER II – THE DIET OF 1720 ...... 18 Social Dignity – Deficient Understanding and Sense of Duty ...... 18 Preventing Disorder by Dressing as Peasants Should ...... 18 Maintaining the Vicarage – A Contested Duty Demonstrating Peasant Dignity ...... 21 A Board of Superiors – A Matter of Affiliation ...... 23 Political Role – Exclusion from the Secret Committee ...... 24 “Conform to that Which was Customary” ...... 25 Peasants Lack a Higher Comprehension ...... 26 Political Requirements: Knowledge, Competence, and Travel Experience ...... 27 Economic Function – The Cultivating Estate ...... 29 Division of Labour ...... 29 Summary ...... 31 CHAPTER III – THE DIET OF 1786 ...... 33 Social Dignity – Liquor as a Social Marker ...... 33 A Custom of Drunkenness ...... 33 The Negligence of Virtue ...... 36 Peasant–Soil–Liquor ...... 37 Political Role – The Fighting Estate ...... 41 “Each One Knows Where the Shoe Pinches” ...... 41 Peasant Patriotism ...... 44 Trusting the Word of a Peasant Based on Experience ...... 45 Economic Function – Functionality Threatened ...... 47 A Crisis of Economic Function ...... 48 Idleness and Uselessness ...... 49 Breaking the Covenant with God ...... 50 Summary ...... 51 CHAPTER IV – THE DIET OF 1823...... 53 Social Dignity – Betterment and Relative Dignity ...... 53 Disbanding the Logic of Peasant–Soil–Liquor ...... 53 Peasant Manliness ...... 55 iii

An Enlightened Peasantry ...... 57 Political Role – Reconsidering Peasant Participation ...... 60 Stirring Public Opinion Among the Peasantry ...... 60 Education in Accordance with Social Dignity ...... 62 Honest Swedish “Dannemän” ...... 63 Economic Function – A Changing Peasantry ...... 66 Social Dignity Defined by Economic Function...... 67 Conflicting Forces Within the Peasantry ...... 70 An Economic Order Ready for Change ...... 72 Summary ...... 73 CHAPTER V – ILLUMINATING THE IMAGINED PEASANT ...... 75 LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 80 Published Sources ...... 80 Literature ...... 81 APPENDIX I. TRANSLATIONS ...... 86

iv

CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION

It was the second Friday of January 1720 and the Diet (Riksdag) in Stockholm had only just started. They were waiting in the hall of the Secret Committee (Sekreta Utskottet) in the House of Nobility (Riddarhuset) where the Lord Marshal (Lantmarskalk, i.e. the speaker of the Noble Estate) Arvid Horn had told them to wait. As they obediently did as they were told, Horn and the rest of the Noble Estate reflected upon the request that they had put forth. During the next few days, the peasants also visited the Clerical and Burgher Estates with the same request. They wanted to be admitted to the Secret Committee, which was the committee where representatives from the Burgher, Clerical, and Noble Estates discussed and decided matters of foreign policy and national security. Representatives from the Peasant Estate had never been allowed to take part in these discussions and their request went against how the political system was organized and against what privileges the social order allowed the peasants to claim.1 Back in the House of Nobility, Horn told his fellow noblemen that the peasants would have to wait for an answer. He expressively stated that in this way, they would not “lose anything, but instead leave it up to the other Estates to discuss the question and decide as they please”, thus feeling confident that the clergymen and burghers would make the right decision. After a while, the peasants were called for and informed that they would get their answer by means of a deputation. However, they were not told when or given any indication as to what their response would be. About four months later when the peasants were given an answer, it turned out that they were not allowed to attend the committee’s sessions because they did not possess the necessary knowledge or understanding to discuss matters of grave political importance.2 About a century later, at the Diet of 1823, the Noble Estate discussed a matter which again involved peasants. It concerned whether the French metric system should be adopted in Sweden. They decided to vote against the proposition as it would have a negative impact on how the peasantry paid their taxes when it was paid in kind. The reason why was because the French system contained a great deal of foreign words which peasants did not understand. But also because it could make them feel cheated as it might confuse them to think that they had to pay more than they should. While the peasantry indeed was perceived as lacking a certain kind of knowledge, just as in 1720, this understanding was now used to vote in favour of what the noblemen believed was

1 RAP 1720, pp. 31–32. 2 RAP 1720, pp. 32 & 314–315. 1 in the peasantry’s best interest. They did not deserve to feel cheated, even if it was because of their own incompetence.3 Now, it is clear that something has changed as to how the Noble Estate perceived the peasantry. While being belittled in 1720 for lacking the proper knowledge and understanding to partake in discussions held in the Secret Committee, the noblemen’s perception of them in 1823 was instead characterized by care and respect. The peasants’ shortcomings did not mark them as a liability or burden, rather the opposite. This change also begs the question whether the clergymen and burghers shared this understanding. The purpose of this thesis is to elucidate how the Burgher, Clerical, and Noble Estates in Sweden perceived the peasantry over a period of roughly one hundred years. By studying the three Estates’ discussions at three Diets during the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, it is an attempt to illuminate that what constituted a peasant was more than only their own self-perception. It is likewise an effort to show the complexity of how the Estates’ perceptions of the peasantry were motivated by their understanding of society and the logics of the estate-system. Its focus lies on a period which contains radical transformations within the social, political, and economic order which leads me to reason, as well as the examples above suggests, that the perceived place of the peasantry within these orders also changed. The main question that is answered is thus the following:

- How did the Burgher, Clerical, and Noble Estates in Sweden perceive the Swedish peasantry and how did this change throughout the eighteenth and early nineteenth century?

A Society of Orders and Estates

To be able to examine how the Swedish peasantry was perceived in a society composed of a series of hierarchically organized social groups, it is most important to understand how the logics of estate society was conceived. Early modern Swedish society was a society of orders and estates. The ideas and logics of feudal society, which are perhaps best explained in the classic work of historian Georges Duby, dictated that there were those who prayed, those who fought, and those who produced. In Sweden’s case, however, a difference was made between the urban and rural population, between those who made and traded goods (burghers) and those who produced food (peasants). The estates had their own unique function, duties, and privileges, creating an ideal harmonious societal body

3 RAP 1823, vol. 4, pp. 670 & 675. 2 of orders where everyone worked for the better of all.4 Further explained by French historian Roland Mousnier, a society of orders in the early modern period consisted of hierarchies arranged “according to the esteem, honour and dignity attached by society to social functions that can have no relationship with the production of material goods.” The wealth of an individual did not define the dignity he or she was ascribed or where in a given hierarchy they were sorted, but instead the social estimation of dignity.5 If for example a commoner was wealthier than a nobleman, he did not have or attained a higher social dignity than the noblemen since the social order predetermined the commoner of possessing a lower social dignity. This meant, as historian Gail Bossenga explains, that the estimated honour and dignity of an individual or group “created expectations for behaviour and lifestyle that had to be met”. The social order thus demanded inequality and that people of a high social dignity were given “special marks demarcating their distinctive place” in society, whereas those of low social dignity were not. Bossenga moreover lifts the argument whether or not historians should speak or think in lines of societal orders since there were those who stood outside what historical subjects understood as estate society. However, when for example the lowly parts of the peasantry were forced to perform their arduous labour duties, the social dignity “underpinning the society of orders was responsible.”6 This was how early modern society was supposed to be structured. It was a society where everyone knew their divinely ordained place and where people were separated with reference to honour, dignity, and esteem. However, towards the end of the ancien régime, estate society and its logics successively lost significance as winds of revolution and individualism swept over Western Europe. The system of God given privileges according to social dignity capitulated to new concepts such as “citizen” and “citizenship”, partly brought on by the emerging middle classes and the “consumer revolution” which allowed people from the lower segments of society to acquire goods previously reserved for the elite.7 Whereas a citizen (the Swedish word medborgare), explained by historian Charlotta Wolff, included members of the political community in late eighteenth century Sweden, it began to include more and more previously excluded social groups around the turn of the century.8 This ultimately resulted in a situation where it became difficult to distinguish between who was a Swedish citizen and who was not, and the estate system was finally abolished in 1866.9 The society of orders was “instrumental in giving birth to modern citizenship, its seeming egalitarian antithesis”, argues Bossenga, and it fell because it could no longer legitimize why certain

4 Duby 1980; see also Alm 2016, pp. 45–46; Stadin 2004, pp. 21–23; Mousnier 1973; Hallberg 2003, p. 4; Wolff 2016, pp. 11–14. 5 Mousnier 1973, p. 19. 6 Bossenga 2012, pp. 145 & 149–150. 7 Bossenga 2012, pp. 152–156. 8 Wolff 2016, pp. 72–76. 9 See for example Olofsson 2011, p. 15; Carlsson 2016, p. 240. 3 individuals had a higher worth than others. However, there is a need for a more multifaceted view of the society of orders, as Bossenga fittingly claims.10

Perceiving Peasants in Context of Social, Political, and Economic Change

With the unanticipated death of Karl XII in 1718, the political system with an absolute monarch was replaced with a system where the power was divided between the four political Estates of the nobility, clergy, burghers, and peasants.11 This thesis begins here, with the proclamation of a new political order where members of the political Estates could question how politics were conducted and the very foundation of estate society. It stretches and ends in a time when estate society had lost its unmistakable relevance as the most central logic of how to order society and the people within it.12 Although the political system changed and political groups were given new and extended political privileges, such as the Peasant Estate, the new age was not free from restrictions. The ideas and logics of feudal society lingered on and formed the foundation of the social, political, and economic order during the eighteenth century.13 Many scholars have investigated the period and the changes that took place. Historian Martin Melkersson, for example, explains how the changing social and political conditions around the time of Karl XII’s death gave rise to new problems and challenges regarding how the state was supposed to be organized. It opened for a new trend of criticism towards the monarchy’s political authority and its eagerness to in detail regulate the social environment.14 Historian Michael F. Metcalf states that the Age of Liberty (1718–1772) that followed was the most representative legislative assembly that ever existed before the French Revolution in 1789. The new political system denied the king and his council almost any political influence. Instead, political matters were decided on the outset that three out of the four Estates either had to approve or reject the matter at hand for it to be implemented.15 Historian Karin Sennefelt’s work on Swedish political culture during the Diets in eighteenth century Stockholm provides an insightful and illustrative image of the extra-parliamentary life and show how the political life was dictated by a logic that merged the social and the political spheres. As to the peasants’ role in all this, Sennefelt explains that their ability to play an influential role in the dense

10 Bossenga 2012, p. 145. 11 Lindberg 2003, pp. 13–14; Sennefelt 2001, pp. 15–17. 12 More on how the dissolution of the estate system affected peasant stratification, see Carlsson 2016. 13 Duby 1980; see also Alm 2016, pp. 45–46; Stadin 2004, pp. 21–23; Mousnier 1973; Hallberg 2003, p. 4; Wolff 2016, pp. 11–14. 14 Melkersson 1997, p. 12. 15 Metcalf 2003, pp. 39–42 & 54. See also Schück & Stjernquist, 1985, p. 117. 4 city of merchants, aristocrats, and ecclesiastics was heavily suppressed and restrained, degrading them to be only a “shadow of a citizen”.16 The late eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth century has been referred to as the “age of revolutions”. The political turmoil that “swept from North America by way of France over the European continent” resulted in the formation of new political systems, as historian Mikael Alm puts it, as “the eleventh hour of absolute monarchy” drew to a close. Inspired by the linguistic turn, Alm argues that political movements during this time were a “movement of words and concepts”. With the restoration of absolutism in 1772, this entailed a crisis of maintaining legitimacy for the monarchy; a crisis of being able to charge these words and concepts with meaning.17 When the Estates discussed the peasantry’s place in society, they too battled over words and concepts. It was a battle over what a peasant was and who was a peasant. But it was not only on the political arena where change took place. The Agricultural Revolution had a major impact on what peasants were occupying themselves with during the early nineteenth century, and thoughts of freedom, equality, and social and political reforms began to transform people’s outlook on society in general.18 Later, other fundamental social and economic effects were brought along by the Industrial and Consumer Revolutions and, as historians Neil McKendrick and John Brewer explains, it can and should be regarded as an equally big change to society as the “neolithic revolution which began some eight thousand years before the birth of Christ.”19 Moving more towards the peasantry, research show how their place in Swedish society changed drastically during the Age of Liberty. During the seventeenth century, for instance, the nobility perceived the peasantry as a curiosity. They were perceived as sprung from a world so different from their own that when the two worlds met, the result was even considered as an absurdity.20 However, during the Age of Liberty, historian Anders Claréus explains how they went from being politically reactive (passive) to proactive (aggressive), hence intensifying their political ambitions and aspirations. They formulated their own rigid and principled proposals and demands in matters that normally should not concern them – at least judging from how it was widely viewed not more than half a century earlier.21 The peasantry underwent a radicalization that fundamentally impacted the social order which began to be debated. This faceless group of people was now on the march

16 Sennefelt 2011, pp. 14–15, 39, 85, 177 & 224. 17 Alm 2003, pp. 19–20. 18 Eriksson 2011, pp. 347 & 370–371; Wahrman 2004 pp. xi–xii; Olofsson 2011; Carlsson 2016. 19 McKendrick & Brewer 1982, p. 9. 20 Englund 1989, p. 196. 21 Claréus 2003, pp. 95–100; more on peasant organization and change during the eighteenth and nineteenth century, see also Carlsson 1973; Aronsson 1994; Aronsson 1992; Bäck 1984; Olofsson 2011; Carlsson 2016, pp. 289–296; Lindström 2008; Eriksson 2011, pp. 291–292; Nordin 2003, pp. 65–67; Sennefelt 2001, pp. 15–17. 5 and how this was perceived by the other Estates is therefore an interesting aspect to look further into as the existing state of research currently falls short in that regard. There are two scholars that have investigated how other social groups perceived the peasantry. By using a dual-perspective of studying ideology and mentality during the seventeenth century, historian Peter Englund examines the nobility’s thoughts on the social and political world in which they existed. In this endeavour, he explains how the nobility perceived the peasantry as subordinate, ragged, and lazy, however also content, faithful, and hard-working.22 Apart from the fact that I study a later period and that Englund only considers the nobility’s perception of the peasantry, his study and this one shares some basic elements. However, a more thorough investigation is attempted here. The second scholar who has studied perceptions of the peasantry is ethnologist Maria Adolfsson. She examines a material produced by public officials and academics, thus people belonging to the higher segments of the clergy.23 Driven by the awakened realization of the importance of agriculture, they produced an image of the ideal peasant as simple, free, virtuous, and honest around the turn of the eighteenth century. However, reality was seldom analogous with this ideal since they were also unable to think rationally, had a tendency to engage in other occupations than farming, and had a great taste for liquor (brännvin).24 While Adolfsson’s study provides an image of the peasantry, it is one that only represents a certain part of the clergymen’s perception of the most rural parts of the peasantry. Also, it is limited to a short historical period and does not focus on how the clergymen’s perceptions changed. This thesis, however, covers a longer period which I believe is central to reach a deeper understanding of how the peasantry was perceived and how this changed. Historian Carl Mikael Carlsson’s study on social stratification within the peasantry should also be mentioned. Considering that the four collectives of people that made up Swedish society were separated into political Estates and social estates (where the latter elected the former to represent them at the Diets) Carlsson examines “to what extent the pre-modern practice of viewing an individual as a member of an estate could survive in the transforming society of the 19th century, when the estates lost more and more of their political importance”. He concludes that the distinction between peasants and gentlemen became more and more unclear around the turn of the eighteenth century. He reaches this conclusion as the capital of wealthy farmers started to point in new and

22 Englund draws a line between ideology and mentality and argues that these two are fundamentally different ways of comprehending the world as well as natural instruments used to utilize what one experience. He defines the former as a system of articulated and thought through ideas, reasonably rational and by nature logical, and the latter as asymmetric thoughts which consists of vague attitudes and rather imprecise ways of thinking, Englund 1989, pp. 17–20 & 197– 199. 23 The collective term for these people was ortsbeskrivare, Adolfsson 2000, pp. 23–24. 24 The term odalbonde was often used and thought of as a model for the ideal peasant, Adolfsson 2000, pp. 15, 37–38, 91, 98–103, 188 & 263–264; Maria Adolfsson 1994, pp. 64–65. 6 different directions, capital that more or less linked them to the attributes and appearances of the peasantry, making it possible to assume a higher social status.25 To get a clear image of how the peasantry was perceived by the other Estates, one needs to have a clear understanding of the historical context which made these perceptions possible. The research that currently exists on the dynamics of estate society takes us quite far. However, this study is an attempt to make that world more familiar and comprehensible by exploring something which is not entirely obvious: what and who the peasantry was in the eyes of everyone else and how that changed.

Theoretical Framework

Since the purpose of this thesis is to find out how the Swedish peasantry was perceived during a period that saw radical changes in the social, political, and economic order, the theoretical framework needs to consider how social groups came into existence and how they functioned in relation to each other. It needs a logic that explains how people perceived themselves and others, how such perceptions changed, and at what pace. For this purpose, the approaches of three scholars are used. Below, these are operationalized and explained as to how they meet the purpose of this study, starting with the question of how social groups comes into being.

Social Imaginary

Knowing how social identities are formed and function in relation to other identities or groups is essential when examining how someone perceives someone else. Therefore, Sarah Maza’s take on social imaginary serves as the point of departure in this thesis. She defines the concept as the “cultural elements from which we construct our understanding of the social world.” Putting it in another way, it is the understanding and perceived reality that an individual or group has of the social world which is determined by the cultural norms and ideals that exists within the confines of that society. In her own study on the French bourgeoisie, she concludes that there never really existed such a group since it always referred to someone else. This argument is based on her belief that social groups “only exist if they are aware of their own existence” and that this is a knowledge “which is inseparable from the ability to articulate an identity.”26 However, equally important is the notion that for a certain class or social group to exist, another group or groups must acknowledge and

25 Carlsson uses the premise that an individual’s social status was defined by the his or her position “on a vertical and a horizontal axis, where the vertical axis denotes hierarchy and the horizontal axis denotes occupation”, Carlsson 2016, pp. 15–16, 199–200, 289 & 291. 26 Maza 2003, pp. 2–5, 6, 10 & 13. More on social imaginary, see Heß 2013. 7 confirm the former’s existence. Otherwise, there are no tangible or perceivable entity or entities to which a group can contrast itself and make sense of the world in which it has a purpose. While the bourgeoisie never really existed in France, it did exist as a myth and mental imagination among people who thought, lived, and acted upon this social imaginary. On this scale of self-awareness on the one side and awareness-of-others on the other, this thesis concentrates on the latter, a perspective seldom used in Swedish historiography. Filling this gap will allow for a better understanding of how historical subjects lived and functioned in a society strictly ordered according to the ideas of estate society. By studying how the three Estates perceived the peasantry, their social imaginaries will simultaneously provide information about the source from which they conceptualized what was and who was a peasant, namely, the social order in which they all lived. There are, however, other components that facilitate a group’s role in a society than that it must exist in the minds of its own members or in the minds of others. It must have “a story or stories about itself, it must take direction from a tale that links memories of the past to desires for the future.”27 A fair amount of research has been written on these subjects, as the nucleus of socio- cultural history in one way or another involves the relationship and interaction between people. This study aims at shedding more light on the dynamics of such interactive relations by directing attention towards the spectator in one of these stories, that is, the story of the peasantry. This study resides in the field of socio-cultural history, which is important to point out. Because even though this story of the peasantry took place in a political setting (the Diets), it is the peasantry as a social thought and phenomenon that is under investigation. It is an attempt to illuminate how the social script of the peasantry was designed and composed by the other Estates and through the logics of estate society. These imaginaries were not something that suddenly just was. Nor did they dwell deep inside the subconscious of people, existing and affecting them without them thinking about how or why. Quite the contrary, they were normative ideal images and claims made by the other Estates of what they wanted the peasantry to be. The imaginaries were a social script that was discussed, questioned, battled over, and something that could bring disharmony if not agreed upon. For instance, when the nobility deliberately disregarded the peasants’ request of admittance to the Secret Committee in 1720, they acted upon their perception of them as politically immature and as wanting appropriate knowledge. But they also deliberated on why that was. It is therefore important not to forget that what is investigated here is the active social thought of the peasantry, rather than something entirely dormant or unarticulated.

27 Maza 2003, p. 6. 8

The Ancien Régime of Identity and the Modern Regime of Selfhood

To understand how social imaginaries and perceptions of others changed, it is equally important to consider changes in how people perceived themselves. A key assumption in this study is that the Burgher, Clerical, and Noble Estates had their own unique perception of the peasantry, existing within the social world that each group experienced. Sure, these worlds interacted and sometimes shared experiences and information – the Diets serving as a particularly good example of that. Even so, Swedish society was heavily restricted by social boundaries and inequalities throughout the early modern period. For instance, Sennefelt explains that the social event of making company and drinking during the Diets was heavily restricted as to whom was allowed to make company with who. But also what types of drink people were allowed to drink. A peasant was for example only allowed to drink low-alcoholic beverages (svagdricka) or liquor, whereas wine was reserved for the upper social classes.28 Therefore, different perceptions of the peasantry most likely existed which all influenced and shaped the social world in which they all lived. Arguing that each Estate had their own perception of the peasantry, one might still ask whether these were shared by all members of for example the burghers. Because even if there existed one generally shared perception amongst them, it is fair to assume that there also existed less dominant ones amongst some individuals, contradicting and challenging the main one. On this subject, historian Dror Wahrman offers an insightful solution to the question of individuality and communal identity. In his study on “the making of the modern self”, he first declares that “the self” or identity most definitely has a history, and that there consequently had to be another definition of the identity before the modern one. This transition meant a shift from identity as a “common denominator that places an individual within a group” to identity “as the unique individuality of a person”.29 Wahrman thus explores precisely “how and when the modern notion of identity came to be synonymous with precisely such a self”, that is, the modern self as the unique individuality of a person. In doing so, he divides the two definitions into two different epochs of identity: the “ancien régime of identity” and the “modern regime of selfhood”, and the shift occurring around the turn of the eighteenth century – otherwise known as the “Age of Revolutions”. By returning to the subject of this thesis, the Estates each shared a unique perception of the peasantry during the majority of the eighteenth century since they at large shared the same identity. They did not have a sense of individuality or stable inner core of selfhood as was dominant in the modern regime of

28 Sennefelt 2011, pp. 177. 29 Breaking it down even further, in the former case, “identity is the obverse, or erasure, of difference: it is what allows me to ignore particular differences as I recognize myself in a collective grouping”. In the latter, “identity is the essence of difference: it is what guarantees my quintessential specificity in relation to others”, Wahrman 2004, pp. xi–xii. 9 selfhood. Their personal identity was a “socially turned self”, more likely to be influenced and shaped by the immediate social environment.30 As the shift between these two epochs took place at the turn of the eighteenth century, the social imaginary of the three Estates should also have changed around this time.

Social Structural Time

When considering at what pace the Burgher, Clerical, and Noble Estates’ perceptions of the peasantry changed, it is important to recognize that time itself passes differently depending on what activity it concerns. To clarify how this works, Peter Laslett offers an explanation arguing that “time is not an absolute but a relative thing, relative to change and therefore different when the pace of change differs.” He sets up a hierarchy of how fast and slow change occurs and time passes, ranging from “fast-paced” change to “very-slow-paced” change. The “fast-paced” change contains paces that are of an event-dominated character, such the fashion, public opinion, military change, and political change. For instance, in the case of the latter, political time is the “order of experienced duration in which political events succeed each other and political developments proceed”. It is such times that gave rise to concepts like revolution where people suddenly find themselves at a crossroad, choosing a path that leads in an entirely different and new direction.31 “Very-slow-paced” change contains what he calls social structural time and changes within the social structure. This time, he explains, is event-irrelevant since there is no such thing as a social structural event. “Events cannot last for more than a brief period or interlude, whatever the time- scale”. This means that while revolutions within politics, economy, and science can change life as people know it in almost an instance, social structures are immune to such revolutionary events.32 The nobility’s perception of the peasants waiting in the hall of the Secret Committee in 1720 could not possibly change due to some expected or unforeseen event. It could only change if the social order also changed, which it could not do in such a short period of time. However, as political and economic changes continuously and more rapidly occurred during the eighteenth and early nineteenth century, the social order was slowly adapted and redefined. Looking back at how the peasantry underwent a process of radicalization, the determination of this study is to show how the perceptions of the peasantry likewise changed.33 It was mentioned above that what is investigated is not something dormant and unarticulated, but rather the active social thought of the peasantry. But should not that which is actively discussed

30 Wahrman 2004, pp. xii–xiii & 168. 31 Laslett 1988, pp. 23–25. 32 Laslett 1988, pp. 23–25. 33 See for example Claréus 2003, pp. 95–100; Eriksson 2011, pp. 291–292; Carlsson 1973, p. 249. 10 and thought of have a higher tendency to change than that which is not? The answer to this question is that the social structure in which the debate is held set the limits for what was possible to think and therefore articulate.34 It is therefore impossible for the perception of the peasantry in 1720 to be exactly the same as it was in 1823 since the social realities had changed.

Approaching the Sources

Many scholars who deal with the peasantry’s own attitudes towards social, political, and economic change, or attempt to describe the social structures which gave their lives purpose, immediately find themselves at a disadvantage. The reason is that there are less historical sources to be found from this vast stratum of society which provide a sufficiently wide gap to look through.35 However, since it is the Burgher, Clerical, and Noble Estates’ perception of the peasantry that is under investigation here, it is towards their archives I turn.

The Practice of Keeping Records

On the basis of Maza’s definition of social imaginary, when trying to crystallize how people perceived each other, sources of political discourse is the most obvious choice.36 The sources examined in this thesis are the protocols that were kept during the Estate’s separate deliberations. There are two main reasons why these have been chosen. Firstly, the sources reflect the respective Estates’ social, political, and economic thinking which allows me to follow each Estate’s internal debate about the matters they discussed.37 Accordingly, they contain discussions regarding the corresponding orders of society, enabling an examination of the peasantry’s perceived place in each order. Secondly, the Diet protocols from this period are particularly interesting due to the peasantry’s radicalization which shook and challenged the orders of society. The Diets were held every few years. However, the time in between, as well as the length of every Diet varied. As the Estates arrived in Stockholm, they had their sessions separately. What was said should be kept secret and without observation from any of the other Estates. However, the Estates did converse with each other in a range of committees (the Secret Committee being the

34 See for example Runefelt 2005, pp. 11–15. 35 See for example Carlsson 1973, p. 13; Sennefelt 2001, p. 35. 36 Maza defines sources of political discourse to be “written, spoken, or embodied in visual artifacts”. But other categories of sources may be used such as “academic (in the widest sense) and other social commentary, and fictional works such as novels, plays, and films; these are the sorts of documents which speak directly to what is considered wrong or right with any given social world”, Maza 2003, p. 10. 37 Other scholars who similarly use Diet protocols have used the same motivation for the sources suitability, see for example Englund 1989, pp. 22–23; Holm 2002. 11 only one where the peasants were not allowed to attend) which drafted a lot of the proposals for the Estates to decide upon and discussed matters put forth by each respective Estate.38 As the protocols are analysed, it is important to note that they differ both in length and precision as time passed. The practise of keeping records of what was said, who said it, and in what progression continually changed. Apart from the noblemen who were more thorough than the other Estates, the protocols from 1720 often only explain that a certain matter was discussed without recounting who said what, and ends with declaring whether they voted against or in favour of the proposition in question.39 However, when a statement or speech was recorded, the speaker in question often had the opportunity to correct potential errors. Therefore, what the protocols does contain should conform rather well to what was actually said.40 In 1823, far more attention was paid to quote even the shortest of utterances and to recount every word of every piece of paper that was handed in for the Speaker of the Estates to read out loud.41 While this discrepancy could be a disadvantage, it is also a demonstration of what the Estates believed was important enough to write down. When Arvid Horn stated that they should not linger on the Peasant Estate’s request to join the Secret Committee, the protocols reveal that it was regarded as important to note the reason why. Had they not, an even bigger disregard for the Peasant Estate would be noted.

Selecting Protocols

The scope of this thesis ranges from 1720 to 1823. The sources consist of the Burgher, Clerical, and Noble Estates’ protocols from three Diets during this period: 1720, 1786, and 1823. The three Diets have been chosen due to the contexts in which they took place. The political authority of the Estates was definitively decided upon during the Diet of 1720 and the Peasant Estate had begun to form and voice their new political agenda.42 As the Age of Liberty ended in 1772 and Sweden once again had an absolute king on the throne, the Diet of 1786 provides a context of new tensions

38 The Noble Estate met in the House of Nobility, the Clerical Estate met in the Great Church (Storkyrkan), and the Burgher Estate met in the old City Hall (Rådhuset). However, privacy could not always be guaranteed. The peasants’ discussions were sometimes held in entrances and on the staircases of the place where they met. According to Sennefelt, the peasant Jonas Björnsson announced his worries in 1765 that everyone in Stockholm knew what was going on and what was said in their meetings. However, this was a problem much confined to the Peasant Estate as they, at least up until 1755, did not have a specific place or house within the city where could meet. In April 1727, they were even forced to stand outside on the street as the landlord of the place they rented decided to tear down parts of the building. Sennefelt 2011, pp. 52–61. 39 For example, the burghers’ discussion on peasant clothing in 1720 was not recorded apart from a few added observations which were presented through a united voice, not specifying who said what, see Chapter II. In 1823, much greater precision was used to quote every speaker correctly and in the right order, see Chapter IV. 40 Winton 2006, p. 53. 41 One example which demonstrated this very well is that the amount of volumes needed to contain the protocols was 1 for each of the three Estates from the Diet of 1720. The amount of volumes needed in 1823 was 11 for the noblemen, 9 for the clergymen, and 7 for the burghers. 42 Wolff 2016, pp. 29–30. 12 between the Estates as the political setting, and the decreasing prominence on the nobility, was dictated by one man and one alone, King Gustaf III.43 The Peasant Estate’s place in the political landscape had also become more manifest which affected how the other Estates spoke and thought of them. 1786 is also suitable considering the theoretical approach provided by Wahrman. As the transition from the ancien régime of identity to the modern regime of selfhood occurred in the Age of Revolutions, the Diet of 1786 allow me to check whether any changes had yet occurred regarding how people perceived themselves and the peasantry. At last, the people at the Diet of 1823 did no longer have an absolute monarch on the throne. The power was instead shared by the Estates and the king. The protocols put together provides a solid base from which a lucid understanding can be found. An important issue to consider here is how the context of the Diets affected what was said during the Estates’ deliberations. The dealings and conversations that, for example, clergymen had with peasants outside the political arena (many living in close proximity to peasants and interacting with them on a daily or at least weekly basis) provided an entirely different context which could provide different results. This nurtures the question whether the Diet is the best place to conduct this investigation. Investigating the transformation of estate-based identities during the later part of the eighteenth century with particular focus on the Swedish nobility, Wolff points out the contextual setting of the Diets as particularly suitable to conduct a study aimed at explaining how identities took form. The changes in the political governmental structure, the social turbulences, and the radicalization of the political language in Sweden provides a context in which people’s perception of the world changed.44 The Diets were therefore a platform where the Peasant Estate very effectively could manifest themselves as a group with legitimate demands and needs. It provided an opportunity for them to show everyone else how they wanted to be perceived and treated.

Methodology and Operational Questions

Before getting into how the protocols are analysed, a clarification is in order regarding how peasants and other factions of people are referred to in this thesis, of course with adaptation to how they were referred to during the period which is under investigation. In short, when the entire peasant population is referred to, the word “peasantry” (allmoge) is used. The words “nobility”, “clergy”, and “burghers” are also employed as they denote the collective body of noblemen, clergymen, and burghers in any given context. Whenever political representatives of the peasantry are discussed, I

43 Alm 2002, p. 59. 44 Wolff 2016, pp. 12 & 19. 13 use the “Peasant Estate” (bondeståndet). Similarly, the Burgher, Clerical, and Noble Estate is used in these cases. The term “estate” is also used and refers to the social part of the collective in question.45 Historian Peter Burke has argued that the most central task for social historians is to reconstruct social identities. To do this, “historians need to make a careful study of what is sometimes called the ‘social vocabulary’ of a given society, including the language of class and the language of orders.” It is by doing this that we may recover “the insiders’ models of society, the ‘blueprints’ without which their actions will remain unintelligible.” However, the procurement of, for instance, the clergy’s social vocabulary and perception of the peasantry must be guided by a recognition that what is studied is not an objective account. It is rather entirely subjective since hierarchies and social order differs depending on one’s place within it.46 What is presented in this thesis is therefore three correlating perceptions of how Swedish society was supposed to be ordered, with specific emphasis on where the peasantry fitted in. Three main categories have been constructed that corresponds with the three main orders in early modern Swedish society: the social, political, and economic orders. Consequently, the categories are the perceived social dignity, political role, and economic function of the peasantry. To concretize this, the logic that is used is that a social group always had a perceived social dignity (being honourable, virtuous, or foolish), and each social group had a political role to fulfil (privileges, duties and responsibilities) and an economic function to carry out (farming, trading, teaching, fighting, etcetera). By way of clarifying, having a political role could mean having a certain political privilege or duty as much as not having any political privileges or duties at all. Not having a political role was still a realization and fulfilment of how society was supposed to be structured. This system had to be protected since the foundation of estate society would otherwise crack and crumble to the ground. The three orders formed estate society in its essence, where everyone had an imagined dignity attached to specific functions and roles within the body that was society. This logic demanded inequality to work, the structure of society necessitated that people had different qualities, privileges, and duties, and that the boundaries and hierarchies which separated them were protected. As these categories represent three different orders in society, the analysis will show that they often motivated each other in one way or another. When the noblemen decided to exclude the peasants from the Secret Committee, for example, they did so by referring to their social dignity: they were ignorant (social dignity) and should therefore be excluded (political role), hence a scheme

45 More on how the political entities and groups differed from social groups in Sweden, for example the difference between social estate and political Estate, see for example Carlsson 2016, pp. 20–23; Wolff 2016, pp. 12, 29–30, 64– 65, 66–67 & 71. 46 Burke 1992, pp. 10–11. 14 where their perceived social dignity motivated their political role. As the analysis will show, the way the Estates structured their motivations changes as the orders of society changed and as the estate system began to crumble. It was mentioned earlier that the three Estates’ discussions on the peasantry’s place in society was a battle of words and concepts, and effectively, a battle over what a peasant was. Similar to Alm, who studies the absolute monarchy’s struggle to retain legitimacy, this study aims at construing the discursive undertones which are found in the Estate’s protocols. In Alm’s case, when Gustaf III “launched his attempt to establish discursive authority”, he used different concepts and arguments to construct an image of himself such as concord, safety, citizen, and liberty, thus legitimizing his rule. These concepts each constituted different parts of “an over- reaching narrative structure, in which the individual elements are brought together to a larger epic entity, providing a mythic story about the rise of the Gustavian regime and the rule of its founder.”47 Correspondingly, when the Burgher, Clerical, and Noble Estates, for instance, discussed the Peasant Estate’s application to the Secret Committee, they established attributes and qualities which they incorporated into the meaning of what a peasant was – for example the noblemen’s argument that peasants were politically immature and lacked knowledge, arguments that fitted their own narrative and accordingly made sense to them. This over-reaching narrative continuously met resistance, not only from the Peasant Estate, but from the combating narratives and perceptions of the Burgher and Clerical Estates as well. Considering these conditions, the sources are analysed at a discursive level meaning that the Estates’ attitudes towards and judgements on the peasantry are sought after – in other words accounts about, criticism against, and evaluations of the peasantry. The following working questions have been constructed to continuously lead the analysis forward:

- What social dignity, political role, and economic function did the Burgher, Clerical, and Noble Estates believe that the peasantry had?

This first question aims at finding out what the Estates’ believed that a peasant was. Given that everyone in society had certain duties to fulfil which corresponded with their place in the social, political, and economic order, it aims at determining what they believed characterized a peasant and how the duties and attributes of the peasantry differed from those of everyone else. What happened if they did not fulfil these duties, and for what reasons might that happen? What was a peasant allowed to do and not do?

47 Alm 2003, pp. 19–20 & 25–26; see also Alm 2002, pp. 47–48. 15

- Who was a peasant according to the burghers, clergymen, and noblemen?

This question serves to determine what kind of peasants the Estates actively thought of when they ascribed them certain attributes and qualities and whether they made any difference between for instance a member of the Peasant Estate and a farming peasant from a rural parish. But does not that depend on what matters they discussed at the Diets, how many months the Estates were in session, and how closely the records were kept? This is of course true. However, the arrangement of the Diets was such that the representatives of each Estate received thousands of matters and inquiries from their constituencies. Out of these, each Estate only selected a couple of hundred matters which they deemed important enough to discuss, and not even all of these matters were actually discussed in the end.48 Considering this, it is feasible that a noteworthy part of the inquiries concerned different social groups of peasants. Whether the Estates decided to discuss these or not thus reveals how they prioritized what and who was considered important and what was not, providing an indication of their concern and attitude towards different parts of the peasantry. While this is an aspect that is considered as the analysis progresses, the sources still act as judge when it comes to what can be determined as feasible results and what cannot.

- How did the perception of what a peasant was and who was a peasant change?

This question is formulated with reference to Wahrman’s ideas on how identity changed with the transition from the ancien régime of identity to the modern regime of selfhood and how that affected the Estates’ perception of the peasantry. It serves to find out whether an individual’s perception of the self affected that of another, and in that case what effects that had on the members of the other Estates’ perception of the peasantry. How did this play into the ultimate crumbling down of estate- society and its logics?

Thesis Outline

Since this thesis concerns how peasants were perceived over a long period of time, being able to show how these perceptions changed is vital. This is most effectively done by structuring the analysis in the order of when the Diets took place. The protocols from the three Diets are therefore analysed in three separate chapters. Each chapter is divided into three subchapters, each focusing

48 Bäck 1984, p. 287. There are some examples where the Estates decided to postpone certain discussions and decisions to the following Diet, sometimes resulting in a matter being laid on the table, as it were, for very long periods of time. The Peasant Estate’s request to partake in the discussions in the Secret Committee is one such example. Another example is found in the protocols from the Diet of 1720 when the Burgher Estate discussed in what fabrics certain groups of peasants should be allowed wear, while the Noble and Clerical Estates did not, see Chapter II. 16 on one of the categories constructed earlier as starting point. This means that a subchapter focusing on social dignity may very well contain perceptions about the peasantry’s economic function since the former could either motivate or was motivated by the latter. The chapters will be structured in the following way: social dignity, political role, and economic function. Each chapter begins with a short presentation of the historical context of the year or years during which the Diets were in session, and the examples chosen from the Estate’s protocols are presented. Each subchapter begins with the analysis of burghers’ protocols and ends with the noblemen’s protocols. Due to the nature of how protocols were kept, Chapter II does not have the same structure as the following two chapters of analysis when it comes to the peasantry’s economic function. This is because the Estates’ protocols from 1720 are not as extensive as those from the later Diets. However, each chapter ends with a summary of the findings where the Estates’ perceptions are also compared. The findings are finally summarized in the last chapter where they are related to the purpose of the thesis and the questions are answered. A final consideration of what the findings contribute to the research field is also given and possible paths towards further research are presented.

17

CHAPTER II – THE DIET OF 1720

The Diet of 1720 officially started on the 13th of January and would last for almost half a year. By early summer, the Estates had discussed all kinds of issues, from how the government apparatus should work to be as just and effective as possible, to in what ways the burdens of life for the kingdom’s inhabitants could be eased. But at the same time regulate their existence so that the order of things was not disrupted. The Diet of 1720 was of particular importance, especially for the Peasant Estate. Little over a year had passed since the yoke of absolutism was lifted with the death of King Karl XII. Apart from no longer having to pay for his costly wars, it meant that they now had access to a political platform on which they could voice their demands in an unprecedented way.

Social Dignity – Deficient Understanding and Sense of Duty

The matters examined to determine the perceived social dignity of the peasantry considers three different topics, all chosen for their explicitness and representativeness. In the burghers’ case, their discussion regarding how peasants were allowed to dress is analysed. The clergymen’s discussion concerning the peasantry’s duty to provide priests with vicarages and the maintenance of the same is then analysed. Finally, the example used from the noblemen’s protocols concerned the peasants request to nominate candidates for the Council of the Realm (Riksrådet).

Preventing Disorder by Dressing as Peasants Should

According to historians Michael J. Braddick and John Walter, the social structures and hierarchies which organized early modern society were “imaginative constructions rather than simply material realities”. Swedish society in the early eighteenth century also consisted of such constructions. However, material realities such as clothes were a part of a complex web of symbols and thoughts which constituted, as Braddick and Walter argues with help of James C. Scott, “the normative raw material that is created, maintained, changed, and above all manipulated in daily human activity”.49 The Burgher Estate’s discussion on what certain groups of peasants were allowed to wear in 1720 illustrates how such material realities defined what social dignity they were perceived to have. Since the peasantry was the lowest of the four estates, they were expected to be humble and modest. When it came to their clothes, they were supposed to be content with their homespun

49 Braddick & Walter 2001, pp. 6–8. 18 fabrics, leather pants and vests, which were simple, but durable and hearty.50 This assertion shines through in the burghers’ protocols from 1720 as well, but they also illustrate that they believed it important not to have people of the wrong social group wearing the clothes of another.51 This had the potential to cause cracks in the foundation of estate society which easily spread. Since this was something the burghers naturally wanted to avoid, they followed the ideology of estate-based and hierarchical categorization, dividing the peasantry into subgroups and placed them in a hierarchical order, ascribing them more or less social dignity.52 When making differences between people who on a macro level belong to the same social group, a need for clarification arises as to what aspects were significant to make such distinctions. For this purpose, several scholars use the concept of social stratification, meaning that people had different social positions within otherwise large and often crude social bodies. Studying social imaginaries in early modern Germany, historian Cordelia Heß explains how merchants of the Hanseatic League were divided with reference to social rank. Those who traded long-distance with certain goods such as fur from Sweden and cloth from Flanders were “socially and economically superior to those who used less prestigious routes to trade in less profitable goods and those who only traded locally.”53 This demonstrates how an individual’s place in the social order was reliant on what products he or she, in this case, traded with and where that trade took place. But it also means that what clothes a person owned and wore had a social and economic significance as it placed that person within a bigger social structure which made the long-distance Hanseatic traders superior to others. This model or blueprint of society is similarly present in the Burghers’ protocols from 1720. Their discussion provides two main images which reveal two fundamentally different perceptions. The first was of the lowly and simple part of the peasantry which they believed could not withstand the temptations of luxurious clothes. This group contained servants, farmhands, maids, handymen, their children, and other “simple folk”. Cavalrymen, sailors, and soldiers were also included in this group “since they are counted among the peasantry” and since they are of “less value than the peasants”. They were to be forbidden from wearing fabrics such as silk, half-silk, silk raffia and cambric, and they were not allowed to turn these fabrics into “caps, shirts, hoods, pieces, scarves or other clothes”.54 The only fabric that they were allowed to use for caps, scarves, and aprons was calico. They would in equal measures be forbidden to “use shoes made of cordwain, saffian, or

50 Stadin 2004, pp. 280 & 282. 51 More on how material belongings create social boundaries and demarcations, see Weatherill 1996, pp. 183–188; Overton 2004, p. 107. 52 On “social stratification”, see Heß 2013; Braddick & Walter 2001; Carlsson 2016. 53 Heß 2013, pp. 105–106. 54 BRP 1720, p. 370. 19 other coloured and brogue leather.” If these regulations were ignored, he or she should suffer “eight days in jail on water and bread, and spend one Sunday in the stock outside the church door.” The second image was of the more sensible Peasant Estate. None of the regulations applicable to the groups recounted above should affect them. They should be left free to decide for themselves and their children what they should not wear to inhibit luxuriance.55 However, it is important here to note that it was a question of not wearing a particular kind of clothing, and thus a matter of restraint which the Peasant Estate was believed to be more capable of. The social dignity they were perceived to have was therefore regarded as of a higher nature and more valuable than that of the “simple folk” since they could decide for themselves and no punishment was necessary. Personal possessions and clothes that peasants owned were not necessarily more valuable during the eighteenth century than in later periods just because there was less to own. Rather, clothes carried an immense symbolic value as it played a central role in upholding the social self of a person. Historian Susan Vincent argues that clothes in early modern England had the ability to mediate ideas of age, beauty, sexuality, and was an index of social standing and personal comfort.56 Thus, the social dignity prescribed to a particular type of clothing was in many ways created by the interpretative viewer since clothes represented and displayed social norms and ideas which were stored within the very fabric which the person carried. When farmhands and maids, soldiers and sailors, and other simple folk decided for themselves and dressed above what their social dignity specified, some measure of action had to be made to safeguard the social order. It threatened a social order where these groups should be humbly and modestly clothed, corresponding with the dignity they were believed to possess which precluded upward mobility and emulation of any kind. By considering what clothes the Burgher Estate believed that the peasantry should be allowed to wear, it is evident that the two groups of peasants each had a perceived social dignity. The clothes they wore should equal the place they had on the social ladder, which determined how they should be treated and regarded in a bigger societal context. While the Peasant Estate was not allowed to wear whatever they wanted, they were still trusted to restrain themselves. They were perceived as sensible enough to make the morally appropriate choice, that is, to ward off the harmful and irrational forces that luxury brought on people and harmed society at large.57

55 BRP 1720, p. 370. 56 Vincent 2003, pp. 1–12. 57 More on luxury and consumption, see Runefelt 2005, pp. 101–105. 20

Maintaining the Vicarage – A Contested Duty Demonstrating Peasant Dignity

Many scholars have emphasized the central role of the church in early modern society, therein the importance of its members as well.58 Not only on the political arena, but in everyday life as well, a clergyman was an important figure and held significant authority. The obligations of priesthood in Sweden contained three main tasks: education, condemnation, and spiritual guidance. A priest should guide people away from heresy and superstition, serving as a devoted shepherd of his flock. But he was also responsible for performing the proper burial rituals as people embraced the grace of God and to keep close records of the causes of death.59 Out of the three estates, the clergymen were those who saw and probably knew the peasants best as they met them at least once a week on Sundays. Their relationship was, if not always good, then at least close. In fact, the relationship could often be a bitter one just because of it being so close. The hierarchical order of the church was such that at the top, there was the archbishop in Uppsala who oversaw the dioceses. Next in line were the bishops who led each diocese and resided in the cathedral chapters which were divided into parishes run by deans and vicars.60 The principle was that the upkeep of clergymen who lived in parishes should be equal to a regular peasant’s, and they should thus own as much land as a peasant. This meant, as explained by historian Kekke Stadin, that a priest’s economic conditions largely resembled that of his flock, and farming was an important part of a priest’s life. However, farming was not his chief occupation and the vicarage was not part of the priesthood, but rather a prerequisite. It was therefore important for him to emphasize that this was not a part of his social identity, however important it might have been from an economic point of view. Stadin also points out that parish priests often met heavy resistance from peasants when it came to the improvement of the vicarages, and surely, that also happened in 1720.61 The Clerical Estate’s protocols reveal a perception of the peasantry as recalcitrant, simpleminded, and retrogressive. They believed that the peasants lingered in the simple days when Sweden was Catholic, and that this simplicity dominated their intellect and way of reasoning. This is demonstrated by the archbishop when he presented a proposition made by the Peasant Estate consisting of several points which they wanted to convey to the clergymen. One of these points caused the peasants to criticise the clergymen. The peasants believed that it should not be their

58 See for example Duby 1980; Winton 2006; Stadin 2004. 59 Stadin 2004, pp. 174–181. 60 Giertz 2009, p. 60; Tjerngren 2014, pp. 25–26. 61 Stadin 2004, pp. 189–190. 21 responsibility to build and maintain the priests’ vicarages and houses connected to it (7 laga hus).62 They stressed the “fairness and the innate justice” that the peasantry should not have to build these houses, basing this on what the church law (kyrkobalken) stipulated. They therefore requested “that the vicars themselves maintain and build their vicarages, in the same way as other civil- and military officials build and keep their residences and chapels which are their homesteads.”63 During late medieval and the sixteenth century, Sweden was a country where the acts and omissions of central powerholders did not affect the peasant society as much as in later centuries. One reason for this change was that Sweden successively became what scholars have called a fiscal- military state during the seventeenth century. The Swedish state and the higher social classes needed the resources that could be extracted from the lower classes to a higher degree. As seen in this case, this also meant that the peasantry could voice demands which people holding influential positions in society had to meet or at least had to consider, for example, how the law was supposed to be upheld.64 These circumstances caused a response from the Clerical Estate which reveal two complications with the peasants’ complaint. Firstly, it shows how the clergymen were provoked and disliked this new situation where the Peasant Estate could freely voice their demands. Secondly, it made the clergymen confused as to why they had raised this issue in the first place. What made the peasants think that they knew more about a matter such as this than the clergy? Considering that the peasants made a demand and claimed a freedom they did not deserve, it gave the clergymen a reason to point out their faults and lack of character. They had been bold when they initiated a discussion that concerned church law and it gave them a disadvantage to begin with. The clergymen argued that the peasantry indeed should maintain the vicarages and houses concocted to it since they “are not theirs [the priests] but public or the parish property.” They claimed that “there is a great distinction between the times when this law was made and the present” and that “priests in catholic times lived outside of marriage and thus did not need an extensive household”. 1720, however, was a time much different from “those old simple times”, and they referred to the judicial rights a landowner had over his tenant (established in Johan III’s husesynsordning) which they meant confirmed their side of the argument. In some regions, such as in Finland, Västmanland, and Älvsborgs län, “the country folk have for a very long time built and still build the vicarages, so that the priests do not have to build.”65 Even though the matter concerned the peasantry, they did not possess the same understanding and knowledge about clerical matters as the clergymen did.

62 PRP 1720, p. 293. The seven houses which the peasants addressed and did not want to provide the clergy with was a smaller cabin or cottage, a barn, a house where grains were stored, a house to store food, a guesthouse, a cattle-shed, and a house to cook food in, see Linde 1887, p. 455. 63 BRP 1720, Appendix 3, nr. 41, p. 74. 64 Holm 2002, p. 197. More on fiscal-military states, see Glete 2002; Tilly 1985. 65 PRP 1720, p. 311. 22

Apart from revealing the attributes and shortcomings mentioned above, the clergymen did not make any difference between those how had voiced these concerns and those who had presented them at the Diet. Unlike the Burgher Estate, they perceived them as one and the same, both incapable of understanding the irrationality of the proposition. While this demonstrates the perceived incompetence of Peasant Estate’s members, it also reveals the Clerical Estate’s perception of the peasants as one homogeneous group of people which shared the same characteristic limitations.

A Board of Superiors – A Matter of Affiliation

The peasantry was not the only group whose ability to influence policy increased with the end of absolutism. The nobility’s power increased too. Indeed, modern historians, as well as contemporaries, have often described the period as an aristocratic republic.66 Since the Noble Estate was the highest and most distinguished Estate, they enjoyed special privileges. Its members were, for instance, the only ones who could hold the highest civil- and military offices. Their special duty was, ever since the Ordinance of Alsnö in 1280, to assist the king in word and deed, and so help him rule and advise him when needed.67 It is therefore not very surprising that the noblemen reacted with frustration when the peasants started to make new and, from their point of view, outrageous demands on being given a voice in selecting candidates for the Council of the Realm. The noblemen’s response reveals their notion of the peasants as simple, lowly, and ignorant, demonstrating a united perception that sustained their understanding of their social dignity as being lesser than that of everyone else. Lord Marshal Horn opened the discussion with asking his Estate if the peasants should be granted this privilege which the Peasant Estate fully believed they were entitled to. Horn himself quickly pointed out the absurdity of this idea as:

the Peasant Estate neither have the chance to get to know those who might be suggested as members of the council […] of which a large part reside in Stockholm where dealings like this occur, and where better knowledge can be obtained of each and everyone’s condition.68

Apart from the peasants not living in Stockholm and thus not knowing the candidates, they were unqualified because they did not “have the same reason as the other Estates, which is needed to assess the qualities that are required of a councilmember.” Just as quickly as the matter had been

66 Wolff 2016, p. 11. 67 Stadin, p. 95; Eriksson 2011, p. 296; Schück & Stjernquist 1985, pp. 121–124. 68 RAP 1720, p. 150. 23 raised, the noblemen unanimously declared that the Peasant Estate should not participate in nominating candidates for the Council of the Realm.69 The example above is one where the two very different worlds from which the nobility and peasantry came sometimes met and clashed. As Englund discusses the relationship between these groups at the Diets during the seventeenth century, he explains how the noblemen often had a condescending attitude towards the peasants. They were reluctant to use expressions and dialects common to the country folk and always made sure to distance themselves from them. They were perceived as an inferior child, ignorant and subordinate.70 Horn’s statement is a good example of a similar line of reasoning. Firstly, by declaring that the peasants were unfit to partake in the nominations because they did not spend enough time in the capital meant that this was how things were supposed to be. Peasants should not dwell in the city of Stockholm and learn the qualities of those who, unlike themselves, were worthy of being nominated to the council in question. Their absence was right and proper because their social dignity made them unworthy of assessing the qualities of better people, and when it came to political decision-making of this magnitude, one had to know the candidates in question and their qualities. Secondly, the perceived ineptness of the claim as such shows how foreign the noblemen must have thought that the peasants’ world view was. The Peasant Estate had implied that they were equally revered and thus as valuable as the Noble Estate since they had boldly claimed to share the same right and privilege. Scornfully claiming that the peasants did not have the same reason or intellect was therefore not a controversial argument to make. In conclusion, the qualities Horn spoke of was qualities that the peasantry did not possess. No particular distinction was made which indicate that the social dignity of the Peasant Estate was any different to that of any other peasant group. The logic or formula, if you will, which they worked out was that to be able to estimate the worth of someone, you had to have the proper tools to weigh and measure that individual. The peasants could not since they did not possess them. Contrasting this with Englund’s work and looking back on how the noblemen perceived the peasantry during the seventeenth century, it must be concluded that little had changed.

Political Role – Exclusion from the Secret Committee

The political apparatus was heavily debated during the early stages of the Age of Liberty.71 However, some institutions were debated more than others. One example of the peasantry’s

69 RAP 1720, p. 150. 70 Englund, pp. 196–197. 71 Melkersson 1997, p. 12; Metcalf 2003, pp. 39–42 & 54. 24 increasingly provocative political discourse has already been touched upon and the institution it concerned. However, the matter which caused most discord between the three Estates and the Peasant Estate in 1720 was the peasants’ application to be admitted to the Secret Committee. It is therefore a suitable example to analyse as it aptly provides a discussion which all of the other Estates had and transparently reveal how they perceived the peasantry’s political role.

“Conform to that Which was Customary”

The Secret Committee was established in the early stages of the eighteenth century. There had been similar committees or councils in earlier centuries, but the new political system, according to historian Bo Eriksson, allowed for the political importance of Secret Committee to grow considerably. Its members consisted of 50 noblemen and 25 members each from the Clerical and Burgher Estate. The chairman was always the speaker of the Noble Estate, the Lord Marshal. The Peasant Estate, however, was not allowed to partake.72 Many scholars have stressed that the estate system was undoubtedly the most basic structure of western societies and, similar to Mousnier, Alm points out that it was a system based on “esteem, honour and dignity attached to specific social functions in the body politic”. However, since a distinction was made between the urban and rural commoners in Sweden and since they both were represented at the Diets, this clearly indicates their prominence compared to other European peasants and burghers.73 Considering this specific form of social order, the burghers’ response to the peasantry’s request is an interesting one. That the burghers would be more positive than the clergymen and noblemen would not be a daring assumption to make considering the relative intimacy they shared in being the two lowest Estates. Returning to the previous subchapter, evidence of a more positive attitude towards the Peasant Estate can indeed be discerned. However, it is evident from their protocols that they did nothing of the sort when it came to their perceived political role. Rather, they were hesitant to their demands of increased political influence. The peasants’ insufficient ability to understand complex and important political matters is the main argument voiced in the burghers’ protocols, showing how they were perceived as a nuisance since their request consumed valuable time. The speaker of the Estate said that he had spoken with the peasants and had explained “with good manners, that their presence in the Secret Committee was not necessary, as certain issues were discussed there which in no way concern the Peasant Estate.”74 As the peasants were not content with this answer, they iterated their claim. The burghers

72 Eriksson 2011, p. 120. 73 Alm 2016, pp. 45–46. See also Stadin 2004, pp. 21–23; Duby 1980; Mousnier 1973. 74 BRP 1720, p. 328. 25 thus found it necessary that the Secret Committee sent a deputation “to convince the Peasant Estate that in this matter conform to that which is customary.”75 Their request was an attempt to revise the structure of the political order and to change that which was customary, which threatened the norms and ideals of society. The logic in play here was that the peasants should not involve themselves with matters that did not concern them, the matters discussed in the Secret Committee simply went over their heads. Conforming to what was customary therefore meant to remain simple and politically excluded, as they had always been. The claim for extended political privileges was rejected without hindrance, and it was done with reference to a perceived interplay between the social dignity and political role of the peasantry, where the latter dominated.

Peasants Lack a Higher Comprehension

While the Estates regularly sent deputations to each other with information on how they had voted in all kinds of matters, historian Joakim Scherp explains that the Peasant Estate especially needed the other Estates as sources of information during the late seventeenth century. This was because they had less political experience than the other Estates and since the level of literacy among them was markedly lower than among the other political groups.76 The clergymen’s response to the prospect of letting the Peasant Estate join the Secret Committee was somewhat ambivalent. Not in the sense whether they should be granted a permanent seat or not. But rather if their input and voice should be completely neglected or not, a hesitation based on the conditions of the peasants’ ignorance. This ignorance, and the degree of social dignity prescribed to them, should therefore equal the amount of political privileges they were given, creating a political role that was unique for their Estate. Archbishop Mattias Steuchius claimed that the peasants were not educated enough to comprehend what went on in the committee’s deliberations. Their political role could therefore not entail the same responsibilities and authority as the other Estates since their social dignity was deemed as wanting.77 Before conveying this message, Steuchius first replied that the Clerical Estate “with thanks receives the trust which the Peasant Estate has for them” but that this matter was of such magnitude that they could not give an answer straight away. They first had to confer with the other Estates. However, they ensured that they would try to come to a decision which would in as far as

75 BRP 1720, p. 329. 76 Scherp also explains that this resulted in them not keeping any detailed records of what was said during their sessions which forced them to humbly ask for advice. This furthermore added to a peasant-behaviour which fitted the prevailing hierarchical and patriarchal worldview, Scherp 2013, p. 112.; see also Schück & Stjernquist, p. 127; Söderberg 2007, pp. 332–334. 77 PRP 1720, p. 195. 26 possible be in the peasants’ favour and delight.78 After the peasants had left, the archbishop immediately stated why he did not think that they should be given a seat at the committee’s table. He said that “some documents in the Secret Committee are higher than what their comprehension allows them to understand, especially regarding treaties with foreign puissance, in which there are several writings in foreign languages.” Ultimately, he admitted that the Peasant Estate could without harm be consulted, but only in matters regarding domestic financial matters.79 The other clergymen all agreed with Steuchius. The peasants should act as a political consultant in matters which the properly mature politicians could utilize whenever they desired, degrading their political role to that of a secondary agency with subordinate and conditioned authority. Their perceived social dignity served as the main cause of their belittlement and constrained political role. Nevertheless, the peasants did possess some valuable traits. Their role as political consultants in financial matters could be valuable since they indeed formed the very base of the kingdom’s economic welfare. But also because of their care for the common good. Five days after their first visit, the peasants returned. They greeted the clergymen and explained that they could gladly wait for their reply until the next Diet, or at least to the end of the present. They, together with the united peasantry and fellow brethren, understood the importance of other matters which also must be discussed and so did not want to delay or prolong the Diet with their request. It was claimed that no blame should in that way be put on the peasantry. The archbishop accordingly expressed his and the Clerical Estate’s admiration for the peasants and said that they indeed deserved to be praised for their care of the common good. They were told that they would not fail to consider what outcome would be best for the peasantry’s benefit and comfort.80 Although they had already decided that the best outcome was to exclude them, this shows that the clergymen had a certain amount of respect for the uneducated and albeit foolish peasants – that is at least how it was displayed.

Political Requirements: Knowledge, Competence, and Travel Experience

The political dimension of Swedish estate society rested on a firm belief that everyone had a certain role to fulfil. A certain group’s place and role in the political landscape was defined by the privileges that group enjoyed and by the privileges it did not. This meant that fulfilling the duties and responsibilities set by the social order also meant not doing something or not partaking in a given political context. Whether the peasants should or should not have a voice in the Secret Committee

78 PRP 1720, p. 195. 79 PRP 1720, p. 195. 80 PRP 1720, p. 198. 27 outlines this logic well. While the clergymen expressed a faint notion of respect towards the peasants, the noblemen were anything but respectful. They had let the peasants’ deputation wait, rather mockingly it would seem, in the very hall where the Secret Committee had their meetings while they decided that this should not consume any of their precious time. Much like the Burgher and Clerical Estates’ reasoning, however, the Noble Estate based their argument for exclusion on the peasants’ social dignity. They contrasted an image of the peasantry as simple and rustic to that of the other Estates who were educated and well-travelled. The peasantry’s representatives neither had or should be allowed the privilege they had asked for, and since “the three other Estates are those who have travelled and studied, which errs among their Estate”, this order should be retained. Adding to that, Horn argued that “it is likely that little of what is presented in the Secret Committee will be in Swedish”, especially when it came to foreign policy. Nobleman Hierta followed the Lord Marshal by stating that they should reject the request straight away, considering that it was a foolish proposition to begin with and that they had no time to lose.81 They decided to approach the clergymen to explain that they better, in commune with the burghers, send a deputation to the Peasant Estate so that they could be done with the matter altogether.82 As Englund points out, the noblemen often responded to the peasants’ requests in an ill- favoured way in the late seventeenth century and their low value was carefully noted in the protocols. However, the names of the peasants who visited them were never recorded. They remained anonymous as they seemingly came from a world which was profoundly uninteresting to the noblemen and made them indifferent to such inconsequential pieces of information.83 The same sort of indifference is present in their protocols from 1720. Before the Noble Estate decided to visit the other Estates, nobleman Hierta explained that “the peasant said that they have not been to the other Estates” but that they intended to do so.84 At this point, Hierta not only avoided mentioning the name of the peasant who had uttered the words, but in one stroke also amassed all peasants with one word. By appealing to Dror Wahrman’s theory on identity, little stands to reason that the Noble Estate perceived all kinds of peasants as one big homogeneous group with a shared social dignity. The noblemen’s way of structuring and emphasizing their arguments is especially tangible in this example. At base level, the peasants’ social dignity was considered: they were simple, uneducated, and ignorant. At the level of inquiry, these attributes underlined and motivated their perceived political role, viewing the peasantry’s political representatives primarily as subjects with

81 RAP 1720, pp. 30–32. 82 PRP 1720, pp. 198–199. 83 Englund 1989, p. 196. 84 RAP 1720, p. 32. 28 social attributes and secondarily as politicians with attributes motivated by the former. However, while the peasants lacked knowledge and education, this did not mean that they should educate themselves, or to suddenly start travelling which the noblemen seemed to believe was important for a Dietman. They were supposed to be uneducated and be stationary since it was the ideal which the peasants were supposed to realize and personify.

Economic Function – The Cultivating Estate

The 1720 protocols contain few references to the peasantry’s economic function. The findings are therefore mainly based on the discussions and conclusions made above, which provide an image of the peasantry’s perceived economic function. While the imaginaries that appear are not as lucid as the ones concerning their perceived social dignity and political role, it broadens our understanding of what was deemed important to discuss.

Division of Labour

Sweden and continental Europe were similar in what economic role peasants in general were supposed to have. Georges Duby demonstrates how feudal society was divided into three main groups: those who prayed, those who fought, and those who produced.85 The latter of these tasks were preserved for the vast majority of the population, including both the urban and rural commoners. It was however truly important that these two groups did not mix when it came to what they should base their livelihood on. Therefore, a hierarchical order was upheld where the greater part of the population ploughed the fields, raised cattle, and provided everyone with food, while the urban population were craftspeople, engaging in commerce and trade. As much as the social dignity of a person demarcated what political role he should be given, the economic principles of the day prescribed that a certain function also had to be fulfilled. This created a division of labour where the social dignity had to meet that economic function, simultaneously exposing the social order to a risk of deteriorating if the division was not followed. The peasantry was supposed to farm and keep away from trade and commerce. Their role in society was that of the producer, emphasized by the importance of functionality. According to Heß, functionality was in early modern Germany “the glue that held the three orders of society together in mutual rights and duties”. Studying different sets of binomials, she explains how early modern

85 See for example Alm 2016, pp. 45–46; Stadin 2004, pp. 21–23; Mousnier 1973; Duby 1980. 29 societies consisted of “a combination of mutually dependant groups” which legitimized the “harsh economic and political differences that separate them”.86 This glue similarly existed between Sweden’s four estates and was plainly articulated by the Estates in 1720. When the burghers unanimously agreed that the peasants should be informed in matters “which concern the Realm’s financial administration, but not in matters that are confidential”, they did so because these matters were of a nature “that they do not possess the necessary concepts or knowledge” to understand.87 Adolfsson has shown how the clergy firmly believed that division of time and labour among the peasantry was damaging and that agriculture often were neglected whenever the peasantry occupied themselves with anything other than with farming.88 Similarly, historian Leif Runefelt puts emphasis on the ignorance and traditionalism of the peasantry and explains how this affected the poor management of the kingdoms natural resources.89 Having a clearly charted design of what people should devote their time to was therefore immensely important, which the clergymen also emphasized at the Diet. They unanimously agreed that the peasantry should only be consulted and granted a voice in the Secret Committee’s matters when it came to domestic financial matters, and they found this appropriate since it matched their social dignity. The peasants, due to their lack of knowledge, were unable to contribute and be helpful in other matters, such as foreign policy and national security. Domestic finances, however, did concern them and was a relevant subject for them to comment on since they were the ones who produced the food and livestock which constituted everyone’s source of sustenance, and thus to a larger degree affected their economic function as producers. The Noble Estate similarly agreed to this, which is proven by the committee’s unified answer to the Peasant Estate’s application to the Secret Committee.90 The Estates’ perception of the peasantry’s economic function, however scarcely it is expressed in the protocols from 1720, falls in line with what previous scholars have shown was the general perception in earlier centuries. Their main focus and life purpose should be to plough the land and not let anything else intervene, and their duty to king and country was to fulfil these responsibilities willingly and obediently. The fact that it served as a reference point rather than being debated in the same way as the peasantry’s perceived social dignity or political role suggests that their perceived economic function was not threatened. It was obvious and undisputed.

86 Heß, pp. 184 & 279. 87 BRP 1720, pp. 431–432. 88 Adolfsson 2000, pp. 187–188. 89 Runefelt 2005, p. 49. 90 RAP 1720, pp. 314–315. 30

Summary

The findings in this chapter can be summarized in three sections, each corresponding to the three working questions of this thesis. Firstly, the perceived social dignity, political role, and economic function of the peasantry encapsulates what the other Estates believed that a peasant was. The balance between what was considered most essential was the peasant’s social dignity as it served to explain and motivate their role and function in the political and economic orders. Judging from the protocols, peasants were simple, uneducated, foolish, and had a low social dignity compared to the other Estates who thus deserved greater privileges and responsibilities. Because of their low social dignity, peasants were supposed to be politically constrained and should not have any major influence in political matters which could severely affect the safety and well-being of the kingdom. They were supposed to plough the land and stay out on the countryside since these mundane, although important, civic duties matched their level of intellect. Secondly, the Estates’ discussions demonstrate who was perceived to be a peasant. The image that appears is a rather uniform. Crassly put, a peasant was anyone who was not a member of the other Estates, where the demarcation upwards was set at the level the peasant politician. However, a hierarchy among different groups of peasants can be discerned. The Burgher Estate’s discussion on clothes reveal that they saw the members of the Peasant Estate as possessing a higher social dignity than the “simple folk”, that is, those who did not have any direct political authority. Apart from this distinction, the Clerical and Noble Estate did not make any difference between peasants in general. At large, the peasants present at the Diet shared the same traits and faults as the peasants who they represented. Thirdly, the findings show how the practise of keeping records during the Estates’ deliberations was dictated by a notion that certain matters were more important than others. Although being rather scarce in recording what was said in general, the burghers, for example, found it more important to write down their comments on what clothes peasants should be allowed to wear than the noblemen and clergymen did. However, the Noble Estate made the biggest effort in citing its members.91 By keeping records of what they found to be noteworthy and not recording anything that seemed unimportant, the protocols reveal the Estates’ attitude towards certain issues which concerned the peasantry. If this meant that for example the clergymen did not care how peasants dressed is hard to deduce. However, it does show what matters they prioritized since the way peasants dressed was less important than who should build the parish priests’ vicarages. This demonstrates the Estate’s notion of selfhood. They did not feel it overwhelmingly important to

91 For comparison, see ex. the Noble Estate’s discussion of the Peasant Estate’s petition to the Secret Committee (RAP 1720, pp. 30–32) & the Clerical Estate’s discussion regarding the peasantry and dress (PRP 1720, p. 231). 31 cite everyone to the letter. This can furthermore explain the predominant perception of the peasants as belonging to one huge homogenous group of people, with one exception when it came to the burghers.

32

CHAPTER III – THE DIET OF 1786

By 1786, a new political system had been established and King Gustaf III, whose sovereignty now was absolute, was fighting a discursive battle to legitimize himself and his reign. This legitimization process was indeed important since ideas about and attitudes towards politics and the distribution of power that existed before Gustaf III’s coup d'état did not disappear with the end of the Age of Liberty. Some wanted to return to the form of government that existed before 1772 and restore Estate rule.92 The lively debate and criticism against public servants and officials, and the system of issuing those offices and positions that marked the later stages of the Age of Liberty, had however disappeared since the King now decided who could make a career in politics and who could not.93 The peasantry’s criticism against the other Estates was also toned down and the other Estates’ accounts in 1786 came to focus on the peasantry’s responsibilities as Swedish subjects, as politicians, and the importance of having a healthy and strong peasant population.

Social Dignity – Liquor as a Social Marker

The central power’s interest for different sorts of liquor slowly emerged during the later part of the sixteenth century as powerholders understood how lucrative the control of it could be from an economic standpoint. Two centuries later, the Estates faced the same sort of reality, but also problems of tax evasion connected to liquor production. A prohibition against production for private and commercial use had been initiated in 1772 and crown-distilleries were established in 1775. General discontent was heard from the very beginning and reached its climax at the Diet of 1786.94 This highpoint is a very good example where all the Estates debated an issue which they believed was closely linked with the peasantry’s social dignity.

A Custom of Drunkenness

The emerging political practice during the Age of Liberty differed significantly from that of earlier times, and certain facets of the mindset that dominated lingered on even after its end.95 By 1786, the peasantry’s political role had become far more manifest than in 1720, as well as their place in Stockholm during the Diets. However, their presence was not respected or recognized in the same

92 Alm 2002, pp. 19–20. 93 Cavallin 2003, pp. 190–191. 94 Reasons for these conflicts can be explained by the socio-economic and political contradictions that existed between different social layers and groups, such as the Estates at the Diets, and because not all followed and advocated the same economic doctrines, Båtefalk 2000, pp. 93 & 110; see also Bäck 1984, pp. 166–172. 95 Winton 2006, p. 12; Alm 2002, pp. 19–20. 33 way as members of the other Estates. The social barriers which formed and upheld the social order and the prominence of the other Estates had to be respected. This could be accomplished in a range of different ways. Historian Hannah Greig has demonstrated how elite groups in England during the same period constantly sought company of people of similar rank. Common social activities such as visiting the pleasure gardens of Vauxhall and Ranelagh were often cancelled if the proper company could not be found.96 As Sennefelt examines the socio-political structure of Stockholm during the Age of Liberty, she explains that there were no manifestations of peasant virtues in the city landscape. The prevailing social norms simply excluded them from participating in various circumstances. However, interaction over these clearly charted social barriers did at times occur, for instance when making company and drinking together. The boundaries could in that way be renegotiated, but everyone still knew the social rulebook, as it were, by heart as well as what liberties one could and could not take.97 Drinking, and the stigma around it, not only affected the daily proceedings in the capital but was a central aspect of everyday life for all who did not participate at the Diets as well, and certainly among the peasantry. By 1786, contemplating the effects of the crown-distilleries and miserable state of the peasantry’s alcohol consumption, the burghers expressed a sincere worry about what happened when precious grain was spent making something that only had hardship and misery in its wake. The Wholesaler Peter Fredrik Duwell handed in a memorial that was read out loud.98 He initially stated that the excessive drinking around the country was very “difficult, if not impossible, to hamper or cure”. In Sweden, where the yields of the harvests barely met the amount of grain needed to feed the population, “a most careful management of the depletion of this necessary product has to be taken”. When crop failures occurred, he argued, “the suffering becomes heavy and the instability in commerce certain and inevitable.” The peasantry’s importance for a prosperous market was fundamental, but other areas of equal significance were also pointed out. For instance, Swedish customs were thought to be corrupted and the otherwise healthy working peasants were incapacitated. Everyone agreed that nothing could be less appropriate than to transform that which was the sustenance of life “into a drink which use is unnecessary” and whose misuse and “redundant consumption […] entails one in many respects apparent inconvenience for the general well-being, customs, and health of the people”.99 This shows how important the

96 Greig 2012, p. 69. 97 For instance, what a peasant was allowed to wear, allowed to socialize with, was supposed to drink, and how much he was permitted to drink was determined with reference to his social dignity, Sennefelt 2011, pp. 85–86, 177, 182, 229–230 & 234. 98 Here we can see a change in how the practise of keeping records changed during the eighteenth century. Normally during the earlier Diets, memorials and written statements were read out but not incorporated in the protocols, thus indicating that it had become more important to make note of everyone’s statements in greater detail. 99 BRP 1786, pp. 138–139. 34 burghers believed it was to have a peasantry whose social dignity was not damaged and stained by a shameless custom of drunkenness. The product they were consuming and the access to it were expressions of their social dignity, and how they managed this consumption decided what level of dignity they had at the moment. Allowing peasants to drink as much as they wanted would surely lead to them drinking themselves to death – an aspect of their social dignity that made them inferior and careless for what consequences this had for customs and tradition, and for the entire kingdom. However, the perceived economic function played a central part here as well since that too was intimately linked with liquor and consequently their social dignity. According to historian Kalle Bäck, restrictions of liquor production was to a large extent affected by domestic grain production. The peasants had been rather successful in these matters up until this point much due to the relatively strong position of agriculture in general. During the Age of Liberty, Bäck positions that the burghers did not care much for who should and should not be allowed to produce liquor. They instead focused on keeping the grain prices on a reasonable level.100 By 1786, the implementation of the distilleries forced many peasants to travel long distances to acquire the by-product from the production process which peasants used as cattle feed (drank).101 Realizing that they needed the process of production as it supported their means of livelihood, the burghers reasoned that the peasantry should be allowed to produce liquor for household consumption which would save them the time- consuming journeys and therefore increase their economic efficiency.102 The peasantry’s social dignity as useful subjects who contributed to the well-being of the kingdom and safeguarded Swedish customs was therefore dependent on them performing their economic function, that is, to feed their livestock and consequently feed the kingdom. Grain prices were not the only concern the burghers had in 1786. Realizing liquor consumption to be a problem of escalating importance, the one-sided perspective explained by Bäck was abandoned. They now expressed a genuine worry for what was happening with the peasantry and the duties they should perform. The peasantry was escaping their obligations and were consumed by idleness, exposing their moral weakness. It is not surprising that the burghers focused on commercial advantages and disadvantages with the distilleries. As burghers, they quite naturally emphasized costs and the efficiency of the peasantry’s production of grain in relation to alcohol production. However, they also took on a role as the peasantry’s conscience, seeing as they obviously needed one, in a way that was not seen in the protocols from 1720. The image that

100 Bäck 1984, pp. 178 & 183. 101 Acquiring this by-product was a common argument among the peasants for being allowed to produce their own liquor, Bäck 1984, p. 183; for “drank”, see Nordisk familjebok 1907, p. 830. 102 BRP 1786, p. 140. 35 appears is that of an intimately associated relationship between the peasantry and liquor, generating a social link between the two. It was a part of them as much as the clothes they wore and the tasks they performed, effectively serving as a social marker of their dignity.103

The Negligence of Virtue

The concept of virtue (dygd) was of immense importance during the eighteenth century and often used by the Clerical Estate in 1786. Virtue should guide people in all aspects of life and everyone should always strive towards it. According to Runefelt, to be virtuous was a social duty as it meant to live and work for the public good. It meant to always face outwards, towards one’s neighbour and to society in general.104 Falling back on Wahrman’s thoughts on how identity was perceived before and after the ancien régime, this signifies that the clergymen in 1786 still expressed ideas that enforced their own and the peasantry’s identity as socially turned.105 The clergymen’s relation to alcohol was generally one-sided. They believed that it was unnecessary and corrupting. However, their view on the peasantry’s relation to alcohol in 1786 provides two different images which encapsulates the logic of estate society that was still fundamental in the clergymen’s imaginary of the social order. The first image reveals how the peasantry’s alcohol consumption and drunkenness led to moral decay and to the negligence of virtue. It also brought misery and hardship for their children, which the peasants similarly seemed to neglect. This problem was deeply associated with the crown-distilleries since it enabled taverns to open all around the countryside, often in close proximity to churches.106 The Dean Nordin explained this by posing a possible scenario:

Imagine everyone what effect it will have to say that soon almost a tenth of the congregations’ children have been brought up in taverns, for so widespread is this economy that these miserable children, who in their parents’ household are continuously misled by the guests’ disorderly lifestyle and language, become separated from modesty and decency.107

What Nordin urged everyone to imagine was the devastating effects the environment of taverns had on children and the peasants’ inability to counter it. And the situation must indeed have been serious since apparently every tenth family owned a tavern or in some way were permitted to sell and serve liquor – at least in the region where Nordin came from.

103 More on the symbolic meaning of clothes at the Diets, see Sennefelt 2011, pp. 229–235. 104 Runefelt 2005, pp. 20, 28 & 33. See also Runefelt 2001, pp. 87–89; Johannesson 1997, p. 311; Keith 2009. 105 Wahrman 2004, pp. xii–xiii & 168. 106 The example of taverns closely situated to churches can be found in a letter that the clergy wrote to the king, which was saved together with the protocols, PRP 1786, Appendix 18, pp. 176–177. 107 PRP 1786, pp. 117–118. 36

According to historian Phil Withington, people’s relationship to drink in early modern England “constituted their ‘credit’ and ‘fame’”, and while drunkenness could be a normal feature of everyday life, the ability to control the intoxication was often decisive for a person’s reputation.108 But it also had consequences for those who necessarily did not drink, as explained by Nordin’s continued statement. The children who accompanied the grown peasants to the taverns became skilled in convincing other children to follow suit and thus contaminated them “with the mature and evil poison which constantly pours out of the tavern”. The youth ran to these nearby places to find entertainment in the crowds, but these entertainments were not innocent “but tainted with all kinds of lecherousness”. It also meant that the Sabbath, which was supposed to be a time of prayer and acts of devotion, was instead used as a time to practice one’s vices. The distilleries should therefore be closed and everyone should be allowed to make their as much of their own liquor so that it met the needs of the household.109 Similarly to the burghers, the clergymen could not evade the fact that liquor was a product necessity. Considering what was just mentioned, the second image that appears is of the intimate relation and link between the peasantry and alcohol, and that it constituted a central part of their social dignity. Nordin claimed that the cheerful company in the taverns and the ready availability of strong drinks brought on the weariness of poverty which became an enticement for crime. “When the entire value of the amount of consumed liquor flows out of the countryside, especially in those places where the distilleries use foreign grain, the land is impoverished and the need entices people to make liquor in secret.”110 By returning to Bäck who argues that a reluctance to import foreign grain was widespread during the latter part of the Age of Liberty, the same notion is represented here.111 It was the peasantry’s responsibility to safeguard the grain they produced and not turn it into a malicious drink which led to virtuous and moral decay. The interplay and harmonious balance between acting and living in a virtuous and moral way and fulfilling their economic obligations thus served as two central pillars of the peasantry’s existence, where the former decided the prosperity and fulfilment of the latter and vice versa.

Peasant–Soil–Liquor

Ideas about virtue and how to live accordingly was equally central in other early modern societies as it was in Sweden. In English society, historian Thomas Keith explains that a virtuous life “was

108 Withington 2015, pp. 137–138. 109 PRP 1786, p. 118. 110 PRP 1786, p. 118. 111 This consequently supports the argument that certain facets of the mindset that dominated in the Age of Liberty lingered on even after its end, see Alm 2002, pp. 19–20. 37 generally taken to involve performing the duties appropriate to one’s place in society”, which falls well in line with Runefelt’s discussion. Furthermore, ideas “that every person was endowed with unique capacities which could be cultivated and developed was only embryonic.” Consequently, social roles and norms of behaviour were confined to certain social groups which meant that people’s ability to act outside these roles was highly constrained.112 The Noble Estate’s attitude towards liquor and the peasantry’s heavy drinking in 1786 shines light on the above as well as two central aspects of estate society. The first one considers the peasantry’s usefulness and its integral part in defining their social dignity. According to historian Karen Harvey, drunkenness was often frowned upon and generally something negative in early modern European culture, but only when it threatened harmony and order.113 Whenever disorder occurred, none and nothing was deemed useful since nothing was performed in the correct order. All evidence from 1786 seems to fortify this logic, along with the perception that liquor operated as a social marker for the Swedish peasantry as their excessive drinking had become threatening to the harmony and order of society. The image that appears is that of a simpleminded and drunk crowd of careless peasants whose usefulness had begun to decline, revealing a flaw in their social dignity. While the noblemen played with the thought of getting rid of liquor altogether, they knew that it was impossible. Baron Ruuth, for example, believed that it was something “that we all too well can be without”. While many agreed with him, for instance nobleman Billberg who said that the peasantry’s taste for liquor was “like a plague that destroys land and kingdom”, they understood that “old habits retain their plotted dominion” since “the farmer believes that he must refine the crop which he has been blessed with by his sweat and toil.”114 The answer to why they simply could not forbid liquor to be produced and consumed by the peasantry, and what prevented the noblemen from crossing that threshold, is found in a second fundamental logic of estate society: privilege. People in eighteenth century Sweden could not escape ordering individuals and groups in hierarchies depending on their perceived social dignity. Since the social vocabulary of early modern society set the boundaries for what was possible to say and even think, it was impossible not to value an individual in this way. However, this meant that products and goods normatively associated with that individual merged, such as clothes, food, and drink. Historian Adam Fox finds that in almost all human societies “access to the resources necessary to sustain life is one of the defining expressions of rank”. The kind of food an individual

112 Keith also explains how foreign and rare thoughts of individual uniqueness was during this time, lining up with Wahrman’s theory individuality, Keith 2009, pp. 13 & 15; see also Runefelt 2005, pp. 20, 28 & 33; Bossenga 2012, pp. 145 & 149–150. 113 There was also, she explains, “a lively culture, embodied largely in print, in which alcohol was celebrated”, Harvey 2012, pp. 182–184. In the Swedish case, see Sennefelt 2011, pp. 155–159. 114 RAP 1786, pp. 183 & 192. 38 or group ate – whether it was bread, fish, or meat, as well as the quality and quantity of the food – expressed and manifested what place in the social ladder they were placed. The consumption of drink similarly worked as an “expression of worth and status”, demarcating distinctions between the lifestyles of “’better”, ‘middle’ and ‘poorer’ sorts of people”. This created a hierarchy of foods and drinks which in early modern England was “determined by the cluster of ideological and cultural assumptions surrounding them, as well as by their simple price and availability.”115 In the Swedish case, the noblemen’s protocols also reveal that the drinks people from different segments of society consumed were marked with the social dignity of the group in question. However, another level can also be discerned that demonstrate how deeply rooted the logic of peasant–soil– liquor was in late eighteenth century Sweden, which explains why the noblemen could not forbid liquor. Whether it was imported French wine reserved for the nobility or homemade liquor earmarked for the peasantry, the social group in question had a divinely ordained right to the product. Even though the noblemen believed that it was a waste to turn precious grain into liquor, it was, rather problematically, the peasantry’s right to do so. It was a peasant privilege to drink liquor as much as the nobility was privileged with owning the right to drink wine. This socially determinative ownership could not be broken because what would then prevent a peasant from drinking the nobleman’s wine? The consequences of such a wild idea would disturb the underpinnings of estate society. While it should be pointed out that a nobleman would probably never even conceive such an idea, the risk of completely forbidding liquor would certainly call into question what peasants then should drink. The logic of peasant–soil–liquor is further substantiated by a statement made by nobleman Claes de Frietzcky who, similar to nobleman Billberg, argued that it had “always been the Swedish people’s ancient right to refine the products which they with hard work and effort generate from their own soil”. However, the peasants’ excessive drinking and their right to drink liquor of course accompanied problems. It removed “the most pubescent workers from farming, which thus become free scoundrels, unfit for work”. The industriousness of the peasantry weakened and “perseverance falls into idleness, the cultivation of the native soil becomes wastelands, and people seek a better livelihood outside its borders, and the honesty and the dwelling of well-being instead house depraved scoundrels or miserable covenant-breakers’ abandoned spouses and children.” All this because of a product that “unfortunately! has become one of the farmer’s most indispensable and prone desires”.116

115 Fox 2015, pp. 165–166, 172–173, 179–180 & 186–187. 116 RAP 1786, pp. 186, 192 & 205–206. 39

There is one central word or concept used in the noblemen’s discourse which profoundly manifested the peasantry’s social dignity and place in the social order, the word soil. This can be found in other places in their protocols as well, for instance in their greeting speech to the Peasant Estate.117 According Wolff, these speeches were the most “conservative and consensualistic media of Swedish political discourse” and notions of civic liberty and rights were gradually reinforced and conceptualized in this discourse.118 The greeting speech presented the peasants as honourable, independent, and righteous. But as in de Frietzcky’s statement regarding liquor, the noblemen linked their social dignity to the soil they cultivated, pronouncing their role as farmers whose dignity and credit derived from and was reinforced by the work put into farming. They told the peasants that they assumed that the “ancient Swedish honesty, which the honourable Peasant Estate together with their forefathers’ soil have inherited, will also guide and distinguish their deliberations at this Diet”. No one’s fate was so closely linked with the fate of the fatherland as the peasants, “whose comfort constitutes its prosperity, and whose work statutes its growth”, no one could promote the public good to the same extent as the peasants could.119 They could therefore easily “follow the voice that speaks in their chests; it speaks of a beloved native soil” which their forefathers with effort and hardship had farmed before them. They tilled the same soil from which their ancestors “for so many years have taken their bread, and which they hope to once again hand over to their children.” The noblemen also wished that a rich harvest would come to pass so that the peasantry once again would feel the pure joy that “an innocent existence and clear conscience always entail; yes, may the honourable Peasant Estate, in the calm of peace, bind plentiful stocks of the earth, which they so often have watered with their sweat.”120 The word soil, and the narrative structure around it, formed a chronicle of the peasantry where they could only be deemed useful and revered if they fulfilled their economic function. Nothing opposed the fact that peasants were honest and honourable, but only if they kept to the ideal of what the noblemen believed that a peasant was and did. Similarly, the peasantry deserved to drink their liquor, but they should also restrain their desires since it hampered their usefulness. An important point to make here is that these traits were exclusive to the peasantry. Only they gained honour through their humble existence and simple way of life. Only they should drink liquor, and only they lost honour when they drank too much and did not work their ancestors’

117 Throughout the Age of Liberty and continuing in the nineteenth century, the Estates visited each other and held ceremonial welcome speeches. As Charlotta Wolff focus on political concepts and on verbally articulated representations, she explains that greeting speeches were a perfect opportunity for the Estates to express their views on all kinds of matters, which includes how they perceived each other, Wolff 2016, pp. 1, 16–19 & 64. 118 Wolff 2016, p. 64. It is not entirely clear where these written speeches ended up after they had been performed since they are not always found in the protocols (at least from the earlier Diets of the eighteenth century). 119 RAP 1786, pp. 8–9. 120 RAP 1786, pp. 8–9. 40 soil.121 This is a fundamental aspect of what kept the social order intact. The constrictions of it not only limited people’s liberties and behaviour but also gave different social groups unique virtues that outsiders could not adopt.

Political Role – The Fighting Estate

Having a well-fed and strong army was essential during the early modern period.122 Peasants and soldiers had since long been closely linked in Swedish history. It was the peasants who agreed to carry the heavy burden of expanding the kingdom and simultaneously defend it against intruders. Peasants stopped being conscripted by the late seventeenth century and instead agreed to pay for and recruit a permanent army of volunteers, a system otherwise known as the allotment system (indelningsverket).123 However, the system was not perfect as some felt that its organization was not efficient enough. Gustaf III was one of them.124 In 1786, he proposed to incorporate a new arrangement for how soldiers should be fed and cared for when they travelled to and from regimental exercises and during the time spent training. However, this did not come without consequences for the peasantry. The Estates’ discussions on the matter provide a lucid image of what purpose the peasants were believed to have on the political arena and is an example of a subject closely linked with peasants.

“Each One Knows Where the Shoe Pinches”

A proposition signed by the king himself had been given to each speaker of the four Estates. The king proposed to implement a new system called the passevolance-system.125 It meant that each group of recruiting peasants (rote) and peasants who supplied cavalrymen with horses and supplies (rusthållare) should no longer supply the soldiers with provisions such as food, ammunition, money for drinks, forage for the animals, and transport.126 Each recruiting peasant should instead pay a yearly tax that covered these expenses and each peasant who supplied cavalrymen should only

121 The combined simplicity and arduous lifestyle of the peasantry could not be imitated by any of the other social groups. That would be equally irrational and wrong since the ideal of for instance the nobility included being well- born, eloquent, patriotic, and “medborgerlig” (explained by Wolff as “’civic spirit’, from medborgare, ‘citizen’, and the adjective medborgerlig, ‘civic/civil’”), Wolff 2016, pp. 70 & 82. 122 Stadin 2004, p. 292. 123 Glete has pointed out that even though peasants existed as a fourth estate, the Swedish state “could extract more resources from free peasants with parliamentary representation than contemporary European states could extract from unrepresented and often unfree peasants”, Glete 2002, pp. 194–195. On the Swedish military system, see Ericson 1995. 124 More on how Gustaf III renovated the Swedish military, see Eriksson 2011, pp. 305–307. 125 For “passevolans”, see Nordisk familjebok 1888, pp. 848–849. 126 BRP 1786, pp. 65–68; for “rote”, see Nordisk familjebok 1916, p. 986; for “rustning”, see Nordisk familjebok 1916, p. 1259. 41 supply them with two days’ supply of forage. This system was already in use in provinces like Finland and Skåne, but far from all regions in Sweden had adopted it. The king however believed that since the safety and welfare of the kingdom was dependent on a mobile and well trained army, experience had shown that this was only achievable if the soldiers “both march and live as at war.”127 The speaker of the Burgher Estate read the proposition out loud on the 18th of May 1786.128 Their discussion clearly marked out one distinct political privilege that they meant belonged to the peasantry. They were initially positive to the suggestion, but as they started to discuss the matter, problematic issues slowly started to arise. First, the merchant Rahm noted that while the king’s intention was to ease the burdens of the peasantry, they still had to remember that this matter did not concern the Burgher Estate, but primarily the peasantry. Although there were a few burghers who wanted to make a decision straight away, the majority argued that they had to await the peasants’ response and decision. The restaurant keeper Matthias Kewenter got the floor and pointed out that:

the allotment system and the service of war are based on two contracts, the first between His Royal Majesty and the Crown on one hand and the recruiting peasants, the towns and peasants who supply cavalrymen on the other. The second is between these farmers on the one hand and the enrolled horseman, soldier, and boatswain on the other.129

Considering this condition, Kewenter would not make a definitive decision until the “highly esteemed Noble Estate, who best know the science and art of war, and the honourable Peasant Estate, who know the benefits and disadvantages with the passevolance-system, have communicated their thoughts with the venerable Clerical Estate and commendable Burgher Estate.130 What is seen here is the order of estates and estate ideology plainly stated with reference to warfare. The nobleman was the officer who supervised and controlled the activities of war, and the peasant supported the army and its soldiers. Peasants thus had the experience and were therefore entitled to comment on whether the current military system was effective or not. Since it was the peasants who knew the circumstances around this matter, they had a political right and privilege to make their voice heard, even more so than the burghers since they were not part of the fighting estate. Thus, the peasantry’s social dignity fortified and motivated their political role. This way of structuring the argument of what political role the peasantry should have was not new. The burghers similarly used the perceived social dignity of peasantry to legitimize their political

127 BRP 1786, pp. 66–67. 128 Again, this is an example of the practise of keeping records changed as these memorials and written statements normally were not transliterated in the protocols. 129 BRP 1786, p. 87. 130 BRP 1786, p. 89. 42 exclusion in 1720. What had changed, however, is that they now had an exclusive political privilege that they shared with the nobility. Another statement illustrating this perceived relationship was made by Kewenter. In his speech, he exclaimed:

God bless our Swedish soldier from losing the courage of bravery! that with life and blood defend the fatherland, whose peats he has turned and where he among the sheaves leaves a dear wife and beloved children.131

This plainly highlights the burghers’ view on their intimate connection as the word “soldier” in this case in fact could be replaced with “peasant”. Their duties in peacetime were the same, to turn the peats and stack sheaves together with their loving families. The only difference was that the soldier always had to be ready to fight to defend his family, king, and country. A member of the National Board of Trade (Kommerskollegium), the burgher Sacklén, followed in Kewenter’s line of argument and added that he “yesterday afternoon had seen and heard a great deal that others have written and said, that would dissuade, yes, even deter this esteemed Estate, to at least not comment on the passevolance matter before the other Estates have decided.”132 It is obvious that Sacklén was enraged by the things he had heard as he later called these commentators for thugs or ruffians (busar). Either way, this reveals a general attitude that the burghers should not comment on this issue since it did not belong to them. It belonged to the peasants and the noblemen. It was for them to comment on since, as magistrate Béen said: “each one knows where the shoe pinches”.133 Keeping to that which was customary, that is, what the social order dictated, widely influenced all parts of eighteenth century Sweden. However, the system of four estates was not the only social scale within which society was divided. For Cordelia Heß, a scale of binomial pairs was equally important. This meant that while people were divided with reference to social dignity, political roles, and economic functions, a set of predetermined opposites similarly separated and united people in a “dialectical relationship of opposition”. Such pairs could be rich and poor, man and woman, peasant and nobleman. In the latter case, the significance derived from the superior position of the nobleman and the inferior position of the peasant. Yet, together they formed a mutually dependent relationship where both had rights and duties in the fulfilment of a certain goal, but were unequally divided in the tasks which made for its execution. The inequality and separation between a peasant and a nobleman was determined by the logics of estate society where the latter had a higher social dignity than the former. However, the equality between them can be

131 BRP 1786, p. 88. 132 BRP 1786, p. 101. 133 BRP 1786, pp. 102 & 105. 43 discerned through their mutually shared duties as they required each other “in order to develop and enhance their order-specific virtues.” This means that the nobleman was nothing without the peasant and vice versa.134 The burghers’ protocols verifies this socially designed logic as central to how they understood the peasantry’s place in the social order which simultaneously determined the political role they should have. A role dependent on the assistance from the noblemen.

Peasant Patriotism

As most clergymen lived in close proximity to and met peasants on a daily basis, they knew their hardships and suffering well, and they spoke of the passevolance-system as if they knew its merits and faults better than the two other Estates did. The Clerical Estate’s protocols from 1720 did not contain any traces of discussions where the clergymen patented matters to be of a “peasant nature” apart from domestic financial matters that only might be discussed in the Secret Committee. Yet, by 1786, they began to establish matters of foreign as well as domestic political importance as belonging to the peasantry and their political representatives. While the peasantry had always been the ones who supported and fed the king’s soldiers, they had not been given such a central and decisive position of authority as they were in 1786. This not only reveals a change in the political order where peasants now were given a far greater political responsibility than in 1720, but the support given by the Clerical Estate reveals a change in how they perceived the peasants’ social dignity which legitimized their new political role. Most clergymen used the same line of reasoning as the burghers, arguing that they had to wait. Two main arguments for this being a peasant matter are found at the base of this justification. Firstly, they believed that the matter belonged to the peasants because they were the ones who provided the king’s soldiers with provisions. Dean Wallin argued, similar to the merchant Rahm and Kewenter, that the clergymen had to restrain themselves “since this matter directly concerns the highly-esteemed Noble Estate and the honourable Peasant Estate”. The matter rested on the contracts signed by the crown, the recruiting peasants, and the peasants who supplied cavalrymen.135 The Dean Ekerman even said that it was “precarious” to accept this proposition before having heard what the peasants had to say since they better knew the circumstances tied to this matter.136 Secondly, the clergymen heeded the patriotism innately stored within the peasantry. In Adolfsson’s investigation on the clergy’s documentation of the lives and customs of the peasantry,

134 Heß 2013, pp. 190 & 218. 135 PRP 1786, pp. 39–40. 136 PRP 1786, p. 47. 44 she describes that an ideal image of the rural peasantry included that they should strive to be rational, virtuous, and patriotic.137 Leaving it up for the peasants to decide whether to adopt the new military system was therefore partly rationalized by their notion of peasant patriotism and virtue. What this patriotism included is grasped as the Dean Ekerman emphasized what consequences the king’s proposed changes would have. Speaking about the relationship between peasant and soldier, he stated that when peasants “of their own free will, and through affection for their soldier and of compassion for his wife and children, give him food and money for drink during these meetings, is he still not by law or any contract bound to do so.” The peasants had every right to “withdraw their good deeds, if and when he pleases.”138 What Ekerman did was to exemplify how he understood the relationship between peasants and soldiers. It was one surrounded by mutual responsibility and affection for each other. Although, he probably knew that these two parties had many differences which sometimes had violent and sometimes deadly outcomes, it was still the relationship that he wanted them to have. They were supposed to work together and promote that which was for the general protection and benefit of society. Since the matter belonged to the peasants, they had the political responsibility and privilege to make their voice heard before anyone else, a political responsibility enforced by their perceived social dignity as the latter made for the existence of the former. The peasantry should be virtuous and patriotic by being kind and providing for the soldiers, a social contract that if forfeited would devastate the order and harmony of society.

Trusting the Word of a Peasant Based on Experience

According to Mikael Alm, the atmosphere at the Diet of 1786 was tense as the popularity of Gustaf III had run its course and strong oppositions coursed within all the Estates.139 Conversely, the noblemen had never been as appreciative and supportive of the peasants as now, arguing that the well-being of the peasantry effected everyone and everything. The king’s new taxes for providing the soldiers with supplies were both slandered and well received, and this reaction offers a good indication of their thoughts on the peasantry’s political role. It was previously stated that the Peasant Estate to a higher degree relied on the other Estates as sources of information due to their lack of political experience during the late seventeenth century. According to Scherp, this meant that they were forced to humbly ask for advice in all kinds of

137 As to the latter of these traits, patriotism was diametrically opposed to selfishness (egenytta), which she defines as that which was not for the general benefit of society, Adolfsson 2000, pp. 15, 98–103. With reference to Runefelt, virtue can be said to have been loaded with the same sort of moral concepts and ideas, Runefelt 2005, pp. 20, 28 & 33. 138 PRP 1786, p. 47. 139 Alm 2002, p. 59; see also Eriksson 2011, pp. 306–307. 45 matters, which in part explain the other Estates’ belittlement of the Peasant Estate in 1720.140 The Noble Estate’s protocols from 1786 reveal an evident change as they began to utilize the peasants’ competence as political agents. Unlike during earlier Diets, they now received and used information that they in one way or another got from the peasants. By closely reviewing the social rules and realities that encircled the relationship between the peasantry and soldiers, and by explaining the crucial importance of keeping it intact, they gave the peasants not only a certain social dignity, but accordingly justified their political role and trustworthiness. It began with nobleman Nordensköld who eagerly tried to convince his fellow nobles that when a matter of this magnitude was discussed “one have to feel and observe all its edges. One have to examine, investigate, scrutinize, compare, and by no means jump to any conclusions.” The more the matter was in the interest of both the private and public good, he argued, “the more gently it should be treated and tested, the more carefully it should be handled.”141 By way of handling this matter carefully, they depended on and used information picked-up in conversations with the peasants at the Diet and prior to its opening. It was openly said that the peasants in Finland loudly praised the passevolance-system and that “experience is the strongest proof of them all.” Nordensköld also added that he had heard from a peasant in Finland that “when he had asked his brethren back home if they were pleased with the passevolance, they had with a unanimous consent explained their desire to keep an establishment of whose benefit they are increasingly becoming convinced of.” He added that he had indeed heard the same from all the peasants he had asked, coming from both Finland and Skåne.142 That a nobleman spoke to a peasant in order to acquire information about a matter of such grave importance as the military system, and later used and relied on that information to decide how that system should be managed demonstrates a fundamental change in how peasants were perceived. Indeed, the nobility’s attitude towards the peasantry’s political representatives during the late seventeenth century was, in the best of cases, benignly patronizing and they openly sneered at them due to their perceived lowliness and clumsy demeanour. They were unnamed, faceless, and irritating.143 Judging from the sources, for a nobleman to treat and address a peasant in this disrespectful manner in 1786 was highly unlikely, maybe even unthinkable. The peasants were not treated with contempt because they deserved better. Their place in society and in politics had changed from the time of absolutism and since 1720 into something esteemed as valuable instead of irrelevant.

140 Scherp 2013, p. 112. 141 RAP 1786, p. 56. 142 RAP 1786, p. 58. 143 Englund 1989, p. 196. 46

This is further substantiated by another nobleman, Claes de Frietzcky, who approached the relationship between the peasantry and the soldiers. As long as they were on good terms with each other, he argued, the peasant would offer his “goodwill to the soldier, his wife and children, to their support, especially during the soldier’s absence serving the country. This commits the soldier to be thankful and to feel love for the peasant, and by a virtuous and moral existence, making himself more deserving.”144 This condition laid the foundation for the “national spirit” that had always burned inside the Swedish soldier. It encouraged him to obedience and briskness and “with valour dare his life for the fatherland.” But the king’s proposition would surely mean the loss of this “national connection”. They would no longer have any reason to dedicate themselves to each other since the peasants would cease to be the soldiers’ benefactors. “The national spirit perishes, the love for the country is lost, and if I dare to say, the way of government.”145 Even though some noblemen believed that de Frietzcky’s opinions were not good enough to not approve the proposition, his, Nordensköld, and most parts of the Noble Estate found this matter to be on the highest level of importance.146 Their accounts reveal the peasants’ irreplaceability and their significance for the upkeeping of courage, morals, virtues, and for the way of government. They were responsible for not letting the political system crash. Braddick and Walter stipulate that social order “was experienced and created through everyday interactions in which particular behavioural expectations were attached to standardised roles.” These everyday interactions in turn were encircled by inequalities that restricted people from accessing different kinds of power, from sacred and economic power to political power.147 The restrictions that limited the peasants’ scope of political influence in 1720 had definitely widened in 1786. Information collected from peasants were now used as a perfectly sound base upon which to build credible and reliable political arguments which concerned the defence and safety of the kingdom. And it was credible since it had been experienced by peasants which says something fundamental about how the noblemen had started to perceive them. Unlike in 1720, their voice was not only accepted but sought after.

Economic Function – Functionality Threatened

Essentially all matters that have been analysed in this chapter involved the perceived economic role of the peasantry. Both the matter of making the military more effective and the problems associated

144 RAP 1786, p. 60. 145 RAP 1786, p. 60. 146 Out of 598 casted votes, 426 (≈71,3%) were against the proposition and 172 (≈28,7%) voted for it to be approved, RAP 1786, pp. 58 & 74. 147 Braddick & Walter 2001, p. 38. 47 with the crown-distilleries had aspects that brought up and manifested what they were supposed to do with their lives and how that contributed to the public good. These matters will now be treated in further detail.

A Crisis of Economic Function

Runefelt has argued that there were seldom any doubts that agriculture was an industry which could not be neglected during the eighteenth century. It was regarded as the principal industry (modernäring). It was therefore important not to be dependent on importing foreign grain. Whenever shortcomings in the domestic production of grain occurred, it was mainly blamed on the peasants and on them being ignorant and traditionalistic. Runefelt does not discuss whether the peasants’ production of liquor had anything to do with the large amount of imported grain, but the burghers’ protocols show that they saw it as a troublesome reality.148 It was due to the peasants’ proneness to drink instead of work. The burghers’ reasoning initially focused on the fact that liquor was an unnecessary product. The distilleries consumed grain at a pace that forced the government to import foreign grain which made the establishments an ineffective instrument to remedy the deficits in the royal treasury. Consequently, the consumption of alcohol skyrocketed. The burghers believed that the peasantry’s ingestion of liquor was accompanied by great “inconvenience for the general well-being, customs, and health of the people”.149 The social disharmony that arose misdirected the peasants from what they were supposed to do. Instead of cultivating that which was a cornerstone of life itself, they engaged in a non-virtuous living and became unable to work. It was argued earlier that liquor, and perhaps the intoxication that followed, was a privilege that followed with the duties that the peasantry had. If they did not fulfil these duties, they lost a significant part of their virtuousness and usefulness, and their social dignity was devalued. Correspondingly, these duties had to be performed in order to enhance their social dignity. This means that their social dignity and economic function were interdependent of each other, each placed on one end of a scale. Whenever they did not perform their divinely ordained duties (farming) or acted in a non-virtuous way (drinking too much liquor), the scale was set out of balance. Unlike in 1720 when the peasantry’s economic function was not emphasized to any large degree, it was accentuated in 1786. One explanation for this is that the peasantry’s economic function was not disputed, blurred, or threatened in 1720. Rather, it was the political role, and

148 Runefelt 2005, pp. 49–50. 149 BRP 1786, pp. 138–139. 48 consequently the perceived social dignity of the peasantry that was debated due to the birth of what later became a fierce radicalization during the Age of Liberty. Another example where the perceived economic function of the peasantry was emphasized concerned the feeding of their livestock. Since the by-product of making liquor was used as forage and since many peasants could only acquire this at the distilleries which meant long and time- consuming journeys, they lost valuable time which could be used productively elsewhere. From this argument followed that they should instead be allowed to make their own liquor and thus acquire forage without having to travel as to increase their productivity and usefulness. Finally, the peasantry’s economic function was furthermore pointed out as their irreplaceability and importance for the sustenance of the military was emphasized (whether it was by providing soldiers with provisions or by paying taxes). Without them, there would not be a Swedish army.

Idleness and Uselessness

According to the clergymen that Maria Adolfsson has studied, structuring labour on the countryside appropriately to what the social and thus economic order prescribed was a guarantee for their continued existence. The clergymen claimed that a multipurposed division of both time and labour resulted in the devastation of agriculture and consequently made the otherwise prosperous and plentiful Swedish soil into wastelands.150 What these clergymen mainly focused on was whether the peasants engaged in other sources of livelihood than what their economic function dictated. However, even if the division of time that was discussed in 1786 did not concern the peasantry’s means of supporting their families and households, it concerned something equally important. It can be argued that when peasants spent their time doing something that was not coherent with what their economic function specified, they were still working and contributing, even if it was misguided and misdirected. When peasants were drinking, they were not contributing to anything else than to the degeneration of their kind. It only led to the decay of virtue and to a miserable life for them and their children. It meant that the church was unable to produce “hardworking and loyal subjects for the king”, as was their duties to their fellow citizens.151 Furthermore, the Dean Nordin stressed that those who had an alcohol addiction decayed at the same rate as the entire population, and the youth were forced into this miserable addiction. If this continued, the church would not be able to uphold pure customs and the practice of honouring

150 Adolfsson 2000, pp. 187–188. 151 PRP 1786, Appendix 18, pp. 176–177. 49 and praising God, “which should spread out of the church into households and families to create virtuous and useful citizens for society, and hardworking and loyal subjects for the king.”152 The clergymen’s main concern was the taverns that were established all over the countryside where people got drunk. This not only meant that people were unable to work, but also the loss of an entire generation of soon-to-be cultivating peasants. Instead of contributing to the prosperity of the kingdom, this youth were either raised in these taverns or went there in search of entertainment that was “tainted with all kinds of lecherousness”.153 This in turn turned them into scoundrels and they were contaminated with “a mature and evil poison which constantly pours out of the tavern”.154 In sum, the Clerical Estate’s perception of the peasantry’s economic function was that they should not do anything else than what their assigned tasks demanded, that is, to be hardworking and produce the foodstuff that made life possible.

Breaking the Covenant with God

According to historian Johan Holm, identity is formed in relation to that which affects and guide the life of an individual or group.155 While I agree that identity is naturally influenced by what its proprietor does or does not, I do not concede that it is solely determinative for its appearance or content. Instead, by following Maza’s argument that an identity can only take form as long as it is perceived and interpreted by another, the peasantry’s perceived identity was partly determined by their perceived economic function. What the other Estates believed should guide their lives when they discussed the matter of the passevolance-system exemplifies this, what they should do was to provide for the army by means of farming and therein be useful. The Noble Estate focused a great deal on how peasants should act to be useful. Like the other Estates, they understood that it was impossible to forbid liquor as “old habits retain its plotted dominion and the farmer believes that he must refine the crop which he has been blessed with by his sweat and toil.”156 Their economic function was consequently revealed as the noblemen stated that peasants attained their constitution and growth through their hard work, their comfort establishing their prosperity.157 The same balance between dignity and function that the burghers experienced was similarly apparent to the noblemen, seeing it as a fundamental aspect of the peasantry’s existence and purpose. The main problem, however, was that they were led astray, away “from cultivating” which turned them into “free scoundrels, unfit for work”, as de Frietzcky

152 PRP 1786, Appendix 18, pp. 176–177. 153 PRP 1786, p. 118. 154 PRP 1786, p. 118. 155 Holm 2008, p. 215; Maza 2003, p. 6. 156 RAP 1786, pp. 183 & 192. 157 RAP 1786, pp. 8–9. 50 argued.158 Their unsatisfactory work had now turned their forefathers’ soil into wastelands that pushed people to seek a better livelihood outside Sweden’s borders. At this point, it is important to note what the noblemen believed happened when the peasantry’s duties were not fulfilled and when they did not seek their livelihood from the ancient soil which they had inherited from their forefathers. Much like the other Estates, they believed that their virtue and the “dwelling of well-being” were misplaced. They all became “depraved scoundrels” and “miserable covenant-breakers” when they did not keep to what they were supposed to do, that is, tilling the earth and plough the fields.159 They were from birth bound to the soil on which they lived and should farm, and it was a social contract drafted not by them, but by God. Breaking that covenant was not only an offense towards their fellow brethren and every Swedish subject, it was a crime against their own nature, a nature created and designed by God.

Summary

According to Carlotta Wolff, concepts are “like shells or empty baskets which are loaded with different significations in different historical contexts or even situations”.160 Although not empty, the Burgher, Clerical and Noble Estates added ideas and significations to the three respective baskets containing an image of what a peasant was in 1786. The protocols show that the peasantry’s social dignity operated in the same way as in 1720. It motivated their political role and economic function. However, their perceived economic function was also used to actively motivate their social dignity and political role. For instance, when the Clerical Estate discussed the peasantry’s problematic relationship with liquor, an ideal image of a harmonious and balanced interplay between living virtuously and fulfilling the economic obligations set by the logics of estate society appeared. Both served as central pillars for the peasantry’s ideal existence. By not achieving these goals, as expressed by the Burgher and Noble Estates, the scale was out of balance. This logic was equally fundamental to estate society in 1720, however, the difference is that the peasantry’s economic function was threatened in 1786 in a way that it was not at the beginning of the Age of Liberty. The social, political, and economic circumstances around 1786 indicates an emerging trend where the peasantry’s economic function was expressed as more important than before. By now, it is possible to see that the Estates’ perceptions of what a peasant was both remained stagnant and changed. One prevailing perception was that they should be hard-working and willingly accept the duties and responsibilities assigned to them. This was however complicated by

158 RAP 1786, pp. 186, 192 & 205–206. 159 RAP 1786, pp. 186, 192 & 205–206. 160 Wolff 2016, p. 16–19; see also Anderson 1991. 51 their increasing negligence of virtue and excessive drinking, making it difficult to fulfil their responsibility to pursue and foster a new growing generation of peasants. The changing aspects were mainly expressed with reference to their perceived political role. New political responsibilities were emphasized as the Estates recognized the peasantry’s important and irreplaceable role for the army and for the governmental system. A new trend emerged where they were given political responsibilities that they did not need to ask for. The noblemen’s inclination to use and actively ask for the peasants’ opinions when it came to matters of national security was also new. Looking back on the previous Diet, it is evident the peasants had undergone a significant political growth. As to who was a peasant, some novelties can be noted. The politically active peasants were undoubtedly noticed as they were recognized to have certain political responsibilities by all the other Estates. An important distinction was also made between members of the peasantry who provided for the king’s soldiers and those who did not, effectively establishing three layers: peasant politicians, peasants linked to the military, and the rest. Considering the old practice of perceiving all Swedish people as subjects under the king and the emerging discourse of citizenship during the late eighteenth century, these three groups can be separated into two ends of a spectrum. On the one side, there were the peasant politicians who in the capacity of that state were regarded as peasant citizens. On the other end, there were the peasant subjects, that is, those not included in activities of the Diet and therefore not active citizens as defined by the prevailing philosophy of citizenship.161 Lastly, the acknowledgement of these groups of peasants suggests a change in how the Estates perceived the peasantry, and consequently indicate how the modern regime of selfhood had begun to influence their self-perception. This is seen in how the protocols were crafted as more detail was given to recording what was said.162 But also in who was considered a peasant. Whereas the entire peasant population was referred to as “the peasant” by the noblemen in 1720, they were now more thoroughly separated by all Estates, for instance when it came to the passevolance-system. The peasants should now listen to an inner-voice that spoke of a beloved native soil which indicate the importance of the inside of a person. The peasants’ dignity and esteem derived from within rather than from somewhere else. Finally, the noblemen’s use of information obtained from peasant Dietmen and peasants on the Finnish countryside indicate that individual accounts had become more important than before.

161 Wolff 2016, p. 122. 162 See for example footnote 98 & 128. 52

CHAPTER IV – THE DIET OF 1823

Much had happened since the Diet of 1786. Gustaf III had been killed in 1772, his son Gustav IV Adolf was dethroned in 1809, and the Frenchman and Marshal of France Jean Baptiste Bernadotte took over the kingship from his adoptive father Karl XIII in 1818 (the brother of the assassinated Gustaf III). Apart from the coming and goings of kings, a new constitution where the power was divided between the king and the Estates was implemented in 1809, severely limiting the king’s political influence.163 But society at large had also changed. The emerging new public sphere had according to Jürgen Habermas allowed for a more open discussion about politics, society, and identity to take place all over Western Europe. While this did not necessarily mean that people in Sweden were more equal, it did mean that the debate about the “scheme of things” could be conducted more freely at every level.164

Social Dignity – Betterment and Relative Dignity

Currents of social change are plainly evident in the Estates’ protocols from 1823.165 One topic that all the Estates discussed is primarily analysed, namely liquor. It has been chosen due to the central role that liquor played in the Estates’ imaginaries of what a peasant was in 1786 and will furthermore illuminate how this close relationship changed as society at large did. Other matters that were exclusively discussed by some of the Estates are also analysed. The Clerical Estate’s greeting speech to the Peasant Estate is analysed as it highlights a central aspect of what constituted their perception of the peasant ideal: peasant manliness. The other example taken from the Noble Estate’s protocols is a discussion about the French metric system which reveals how they had re- evaluated the peasantry’s social dignity since 1720.

Disbanding the Logic of Peasant–Soil–Liquor

Agriculture and farming were commonly arranged in relation to the conditions of the production of liquor during the early modern period, and its production was naturally intimately connected with those who produced the main ingredient for its refinement.166 It was noted that the burghers, according to Kalle Bäck, did not pay too much attention to the social ramifications that the

163 Ekedahl 2010, p. 20. 164 Habermas 1984, pp. 37–42, 45–51, 61 & 72; Jansson 2008, p. 219. 165 Pointing to traceable social differences and upward movements within the peasantry, historian Sven Olofsson argues that one explanation to this development was because some peasants were more industrious, market-oriented, and thus more successful than others in the beginning of the nineteenth century, Olofsson 2011, pp. 18–19. 166 Bäck 1984, p. 183. 53 peasants’ alcohol consumption had during the eighteenth century. However, the analysis showed that they by 1786 had begun to worry about the peasantry’s excessive liquor consumption. The burghers had a difficult time dealing with the early nineteenth century peasants and expressed this worry in 1823. Their worries stemmed from a realization that privileges previously given and legitimized by the logics of estate society now were outdated. This is well demonstrated by their attitude towards liquor, which have been proven was a fundamental aspect of what they believed that a peasant was in 1786. The formula of peasant–soil–liquor had begun to loosen. They no longer believed that liquor was something only peasants should be allowed to produce just because they produced the grain which made it possible. While they did not have a lengthy discussion on how the production should be managed, this concern stood out among what was propagated. The burgher Hambreus made a statement whether people in cities should have the same rights to produce liquor as the peasants. Using his own city Söderhamn as an example, his argument, which was widely agreed upon, was that the city “admittedly lack land, but I can nevertheless not find any reason why the right to produce liquor should be conjoint with land. The need for liquor is shared by those who own and those who do not own any land”. Therefore, the right to produce “should, as far as I am concerned, be based on the need and not on anything else”.167 Reviewing the Estate’s discourse from the Diet of 1786, a remarkable change is noticed here. They had previously emphasized the vitalness of letting peasants make their own liquor since the by-product was essential for feeding their livestock. Now, the three-step logic of peasant–soil–liquor did not apply. It was a logic that excluded burghers and was therefore unfair. The production of liquor should no longer be a privilege exclusively reserved for the peasants. While the logics of estate society still dominated, and the unequal social structure upon which the orders of society were constructed to a large degree still permeated the way people perceived each other in early nineteenth Sweden, the burghers had begun to question its composition. Why should the production of a drink serve as a privilege tied to a certain social group and disqualify others when the need for it was spread over all social groups? The ideology of estate society could no longer provide a legitimate answer, indicating that people had begun to perceive each other in a new way. The reason why the burghers desired to also produce liquor and why they needed it was not pointed out. It is however likely that they as burghers saw the potential economic benefits as a driving factor. The context in which they expressed these views originally concerned whether to extend or limit the peasantry’s privileges to produce liquor. However, while discussing to what degree restrictions were fair or not, the burghers felt that they were the ones who were treated

167 BRP 1823, vol. I, p. 256. 54 unfairly, and simultaneously reveal how they perceived the peasantry. They now shared needs and rights that was equally central to the burghers. Apart from the now loosened relationship between the peasants, soil, and liquor, clear cut and explicit comments on the peasantry’s social dignity are difficult to find in the Burgher Estate’s protocols from 1823. This does not mean that the peasants’ social dignity, or the social order at large did not matter. It simply means that it was mainly expressed through other frequencies which at face value primarily concerned their political role and economic function. For that reason, I present those discussions in the corresponding subchapters. However, as will be explained later in this chapter, social order and the peasantry’s social dignity was very much at the very centre of the burghers’ imaginary.

Peasant Manliness

The Swedish clergymen certainly perceived the peasantry as a bunch who needed and loved liquor.168 However, the changing attitudes towards the matter over time have not been examined, neither what groups of peasants they believed deserved liquor. Reviewing the history of peasants and liquor, the clergymen understood that liquor could not be forbidden in 1786, a realization they by 1823 knew all too well. It was simply too deeply rooted in the peasantry’s social behaviour and dignity. However, almost making a 180-degree turnaround, the Clerical Estate started to stress the fairness of letting more peasants make their own alcohol and put emphasis on treating peasants equally regardless of what sort of peasant it concerned. The peasantry’s social dignity had somehow ascended to a level of greater value. From the clergymen’s point of view, the benefits of its refinement were for the first time not only viewed in a negative light. They first stated that they understood that liquor was a product impossible to dispose of. Dean Grevillius pointed this out as he said that liquor, “after many vicissitudes, has been declared a product of necessity in our cold and harsh climate”. He added that its production was “an important contribution to the feeding of cowsheds”. That not just the peasants could refine the grain they sowed seemed to be a newfound realization as well since the right to produce liquor had “attracted the highest liberalité, since the Estates also can (as they say) refine the countryman’s production of grain.”169 Suggesting that not only peasants should have the privilege to produce liquor, it could be possible that they thought of the burghers, thus aligning themselves with their antagonistic approach towards the peasants’ exclusive privileges. However, Dean Grevillius explained that it

168 See also Adolfsson 2000, p. 263. 169 PRP 1823, vol. I, pp. 137–138. 55 concerned “another class of citizens, whose benefit hitherto have been overlooked and unattended, and who, as farmers, lack this right. I am talking about crofters.”170 According to Kekke Stadin, crofters (torpare) were a group of peasants socially inferior to other groups of landholding or renting peasants during the seventeenth and eighteenth century. The reason was that they were always in a position of dependence and was therefore always bound to the grace of someone else.171 If liquor was important for the “labouring northerner”, Grevillius continued, it was likewise important for those who not only worked for themselves but for other peasants as well. Crofters therefore needed liquor just as much as other peasants since they often had scarce supplies of forage. “Harsh and unfair it thus seems to me, that they should be denied the right to produce liquor.”172 Crofters were currently forced to either make liquor in secret and thus illegally, or to buy what they needed at “the privileged producer’s fixed price […] or be forced to turn to the taverns.” The latter of these alternatives, it was argued, would drive them away from “lawfulness and morality”. Yet, they still feared that if crofters were permitted to produce their own alcohol, they would easily fall into a criminal behaviour.173 A clear distinction was thus made between the social dignity of propertied or landed peasants and crofters, where the latter indeed needed, and to a degree deserved the privilege in question. But they were more likely to give in to the desire of getting drunk and had a lack of self-control, thus possessing a lower grade of social dignity. The social dignity expressed by the clergymen certainly derived from the religious doctrines they preached and followed. Runefelt states that the existing religious doctrines stated that God had initially created man without any internal conflicts. However, with the fall of man, man’s reason was forever weakened which gave way for sensual desires. This consequently led people to believe that virtue was produced when reason controlled the will of a person.174 It was reasonable to let crofters produce liquor due to what their living conditions and social dignity stipulated. But to deserve this, they also had to be led by reason and virtue. The Clerical Estate, for instance, instructed the Peasant Estate in their greeting speech to live a life guided by contentment as God had decided what privileges to bestow onto everyone.175 Being content was therefore the reasonable and virtuous way of living a life as a peasant since it maintained the divinely ordained social order. Historian Torkel Jansson explains that by the early nineteenth century, “national aspirations to carve out new identities” were emerging and that this is proved by the frequent use of the word

170 PRP 1823, vol. I, pp. 137–138. Crofters were peasants who rented a plot of land either from wealthier peasants or from the crown. For “torpare”, see Nordisk Familjebok 1919, pp. 418–419. 171 The term odal and odalbonde were often used referring to a peasant who owned the land he worked, thus given a high social dignity, Stadin 2004, pp. 265–268 & 293. 172 PRP 1823, vol. I, pp. 137–138. 173 PRP 1823, vol. I, pp. 139, 140 & 147. 174 Runefelt 2005, p. 27. 175 PRP 1823, vol. I, p. 27. 56

“Swedish”. Rather than conforming or identifying with the king, people from all social layers became more individualistic and focused on their own self-fulfilment.176 Demonstrated by historian David Tjeder, the concept manliness was correspondingly something moralists continuously used and worried about as they found it in a constant state of crisis.177 Some prevailing themes of manliness, explains Susanna Sjödin Lindenskoug, was to be Godfearing, honest, self-controlled, and responsible.178 The clergymen’s greeting speech suggests that these two concepts were intimately linked when it came to how they perceived the peasantry, as was the emerging nationalism which their speech also hints at. It was, for example, the peasantry’s duty to protect the kingdom from intruders, and as Swedes, they had the finest of examples as their forefathers rather “buried themselves beneath the gravel of the ruins of the Fatherland, than to as cowardly slaves carry a foreign yoke.” Therefore, as they opened “the annals which bear witness to this, one feel proud to be Swedish.”179 Performing these duties consequently made the peasantry act as Swedes should and since the “honourable Peasant Estate finds its origins from these manly ancestors, the Clerical Estate, who closest know their turn of mind, do not for a moment doubt the commendable spirit that still lives within the Swedish peasantry’s chest.”180 Since men, according to Tjeder, were perceived as manlier in the past and the key laid “in looking backwards in history to find the true ideals” and “the real men”, the clergymen effectively did just that.181 The clergymen looked into the peasantry’s past and saw honest, Godfearing, self-controlled, responsible, and virtuous peasants who should serve as an ideal for the peasantry in 1823. They had been criticized for being recalcitrant, retrogressive, and for holding on to the simple times of Catholicism in 1720.182 In 1823, however, these undesirable traits no longer characterized what a peasant was and should be. The clergymen believed that the peasantry had an inner capacity to elevate themselves and realize an ideal state of peasant manliness.

An Enlightened Peasantry

As a new century dawned, the nobility seriously needed to consider how to meet the new times with new ideas, knowledge, and order which, according to Bo Eriksson, put them in a worrisome position as the prime and first Estate. They now had to decide how to relate to the demands for

176 Jansson 2008, pp. 194–195. This also conforms well to Wahrman’s theory on the modern sense of “the self”, where “identity is the essence of difference”, Wahrman 2004, pp. xi–xii. 177 Tjeder 2003, pp. 286–288. 178 Sjödin Lindenskoug 2011, p. 138; see also Sennefelt 2011, pp. 142–155 & 277–279. 179 PRP 1823, vol. I, p. 28. 180 PRP 1823, vol. I, p. 28. 181 Tjeder 2003, pp. 286–288. 182 See chapter II. 57 social and political reforms, equality, freedom and citizenship for all.183 The image of what a peasant was became more complex as a greater awareness of its diversity slowly emerged.184 The Noble Estate’s outlook on the peasantry’s relation to alcohol, and thus perception of their social dignity, changed in two main ways. Firstly, their discussion on punishments for drunkenness illustrates a notion of relative social dignity, an idea of possible betterment and advancement for the peasantry. Nobleman Michaël von Hohenhausen professed that drunkenness indeed was a “destructive pleasure that weaken and may ruin an uneducated class of people”. He continued saying that they needed “a better education, a true morality”, hence posing the question: “how soon can we hope to achieve this goal?”185 Some, however, believed that the abuse of alcohol had diminished in the kingdom, one of whom was Georg von Heijne who during the last 30 years had seen a significant decline of intoxicated people. He affirmed that it was very likely that those who could not resist being drunk “seek to numb their pains, which sometimes can be forgiven” but that they generally “have lost the urge to drink”. Count Fredric Bogislaus von Schwerin believed that this change derived from “an awakening of a sense of honour, or perhaps from the example set by the more educated classes.” Harder punishments, most noblemen agreed, would only bring the “lower classes” to resume the malicious desire to drink.186 It was even argued that it did not matter whether the peasants were drunk or not. They now knew how to conduct themselves in a suitable manner. Nobleman von Hartmansdorff claimed that local judges at local judicial assemblies were constantly surrounded by peasants “who are drunk, without being insulted”.187 The peasants were no longer restrained by their simple ways and low intellect. It was possible for them to improve, to move into an enlightened condition guided by morality and honour. The second change is how the noblemen now made an even clearer difference between peasant and peasant.188 Similar to the clergymen, they discussed crofters’ right to produce liquor, however in a more negative way. Crofters were not as reliable as other socially superior groups of peasants. They were perceived to inhabit a social dignity not as pure based on their desire for liquor which often made them forget to provide for their families. Nobleman Rothlieb, for instance, argued that if they were given the liberty to freely make liquor, it would lead to “addiction and to an extreme use thereof”. The peasants they rented land from would not only have to procure the necessary

183 Eriksson 2011, p. 347. 184 In Olofsson’s study of peasant communities in Jämtland, he explains that the social differences within the peasantry developed and were noticed as they began occupying themselves with things that were not traditionally theirs, Olofsson 2011, pp. 18–19. 185 RAP 1823, vol. VI, part I, p. 79. 186 RAP 1823, vol. VI, part 1, pp. 84 & 93. 187 RAP 1823, vol. I, p. 151. 188 The only other time when a distinction like this was made between different groups of peasants and where their social dignity was given different content and significance was in 1720 when the burghers discussed how peasants should and should not dress, see Chapter II. 58 firewood, “but would not unfrequently have to provide his rescue of grain, since he inconsiderately would transform his own little granary into liquor.” Nobleman Carl Johan von Becker added that it was not easy for crofters “who live far from the city to sell his grain and thus buy liquor”. It was however “quite easy for him to at home through the burning process transform it into liquor, whereof the consequence is that he later in the year with wife and children will be in want, and maybe starve.”189 They were consequently not trustworthy enough to be given this liberty. Suffering from a lower degree of literate Dietmen, peasants were often looked down upon and sneered at, especially by the nobility during the late seventeenth century.190 The protocols from 1720 similarly strengthened that image as the peasantry’s political representatives were excluded from the Secret Committee due to their inability to understand matters that were not in Swedish. This rationale endured the social and political changes of the eighteenth century, and the noblemen’s perception of the Swedish peasantry did not alter as to what they were believed to understand. However, the underlying attitude towards the peasantry’s ignorance had changed. This is presented in a discussion regarding a proposition put forth by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien). It concerned whether to adopt the French metric system. Just as in 1720, the peasantry’s lack of knowledge was emphasized. But it was not made into an argument to exclude or diminish their intelligence in any way. Instead, it was used to emphasize that they should not be treated unfairly. The noblemen argued both in favour and against the new system, however, Baron Jacob Cederström pointed out one important aspect. He admitted that the French system probably was the most perfected one as it was “based on a certain part of the northern meridian, which is the same for the whole world”. Nevertheless, it contained a great deal of foreign words “which are inseparable from the French system and which only the scientist with ease can overcome. […] For what ordinary Swedish peasant can comprehend how big a ten- millionth part of the earth’s northern meridian is?” He added that if the peasants did not understand this measurement, they would most likely think themselves cheated. It was important to remember that as long as the peasants payed taxes based on this system, the noblemen must not give them any reason to fear that they were paying more than they should.191 There are two things to make note of here. First, the peasants did not understand the foreign words and concepts which really only the scientist could understand. Second, a notion of understanding and compassion for the peasants is displayed since their perceived social dignity prescribed that they should not be treated unfairly. The peasants could not help that they did not understand French and should therefore not be treated as a burden. However, there is still an aspect

189 RAP 1823, vol. V, pp. 518 & 575. 190 Scherp 2013, p. 112; Schück & Stjernquist 1985, p. 127; Söderberg 2007, pp. 332–334. 191 RAP 1823, vol. IV, pp. 670 & 675. 59 of incapacity present since the noblemen had to act in a paternalistic way, saving the peasantry from being forced to use a system they did not understand. A fundamental change had taken place. Peasants were not an “abstract thing”, as Count von Schwerin specified, but people “who possess a sense of weal and woe, and of all that which affects people.”192 Although ignorant and uneducated, they possessed a social dignity higher than the ones who were excluded from the Secret Committee in 1720. Their social dignity was more dynamic rather than static.

Political Role – Reconsidering Peasant Participation

There are numerous examples from the Estates’ protocols that would each demonstrate how the Estates’ perceived what political role the peasants had in 1823. However, there are a few that stand out from the rest, demonstrating both stagnant and changing attitudes towards the now more diverse and multifaceted peasantry. Two examples have been taken from the burghers’ protocols. One concentrates on encouraging political awareness among the peasantry, and one concerns how the Peasant Estate managed to represent and convey their constituencies concerns and interests. For the clergymen, a discussion on how to improve the education system is analysed. Finally, the noblemen’s greeting speech is analysed, as well as a discussion on whether the peasants should be allowed to have their clerks present at the registry office (kanslibetjäning).

Stirring Public Opinion Among the Peasantry

By looking back and reviewing the findings from 1720, it is evident that the burghers believed that the peasantry’s political role should be heavily restrained since they did not possess the required knowledge to be granted the same political privileges as the other Estates. In 1823, it is similarly evident that this condition had changed. The protocols instead provide a dual image of how they perceived the peasants’ relation to politics, one promoting the peasants’ involvement and dependability as political agents, and one standing in direct opposition to that assertion. The first example showing this concerned the state’s practise of regularly informing the inhabitants of political events and values from the pulpits at church services. Historians Michael Bregnsbo and Pasi Ihalainen describes that these pulpits had a status as “formulators and educators of the official values and what they assumed to be the shared identities of political communities”.193 The importance of these events could therefore not be disputed, as the burghers argued on the 5th of May 1823. They believed that it was important for the lower classes to engage and integrate

192 RAP 1823, vol. V, p. 26. 193 Bregnsbo & Ihalainen 2011, p. 107. 60 themselves in politics but, as the burgher Hambreus commented, that the congregations’ interest for political statutes was unfortunately tepid at best. It was well known that “the congregation hardly wait until the end of the sermon before they head out of the church.” The political announcements should therefore be read out loud before the sermons since the congregation otherwise “would most likely not hear several announcements which are of great importance.”194 Protocols from previous Diets does not reveal any situation where the burghers commented on the congregations’ (hence a wide part of the peasantry) relationship to politics. However, the burghers now believed that it was important to include and make peasant classes, other than the peasant elite, aware what was decided at the Diets so public opinion could be stirred.195 What this suggests is that while the burghers did not pay any attention to what peasants in general knew or not in 1720, they now believed that it was important. It also indicates a greater awareness of people as such, and thus as individuals. While the burghers had acknowledged more peasant groups than the other two Estates at previous Diets, they did not include these groups as important in a political context. Even though these congregations did not have any political influence, it was still regarded as important to inform them of political events and thus in a sense educate them. Apart from this pressing matter, the burghers also believed that it was the responsibility of the Peasant Estate to plead the causes of their fellow peasant brethren, thus fortifying their legitimacy as politicians. The burgher Lenning stated that “the particular thought, that the Peasant Estate’s members have expressed in the Law Committee’s report, seems to me be an expression of the public voice from this part of the public, who through no other way than through the readings in the churches have the opportunity to become aware of the statutes.” And since the Peasant Estate argued, just as the burghers did, that political announcements should be broadcasted before the sermons, they appreciated the peasants’ judgement since it also “well unites with having reverence for religion.”196 This example share some similarities with the noblemen’s use of reports and information gathered from peasants in 1786.197 They were now taken more seriously and their word deemed trustworthy enough to be used to decide the outcome of this matter. There is however another image of the peasants. One that challenged their trustworthiness and political maturity. A request to extend the peasantry’s right to trade by sea in Blekinge and Skåne was raised by the Peasant Estate. On October 31st, the burgher Winberg said that the proposition must have been made “by a person, who like me certainly knows the limited supply of both grain

194 BRP 1823, vol. II, p. 842. 195 This awareness also reveals an aspect of the political culture (that is, the norms, values, symbols, and practices that surrounded and was used in the political interaction) and particularly in this case the interaction between the central power and the local community. More on political culture, see Sennefelt 2001, pp. 17–18. 196 BRP 1823, vol. II, p. 844. 197 See Chapter IV and the passevolance-system. 61 and forest in these provinces”. This meant that the peasantry would “straight away, whether to pay off debts or to purchase new homesteads, cut down all their forests, whereby, since property in this way is ruined, the beautiful province would gradually transform into bare rock […] whereupon so many already exist, and whose number increases with every year.” The reason as to why this was brought up altogether perplexed the burghers since they very well knew that the peasants in Blekinge and Skåne needed the grain and wood for their own sustenance, for example to produce liquor and to feed their livestock. Why then would the “peasantry’s own delegates advocate increased exports of wood-products when it would […] devastate the availability of forests in the county, and thereby impede the recovery of the inhabitants.” The proposition had to be rejected since, as burgher Falkman argued, “it would be most harmful for the peasantry”.198 Having examined the Burgher Estate’s protocols from three Diets during a period of one hundred years, it is evident that their perception of the peasantry’s political role evolved from being one of preferably total exclusion to one where they did not really know what to think or expect. Sure, they had matured to some degree, but it was uncertain whether they had matured enough.

Education in Accordance with Social Dignity

Education, teaching, and institutionalized learning were, according to historians Anne Berg and Hanna Enefalk, invented in the industrialized nation-states of Western Europe during the eighteenth and nineteenth century. These nation-states underwent a knowledge-revolution as the enlightenment and romanticism elicited a new way of thinking about people as mouldable and plastic which had great influence over the development of educational institutions.199 The English school system, argues historian Brian Simon, was during the first decades of the nineteenth century segmented in accordance with the economic, as well as social and political, developments of the time, which often brought about social instability and conflicts.200 Historian Esbjörn Larsson has dealt with the same aspect but in a Swedish context during the period which this chapter concerns. He underlines that the Swedish educational system did not contain one school but several different types of schools, each matching a certain social group in society. One reason for this segmented school system was to uphold the social order that separated rich and poor, high and low.201 The Clerical Estate’s perception of the peasantry’s political role had at earlier Diets been characterized by a notion of tenacity and by a clear idea of what matters naturally belonged to the peasants (such as the passevolance) and which did not (for example matters discussed in the Secret

198 BRP 1823, vol. VI, pp. 523–524 & 526. 199 Berg & Enefalk 2009, p. 5. 200 Simon 1987, pp. 91–92. 201 Larsson 2009, pp. 13–15. 62

Committee). In 1823, the clergymen discussed the school system on several occasions, there among a new method of teaching known as the monitorial system (växelundervisning). In one specific instance, they discussed how to improve the learning of young children in rural parishes, and the peasants’ involvement in matters of this nature was touched upon. The peasants had complained that children all over the country were given too few teaching opportunities and that this hampered their development as healthy and useful citizens – basically criticizing the clergy for not prioritizing their children as highly as children from other social classes.202 Just like in 1720, the lack of knowledge was accentuated as something that outlined what the peasants were allowed to comment on, shown by Professor Fröberg’s emphasis that the Peasant Estate “too little know the real condition of the kingdom’s schools and school system”. They did not know how the education system should be structured since they were not the ones who taught the children. The teachers were clergymen, not peasants. This was further substantiated as Fröberg added that the peasants’ criticism “speaks against their own and the country’s true interests since they anxiously claim” that their children, as well as the children of crofters and people living in hill cottages (backstuguhjon), “should be thrown from the admirable labouring class, often without discernment, into the learned or at least the teaching and preaching castes.”203 The example demonstrates that children from peasant classes indeed did not get the same education as children born in higher social classes, and that the peasants found this to be unfair. However, and more importantly, it shows how the clergymen interpreted the peasants’ criticism as an attempt to invert the social order, and doing so by assuming the role as teachers. The clergymen knew how to best teach each child from every social class, and that was done by separating them according to their social dignity and place on the social ladder. A system where a peasant’s child was taught in the same way as a child from the learned classes was disruptive as it would blend what was supposed to be kept separate. The peasants should not and were not able to rationally and insightfully decide in matters like this since they were peasants and would consequently make ill-conceived and, above all, wrong decisions. Their perceived political role did not include deciding in matters of educational nature.

Honest Swedish “Dannemän”

Bo Eriksson has written about how the economic and social transformations of the early nineteenth century affected how politics could be carried out. It became increasingly difficult for the Noble

202 Notice how the peasants adopted concepts that otherwise were frequently used by the other Estates, for example usefulness, and similarly spoke of development within the peasantry. 203 PRP 1823, vol. IV, p. 68. 63

Estate to confront ideas of equality, freedom, and social and political reforms which spread all over Europe.204 The peasantry and Peasant Estate were gaining ground which the noblemen did not fail to take notice of in 1823. An example of this is found in their greeting speech to the Peasant Estate which essentially was a lesson in how to be a good and responsible Dietman. The speech followed a simple logic where one major theme guided their reasoning. The peasants now had greater political responsibilities than before and had to be made aware of these duties. First, however, they began with using a word which have not been seen in the protocols from the earlier Diets, namely dannemän.205 This word is important to take note of as it was a concept exclusively used to describe, mostly male, members of the peasantry. A danneman was someone esteemed to be capable, reliable, and honest.206 It very much served as an ideal image of the peasant, and the noblemen’s use of the word can both be interpreted as them praising them for possessing these qualities, but also as an encouragement to be like dannemän. By establishing the foundation of the speech in this way, what they continued talking about illuminates how the perceived political role of peasants was motivated by their social dignity. The duties spoken of concerned both political ones and everyday duties of farming the land, that is, the perceived traditional lifetime achievement of the peasants. More now than in 1786, the noblemen argued that they shared a joint responsibility in the protection of the kingdom and therefore deserved mutual respect and honour for upholding and preserving the glory of the kings of old. They spoke of themselves and peasants as the “joint participants of the native soils’ cultivation” and that they were responsible for the “personal defence of the fatherland’s glory, freedom, and independence”. The close and ancient union between the two groups was emphasized as their forefathers always “warded off foreign yoke from the shoulders of the free inhabitants of the north […] which raised the Vasas’ immortal patriarch upon Sweden’s throne”.207 The attitudes and imaginaries of the noblemen’s predecessors from almost 100 years earlier seems to be entirely forgotten. The relationship that we know was lacerated by contempt and annoyance was now illustrated as a union filled with respect and honour. This might have been a strategy to gain political points and to get in the Peasant Estate’s good graces. But even if that was the case, the noblemen in 1720 would never steep so low as to speak of an intimate union between peasants and noblemen that underpinned the undying glory of the ancient royal house of the Vasa kings.

204 The fact that they had lost their exclusive right to hold the highest political offices in 1809 and that the Swedish middle classes were up-and-coming and claimed more and more place in the economic and social sectors did not make it easier, Eriksson 2011, pp. 347 & 370–371; see also Carlsson 1973, p. 51; Wolff 2016, pp. 12–13. 205 RAP 1823, vol. I, p. 61. 206 For ”danneman”, see Nordisk familjebok 1906, p. 1305. 207 RAP 1823, vol. I, p. 62. 64

As they moved on, they kept using this historical narrative and focused on what duties and responsibilities the peasants had and ought to remember during the Diet that laid before them. The passage bellow encapsulates a sense of concern as well as seriousness as to how they wanted the peasants to act and think, as well as reveal that they by 1823 had an entirely new political role:

Honest Dannemän, worthy descendants of the throne, freedom, and the fatherland’s defenders, remember what your forefathers were before you, the precious duties they have bestowed upon you, the renewed duties you have assumed, the increased responsibilities to which you have committed, what you owe yourselves, your brethren back home, and your descendants; recognize the value of the benefits which you own before your peers in all other countries in Europe, […] to participate in the legislation of the fatherland; in the distribution of its burdens; in voluntary obligation for its defence; in honour of its bliss and its reputation.208

Even though the newly given duties and responsibilities were not specified, this section clearly shows that the noblemen believed that the peasants had a political role that did not equal anything seen in the protocols from the earlier Diets. They still retained the duties of their forefathers, but they also had new ones and had committed to new responsibilities which they had to fulfil for the sake of their fellow peasants, their children, and for later generations. Charlotta Wolff explains that during the later parts of the eighteenth century, the nobility believed that a citizen was mainly understood “as one who participated actively in the activities of the Diet and that the nation was consequently primarily made up of these active citizens”.209 This meant that whereas the politically active peasants were regarded as citizens, just like any other nobleman at the Diet, all other groups of peasants were not. They were excluded from this community, making them socially and politically inferior. Judging from the content of this speech, however, by 1823 the concept had come to mean something more than just being politically active. In the end of the speech, it was stated that the peasants must not “forget that privileges are never given without corresponding duties” and that “the secure preservation of the former is only based on careful fulfilment of the latter”. Therefore, may “hereinafter as hitherto, reverence for the religion’s holy truths, devotion for the government, obedience of laws, care for all citizens’ mutual rights, love for the law-governed freedom, feel for the defence of independence, be the subject for the honourable Peasant Estate’s endeavours”.210 The noblemen thus expressed their notion of citizenship as something all peasants had and deserved, and it was the political role of the Peasant Estate to make sure that the rights which this citizenship entailed were protected and upheld. The speech proves a shift in how the peasants’ political role was perceived. Considering that the Swedish nobility struggled due to the economic and social changes of the early nineteenth century,

208 RAP 1823, vol. I, p. 63. 209 Wolff 2016, p. 122. 210 RAP 1823, vol. I, p. 63. 65 it was only natural to urge the peasants to realize their new political role and privileged situation with the outmost seriousness. It was a political role that no other peasant population in Europe had. The rhetoric of political immaturity was gone and replaced with a notion of capability, reliability, and honesty. It was replaced with an imaginary where peasants were politically mature. Even though they had to be lectured, they were now perceived as knowledgeable and responsible enough to share the same burdens as the other Estates. The politically active peasants in 1823 were not the same as the ones in one hundred years before. They had grown and now filled the shoes which in 1720 were too big. They were now the dannemän.

Economic Function – A Changing Peasantry

The eighteenth century ended with three major revolutions: the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the English Industrial Revolution. According to economic historian Lennart Schön, these revolutions brought along new libertarian and liberal principles that broke with earlier ideas of how to organize society, as well as changed the institutional frameworks and economies of early nineteenth century states. The French Revolution broke the old system of lineage as the determining factor for structuring society and introduced a social order where the inalienable freedom and liberty of the individual was the driving notion.211 Thomas Keith points out that the French Revolution encouraged “a cult of self-expression and a desire for emancipation from the constraints of social convention”, and later during the Napoleonic age, “freedom was seen as individualistic self-realization.”212 It is in this context that the Estates discussed the economic function of the peasantry in 1823. A dawning new world where the logics and boundaries of estate society started to be outdated. The subjects that are analysed below touches upon the diversion and restructuring of the economic order due to new economic pursuits and changes within the social order. The examples form the burghers’ protocols are their discussion on the official incorporation of a certain group of peasants into their Estate and on extended peasantry’s rights to trade. As for the Clerical and Noble Estates, a discussion on peddling (gårdfarihandel) is analysed in both cases.

211 Schön 2010, p. 89. 212 Many of these guiding principles could also be seen in places like Germany, Britain, and Denmark where philosophers and influential thinkers such as Søren Kierkegaard and John Stuart Mill argued for the importance of individual choice as opposed to a society where “externally imposed codes of values” steered people in all life choices, Keith 2009, pp. 10–11. The transition from ancien régime of identity to the modern regime of selfhood had taken hold and identity was now the “essence of difference”, Wahrman 2004, p. xii. 66

Social Dignity Defined by Economic Function

Considering the emerging public sphere in which all sorts of people were allowed to engage and debate, it would be an easily made assumption that the burghers would invite to such conversations and encourage general participation in all sorts of matters. However, while the protocols show a nascent change in this direction, the burghers mainly felt threatened by the increasingly urbane and commercial peasantry in 1823. They were worried over what was happening with their own Estate, a worry that stemmed from the peasantry’s upward progression in the economic sphere. The burghers still believed that peasants should find their livelihood in activities connected to the land. But stronger than before, they argued that peasants should not engage in trade and craftsmanship inside cities. The importance of towns grew considerably in the nineteenth century. New nodes for industries, trade, transport, and other services grew rapidly which accelerated the urbanization process.213 The peasantry’s right to trade within cities had previously been restricted as it was a privilege of the burghers. However, the other Estates believed that these privileges should be extended to peasants as well, infuriating and encouraging the Burgher Estate to claim what they believed was theirs. The burgher Hambreus claimed that granting the peasantry this privilege would “not only put the trading and crafting residents of cities in noticeable suffering, but also put the cities themselves in grave disorder, yes in the long run their ruin”. It would mean the dissolution of what they believed was their “absolute right”.214 Clearly reflecting a perception of the peasants as encroaching on their privileges, it was declared that the peasantry was not ready to take on the responsibilities that these privileges entailed. Each peasant would instead “in time realize the fate that awaits him, which, after having entered into the burgher yoke and attached himself in a way that easily stands to withdraw, would not be very pleasant”. It would bring him to “reflect on the rashness thereof, to, by the snatching of others’ bread, believe that he can achieve his own measurement of trading and craftsman profits”.215 One reason why the burghers took such offence from this proposition was not only that it threatened their ancient privileges, but also because their protests had been disregarded by the committee who had drafted the proposition, in which all four Estates were represented. The burgher Lundman expressed his fury that the other Estates had not even “bothered to receive or make the slightest regard for the expressed objections”.216 The attributes prescribed to the peasantry were that they were inconsiderate and selfish. They would easily rob anyone of their livelihood without second thought or consideration as to what

213 Schön 2011, pp. 112–114. 214 BRP 1823, vol. V, pp. 94–95. 215 BRP 1823, vol. V, p. 96. 216 BRP 1823, vol. VII, p. 25. 67 consequences it would have for the victim or for society in general. The peasantry should keep to what they had always done and be on the countryside. The burgher Bökman said that in the cities “only burghers should build and live. It should be a gathering and junction point for trade and craftsmanship.” The burgher Winbladh similarly stated what he saw as the “the very basic principle for the Burgher Estate’s existence”, namely that they were “the actual industry Estate”.217 Both Bökman and Winbladh emphasized the importance of preserving the structure of estate society, safeguarding everyone’s right to be and do what this social order dictated. This principle and logic was however best emphasized by Mr. Ullberg who said that it formed the basis for “the burghers’ distinct ability to be an Estate within the kingdom, just as the nobleman, either born of noble parents, or through knighthood given by the king; the priest, after having graduated, to be consecrated and hold a priestly apartment; and the peasant, to never hold any public office in the state”. Permitting peasants to trade in cities was an “experiment on the Burgher Estate’s existence” and “the beginning of an aggregation of certain societal classes and of all ingredient parts of the whole, from which the great praised assembly would admittedly be eased, but would thereby also shake the very foundation of society, if not completely dissolve it.”218 The new economic platforms and economic pursuits of the peasantry meant that the burghers’ social capital could no longer be guaranteed as firmly as before.219 This, among other factors, caused uncertainty as to who belonged to what estate which, according to Carl Michael Carlsson, ultimately resulted in the collapse of the political system of Estates in 1866.220 The Swedish leadership realized the increasing problem with political representation since, similarly argued by Torkel Jansson, it became increasingly harder to “distinguish one Swede from another”.221 As widespread changes occurred within the peasantry, their role in all this was naturally brought up and a particularly good example is seen in the burghers’ protocols. They discussed a proposition to incorporate people engaged in the refinement of products from the mineral-kingdom (such as iron and copper), and manufacturers and factory owners on the countryside into the Burgher Estate.222 This would allow them to join the burghers in appointing delegates and partake in the Diet elections. They were faced with two questions: Were these people burghers or peasants? What Estate should they represent at the Diets and what privileges should they be given? Unlike in 1720, the answers to questions like these were found in their economic role.

217 BRP 1823, vol. V, p. 118. 218 BRP 1823, vol. VII, p. 36. 219 Defined by Ogilvie, social capital is the “stock of norms, information, sanctions, and collective action”, a central aspect of early modern societies and it “played a key role in economic development”, Ogilvie 2010, p. 288. 220 Carlsson 2016, pp. 114 & 240. 221 Jansson 2008, p. 214. 222 These people were generally termed bergsmän, see Stadin 2004, p. 266; Karlsson 2010, pp. 18–22. 68

The overwhelming majority of the burghers claimed this to be an outrageous proposition. These people could not share the same political privileges as the burghers for the simple reason that they were peasants. However, this time, conversely to previous Diets in this study, the economic function was solely what made them peasants, not their perceived social dignity. The burgher Lagerstrand claimed that “the mining business is closer to agriculture than to the burgher industries”, and factory and mine owners would do better “by having their seat and voice in the Peasant Estate.” Another burgher, Mr. Bagge, followed the same tone as he claimed that if this proposition was accepted, these peasants would “most likely become officials and civil servants within the state”.223 This awareness made him uneasy since he could not understand how one could regard a factory or mine owner as “anything else than a peasant, who neither have been nor is an official, or belong to any of the other estates.”224 According to Carlsson, the uncertainty of what estate a certain individual or peasant group belonged to stemmed from the fact that their financial wealth began to point in different directions during the early nineteenth century. Consequently, he argues, the subjective assessment of that capital started to become the determining factor for his or her social status.225 While this might have had impacted how people perceived each other, the burghers’ discussion in 1823 reveals another mode of reasoning. The accumulated financial wealth of the people in question was not key, but rather what these people did; the perceived economic role motivated social dignity and political role. They were peasants because they occupied themselves with something that was not a burgher craft, and since they were peasants, they should not be able to hold public offices. Instead of following the eighteenth-century line of reasoning to determine what a peasant should and should not do (“he is a peasant, he should therefore farm”), here they followed an idea that a person’s identity was determined by what he did (“he occupies himself with mining, he is therefore a peasant”). To contrast this, when the burghers discussed whether the Peasant Estate should be allowed entry to the Secret Committee in 1720, they were dismissed due to lack of comprehension (social dignity). They were instead to occupy themselves with farming because that was a central aspect of their usefulness as peasants. In 1823, deciding what peasants should do began to stem from an economic order that had changed since 1720.

223 BRP 1823, vol. I, p. 727. 224 BRP 1823, vol. I, p. 729. 225 Carlsson 2016, p. 240; see also Olofsson 2011, p. 15. 69

Conflicting Forces Within the Peasantry

For the rural peasantry to be engaged in several different professions, disorder and moral decay were the natural consequences. The reason was that this fragmentation of time and manpower led to the neglect of agriculture. However, there were some who quite the contrary got markedly irritated because peasants were unable or unwilling to for instance make their own tools and equipment.226 The findings from the Clerical Estate’s protocols seem to confirm these notions. There were those who believed that peasants very well could engage in trade while others found it to be morally depraving. This is well illustrated by the clergymen’s discussion on peddling. Protests against peddling and peddlers were raised during the first half of the nineteenth century because they often sold foreign luxury, but also due to the poorly esteemed lifestyle of these roving peasants.227 It was proposed that peddling should be forbidden in certain parts of Älvsborg County and that the selling of foreign goods should be banned. The Dean Sundius was one of the most critical voices protesting the peasantry’s continued roaming of the countryside, and he provides us with an indication of what he believed happened when peasants traded with each other over parish boarders.228 He directed his fellow clergymen’s attention to the evil that “ceaselessly floods our countryside”, the peddlers’ “prowling to spread vanity and luxury among the peasantry” which caused severe hardships for the nuclear peasant family and possible farmhands and maids. “They come now as before during the summers with their bags which contain very little of their own creations but with a great supply of forbidden goods […] to particularly tease the desires of the female sex”.229 With the gift of persuasion, they often succeeded in letting desire get the better of the mother and daughter, farmhand and maid, as they presented them with:

shawls, silk cloths, tulle, succatoon etc. Craving awakes. Now the father and master must get money. If he has none, credit is given until the moving season, when they return and sweep away all that the father of the family has saved and the servants have earnt. If any silver coin is found in the peasant’s stash, they will not refrain until they like Jews get to exchange it.230

There is a clear polarization here between the peddler, the father, and the others (the mother, daughter, farmhand, and maid). The peddler was the villain in this drama. He was an evil from within the peasantry who by way of deception indebted the peasant family. The mother, daughter, and servants could not resist the temptations which he provided and so pleaded to the easily

226 Adolfsson 2000, pp. 187–188. More on peasant household economy strategies, see Fiebranz 2002, pp. 251–286. 227 Peddling was a certain form of trade where members of the peasantry were allowed to sell their self-made products on the countryside which resulted in a situation where peasants roamed the landscape looking for potential buyers. For “gårdfarihandel”, see Nordisk familjebok 1909, pp. 817–818. 228 PRP 1823, vol. III, pp. 415 & 422. 229 PRP 1823, vol. I, pp. 254–255. 230 PRP 1823, vol. I, p. 255. 70 convinced and generous father who could not resist their wishes. Members of the Peasant Estate similarly did not fail to notice the harm which this caused and Sundius explained that he had talked to a member of the Peasant Estate who grumbled over the suffering that currently plagued the countryside. However, the main cause of this problem was found “in their own countrymen’s habits and qualities, that under the protection of ancient privileges” be “stupid and foolish enough to trade with them”.231 These branches of the peasantry all possessed qualities that were regarded as destructive and harmful, but the ones most prone to give in to their desires were women. Inflicting disturbances such as trading was consequently frowned upon since it gave life to the destructive forces within the peasantry. Instead, they should have a healthy production of all kinds of necessities driven by competition within the household, free from outside intervention. The Dean Linderot explained that a “nicer, prettier, more moral and in general prosperous peasantry” could not be found inside or outside Sweden’s boarders than the district of Mark’s 23 parishes. Peddling was not allowed in these parishes which had led to “male and female competition in indoor manufacturing.”232 Similarly to what Maria Adolfsson has argued, the clergymen believed that a good economic management was essential in having a prosperous peasantry.233 Their economic function was to be self-sufficient as it upheld the economic order as they perceived it, and avoid being dependent of foreign luxury and products made by others. By doing the opposite, the Dean Wikblad explained, they got “weaned from farming” and from their youth “get used to greed […] and an aptitude for less honesty.”234 So far, the clergymen’s reasoning regarding luxury in 1823 seems to have been that it depraved people and misguided them from performing the duties set by the social order. However, certain kinds of luxury could be beneficial as it generated perseverance and countered idleness. Runefelt calls this the götisk-moral argument, led by an idea that there existed a distinct Swedishness characterized by simplicity, a form of luxury that was simple and plain, but above all Swedish.235 Some tendencies towards this form of reasoning were advocated by some clergymen in 1823. The archbishop and doctor Carl Fredrik af Wingård declared that he ones “hated the luxury which a couple of years ago was among the peasantry”, but that he now knew that, for instance, a “respectable costume acts as a stimulus to diligence”. He used the example of Halland’s peasantry when he stated that “almost every peasant-wife is dressed in formal attire of silk”, and that he

231 PRP 1823, vol. I, p. 255. 232 PRP 1823, vol. III, p. 415. 233 Adolfsson 2000, p. 20; see also Runefelt 2005, p. 103. 234 PRP 1823, vol. III, p. 422. 235 Apart from the götisk-moral argument, Runefelt provides two main arguments against luxury: 1) The psychologically- ethical argument which read that luxury was a vice and a harmful desire, and that it was an expression for selfishness which in turn weakened a person’s morals and virtue. 2) The economic argument, that is, that luxury was often foreign and therefore a threat against the independence of the kingdom, Runefelt 2005, pp. 103–106, 117 & 120–121. 71 encouraged “Sweden’s peasant-wives to be well-dressed, if they through assiduity have made themselves entitled to it, and I wish that it would be a general occurrence, what I have often seen in the districts I have travelled, […] that they glitter with silver pieces”. Whether glittering costumes made of silk should be regarded as a simple form of luxury is of course subjective. Nevertheless, Wingård believed that luxury, even if it was obtained by means of peddling, was not all bad.236 Because of the “piety and morality in the general living of frugality, contentment, and tidiness for the domesticity, I love the people in the part of the county belonging to my care, and I would be deeply hurt if the decent prosperity, which I have every reason to believe being a consequence of the revenue which secondary occupations such as peddling have, would be abandoned.”237 It can be summarized that the clergymen were at odds with each other concerning the peasantry’s economic function in 1823. While the more traditional attitude prevailed, it had begun to change. Peasants were not as firmly tied to the land anymore. Considering the matter of extended privileges for peasants to trade in cities which was discussed by the burghers, the clergymen found it sound to allow peasants to trade given that it took place in a controlled environment (the cities).

An Economic Order Ready for Change

The Agricultural Revolution fundamentally transformed Western Europe in the later part of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. This of course impacted the European nobility as well. In England, the well-born classes became wealthy agricultural capitalists, the French nobility lost their ancient right to feudal levies and hereditary offices in 1789, and the Junkers of Prussia became wealthy on grain exports to England. The Swedish nobility underwent changes as well. According to Eriksson, the increased importance of agriculture forced them to educate themselves and to become professionals within an economic sector which they now shared with an increasing part on the population, and meanwhile, the emerging middle-classes claimed more and more room in various sectors. There was even a contemporary debate regarding what was happening to the first and noblest of estates as their interest for the methods and return of agriculture grew rapidly. Were they becoming peasants themselves?238 The attitude towards the peasantry, however, was not as worrisome as it was towards the middle-classes. In fact, they encouraged the peasantry to work and trade in a way that the noblemen during the eighteenth century never would have agreed to. The notion that the peasantry should unforgivably stay by their plough and willingly fulfil their duties towards king and country and not

236 PRP 1823, vol. III, pp. 432–433. 237 PRP 1823, vol. III, pp. 434–435 & 443. 238 Eriksson 2011, pp. 369–371. See also Norrby 2005, pp. 343–345. 72 let anything else intervene had changed. Much of this can be explained by the fact that the Swedish peasantry as a social group meant something else, and indeed much more than it did in 1720. The ability to have a supplementary job on the side became increasingly important for peasants in local communities during the first half of the nineteenth century.239 Unlike most clergymen, the Noble Estate’s attitude was that it was something worth encouraging. The nobleman Johan Mannerstam’s comments elucidates this as he stated that “it might be true that some abuse concerning this trade has occurred; it is known that peddlers often beside their own products entail foreign goods and at times perhaps also fiddle-goods [lurendrägeri-gods]; but the mistakes committed by some individuals are not reason enough, it is at least rather unjust, to deprive the means of support for an entire region.”240 With the loosening of estate-based ideals for how society should be structured, notions of who should be allowed to engage in what trade also changed, and when it came to peddling, the noblemen did not feel threatened.241 Nobleman Lorenzo Hammarsköld acknowledged that “one might say that they should cultivate the land instead of engaging in city-people’s industries, but it is known that they [the people of Älvsborg County] do not have any arable land, but only quagmire, sandy heathland and plains filled with shingle.” They should therefore not be forbidden to seek other means of sustenance.242 The notion that peasants should keep to farming the land and nothing else dominated the economic thinking of the eighteenth century. It nurtured a perception of the peasantry as simple and rural. The large majority of noblemen who believed that peasants should be allowed to wander around selling their self-made products and trade in cities to the displeasure of the burghers, proves a changed perception on the noblemen’s part in 1823.243 They had begun to let go of their strongminded beliefs that if peasants did anything other than farming, the social order would crumble to the ground. A new social order had emerged and the noblemen believed that the peasantry’s place in the economic order should change with it.

Summary

Over a period of approximately one hundred years, much changed as to how the Burgher, Clerical, and Noble Estates perceived the peasantry. Firstly, the most fundamental change as to what a

239 Olofsson 2011, pp. 18–19; on peasant economic strategies, see also Fiebranz 2002; Lindström 2008; Karlsson 2010. 240 RAP 1823, vol. IV, pp. 688–689. 241 By the early 1800’s, wealthy peasants could own big estates and mansions which a peasant could only dream of owning a few decades before, Eriksson 2011, pp. 387–390. 242 RAP 1823, vol. IV, p. 693. 243 Out of 136 casted votes, 109 (≈80,1%) voted to keep allowing peasants to engage in gårdfarihandel and (≈19,9%) voted against it, RAP 1823, vol. IV, p. 704. 73 peasant was is that they by 1823 were believed to possess an ability of bettering and enhancing themselves, indicating a relative social dignity. Peasant ideals surely existed in earlier times. However, they were rarely explicitly spoken of or referred to, and the peasants were seldom perceived as living up to the expectations, nurturing a discourse of disapproval, criticism, and insult. In 1823, a peasant was someone who had awakened and found his honour. According to the noblemen, he now followed the example set by the educated classes which made him a danneman: honest, capable, and responsible. The clergymen, meanwhile, recycled the ancient ideal of the manly peasant. While retaining a firm belief that they themselves were the praying and teaching estate and that the peasantry should tone down their eagerness to decide in matters which did not belong to them, the clergymen no longer focused on the peasantry’s retrogressive and simple-minded nature. Instead, they saw honest, Godfearing, responsible, and virtuous men. The burghers stand out as they persisted in viewing the peasantry in a negative light. While the words of a peasant occasionally could be trusted as reliable, they were a danger to the burghers’ existence as a social group. Peasants did not think twice to steel a fellow man’s livelihood and they selfishly saw to their own benefits while letting the burghers suffer. Secondly, the Estates recognized far more groups of peasants and ascribed them different social dignity, political roles, and economic functions, more so than at previous Diets which effectively provide an answer to the question of who was perceived to be a peasant. Both the Noble and Clerical Estates, for instance, now noticed crofters as a group to either favour or criticize with clear reference to their perceived social dignity. The clergymen also emphasized the failing character of women, farmhands, and maids, and how the peasant father was unable to withstand their desires to buy the peddlers’ foreign luxury. The burghers spoke of emerging classes of manufacturers and factory owners whose social dignity and political role was decided upon with reference to their economic function which was an entirely new way of thinking that was not detected previous to 1823. What they did was the determination factor in this case. Thirdly, the Estates’ disposition to divide the peasantry proves a change in how they perceived the individuality of a person. They now distinguished differences between more peasant groups than ever before, noticing differences between peasant and crofter, observing problems with peddlers and the nuclear peasant family and its members, revering and assessing members of the Peasant Estate and the aforementioned whole. The contrast between this and the Estate’s imaginaries in 1720 provide evidence that the modern regime of selfhood that began around the turn of the eighteenth century affected how people perceived each other. It influenced the noblemen, the clergymen, and the burghers to notice and value the lives of peasants in a new and different way.

74

CHAPTER V – ILLUMINATING THE IMAGINED PEASANT

A plethora of studies has been devoted to the inquiry of early modern identities and how they changed. In the context of Swedish historiography, many of these have focused on the peasantry and how they manifested themselves as a political force to be reckoned with during the eighteenth century. Historians have also shown how the changing economic conditions of the early nineteenth century transformed the social order and the peasants’ place within it, and how the end of the ancien régime fostered a debate about what the identity of a person really meant. However, almost no historical research has utilized the perspective of the interpretive-viewer in this relationship, neglecting the importance of considering how awareness-of-others similarly affected what a peasant was. Driven by a firm conviction that an individual or social group is more than that entity’s self- awareness or conviction of self, the goal of this thesis has been to illuminate how the Swedish peasantry was perceived by the Burgher, Clerical, and Noble Estates during a period of major social, political, and economic change. By studying the Estates’ protocols from three Diets between 1720 and 1823, this has generated a set of images proven to be intimately linked with contemporary peasant ideals. Their appearances were sometimes differently interpreted, but ultimately decided upon with reference to contemporary interpretations of the logics of estate society. To conceptualize how the members of the three Estates perceived the peasantry, the concept of social imaginary as defined by Sarah Maza has been employed. Serving as a pillar of theoretical approach, this stimulated the first working question of what a peasant was, ensuing me to look for the peasantry’s perceived social dignity, political role, and economic function. Considering Peter Englund’s research on the nobility’s perception of the seventeenth century peasantry, the imaginary of a simple, uneducated, and foolish collection of roughly clothed peasants endured until the Diet of 1720. The new political system of the Age of Liberty, and the anticipations of a more freely conducted political debate did not give the peasants much leeway for political participation to the degree that they expected. Rather, it gave the other Estates the opportunity to belittle the peasants. They were unappreciated due to their limited political experience and perceived low intellect that naturally disqualified them as politically immature. The major incentive for this exclusion was conceived with reference to their perceived social dignity which was similarly used to motivate their place in the economic order. Moving on to the Diet of 1786, the Estates’ perceptions had both changed and remained stagnant. Peasants should remain obedient and willingly fulfil the duties set by the logics of estate society. They should provide the foodstuff which made life possible for all. Changing tendencies were found as peasants now had political responsibilities and civic duties that they did not need to ask for. Even considering that the matter of the passevolance-system potentially had major 75 domestic and foreign political consequences, their right to comment and decide in this matter was emphasized by all the Estates as natural in accordance with the prevailing ideology of estate society. They were however believed to be in a critical state of deterioration as their morally and virtuously degrading consumption of liquor endangered not only the prosperousness of the kingdom, but the social and economic orders as well. Liquor was established as a social marker intimately linked with those considered to be a part of the peasantry. Instead of performing the economic function divinely ordained by God, many were and more risked becoming depraved scoundrels and miserable covenant-breakers unfit to work their ancestors soil; the soil from which their constitution and social dignity derived. The scheme of motivating the different peasantry’s positions in the three orders of society show that unlike in 1720, the peasantry’s ability to perform their economic function was now diminished. This was therefore emphasized to a higher degree than before, establishing an ideal image where the peasantry’s social dignity and economic function should be balanced, each one fulfilled and performed according to the logics of estate society. Their political role however had not been, and was not used as a primary argument for what a peasant was in 1786, elucidating how this had a secondary grade of importance. Even while they were given political responsibilities to perform, this was conceived on the basis that they had a social dignity and economic function motivating this tripartite relation of dignity, role, and function. Reaching 1823, what a peasant was perceived to be had drastically changed in several respects which now divided the Estates on a number of issues. The Noble Estate now believed that the peasantry had realized an awakening sense of honour and had begun to take after the more educated classes – they had become dannemän. The Clerical Estate spoke of the uniqueness of peasant manliness and how it guided the peasants to achieve a moral and lawful living. But also that there existed conflicting forces within the peasantry, forces that could potentially harm the nuclear peasant family when trading with roaming peddlers. However, both Estates began to see the peasantry in a context of possible betterment and enlightenment. A peasant was now someone who could consider his own existence and through morally and virtuously contemplated decisions rise himself from a mental state that previously had belittled him as politically immature, careless about fulfilling his duties, and as indifferent towards his fellow man. The Burgher Estate however was seriously worried and threatened about what the peasantry had become. The peasants now endangered the burghers’ entire existence as an estate since they invaded their cities and stole their livelihood, a condition that the other Estates did not seem to have any problems with whatsoever. Falling in line with the slowly diminishing relevance of estates and the conforming logics of how estate society should be ordered, the consequence of the burghers’ vulnerable situation in 1823 made them express what is a fundamental change in how peasants were perceived. Instead of seeing

76 the peasants’ social dignity as determinative for their political role and economic function as in 1720, or advocating a balance between the former and the latter as in 1786, they exclusively looked to what miners, factory owners, and manufacturers did to determine their social dignity and political role. The second working question of this thesis considered who was a peasant. The Clerical and Noble Estates’ protocols from 1720 showed a coherent image where they perceived all kinds of peasants as belonging to one homogenous group of people. The peasants that waited in the hall of the Secret Committee for the noblemen’s response to their request of admittance were not deemed worthy politicians as the members of the other Estates were. Similarly, the clergymen did not see any difference between the peasants who had put forth the proposition of not having to build and maintain the priests’ vicarages and those who actually did as they discussed the matter. The burghers however made a difference between the two. The members of the Peasant Estate were estimated to possess a higher degree of social dignity than those termed as other “simple folk”. The 1786 protocols provided a more diverse image of three rudimentary groups of peasants that were considered important to emphasize in the social and political context of the day. These were the peasant politicians, peasants linked to the military, and the rest. This change was evident in all the Estates’ protocols, and while this does indicate a greater attention to more groups of peasants, the biggest change took place between 1786 and 1823. It was argued before that the social structure of a society set the limits for what was possible to think and therefore articulate.244 This suggests that the Estates’ perception of who was a peasant in 1720 could not possibly have been the same as in 1823 since the social structure, as well as the political and economic context had drastically changed. The analysis verifies this assertion without question as the Estates by 1823 paid great attention to a range of peasant groups and individuals. They now spoke of and differently evaluated the Peasant Estate, crofters and their assisting peasant tenants, manufacturers and factory owners, miners, peddlers, the peasant nuclear family of the father, mother, farmhand, maid and daughter. Peasants were no longer an abstract thing without a sense of weal and woe, but someone who knew and cared for that which affected people, both in a positive and negative way. This leads me to the third and final working question, namely, how the perception of what a peasant was and who was a peasant changed. On the outset of Dror Wahrman’s model of the changing nature of identity between the ancien régime of identity to the modern regime of selfhood, the Estates’ protocols yet again proved a sweeping change. From having perceived the peasantry as one big faceless group of people to recognizing the inner-voice of all peasants to be essential for

244 See for example Runefelt 2005, pp. 11–15. 77 their existence, the Clerical and Noble Estates’ protocols reveal a major development of how they understood identity and selfhood. The members of the Burgher Estate similarly underwent this transformation, although showed tendencies to pay greater attention to peasant groups in 1720 than the other two Estates. However, the ascribed social dignity was still only divided between two assemblies of peasants: the Peasant Estate and the rest. This brings the conclusion that the old practice of perceiving someone’s identity as socially turned, mutable, and formed by the immediate surrounding of that person changed. The members of the three Estates’ began to think differently about peasants as they began to think differently about themselves. A sign of the latter was seen in how they designed their protocols and kept records of what was said in 1823 as to how they did it in 1720. Every person’s statement was thoroughly recorded and every speaker was carefully named, not leaving anything out that could be considered important. This resulted in a set of up to 11 volumes to contain the protocols from the noblemen’s discussions in 1823 whereas only one was needed for each Estates in 1720. Concludingly, after having studied how the majority of Sweden’s population was perceived during a period of approximately 100 years, the answers presented above provide a new image of how estate society functioned and was thought of which until now have not been thoroughly examined. This thesis has demonstrated the underlying dynamic of how the peasantry’s place in estate society was rationalized. We now know that the seventeenth century perception of the peasantry was challenged as the Age of Liberty began, because the new political system allowed for it to happen, but more importantly because the peasants initiated the discussion. The period saw a crisis of peasant social dignity which consequently put their political role under debate. We also know that the ensuing peasant radicalization complicated the relevance of the Estates’ traditional imaginaries of what and who a peasant was. The early nineteenth century and the changing societal orders gave birth to new imaginaries of a peasantry that in 1823 had changed. It ensued a crisis of peasant functionality which began to legitimize their social dignity and political role in a new way. While the findings of this thesis tell much of how the Swedish peasantry was perceived over the course of a century, much still remains to be examined. The attempt has been to show that a change took place and provide explanations for how and why it happened. However, the paths to continued research are many. Considering that protocols from only three Diets have been studied, and that the possibility of extending the period is conspicuously easy, a more detailed study of the story of the perceived Swedish peasantry is but a footstep away. Considering that the societal orders under investigation in this study have been confined to three, enlarging the scope is a sure possibility. How did, for example, the other Estates perceive the peasantry as a moral resource in society? Thus, opening for the empirical question whether they formed a part of a moral order

78 defined in accordance with the logics of estate society. By studying court protocols, it would be possible to call into question where they fitted into the order of virtue, if such an order existed. Other categories of sources may of course also be incorporated in such a study. The Estate’s seemingly relentless fascination for political committees during the period when the Estates gathered at the Diet (1435–1866) provide for a truly vast base of material that have not been studied with a motive like the one used in this thesis. Other sources such as political satiric pamphlets that often circulated the capital during the Diets could also be used in the endeavour of finding out how different social groups were perceived. Finally, of course, what about the other estates? How was the nobility, clergy, and burghers perceived? What did the peasants waiting in the hall of the Secret Committee think about the men who would ultimately crush their desires to partake in the political decision-making that took place in the very hall they stood? A truly inciteful question to ponder at.

79

LIST OF REFERENCES

Published Sources

[BRP 1720] Borgarståndets riksdagsprotokoll från frihetstidens början. På Riksgäldskontorets uppdrag utgivna av Nils Staf, 1, 1720, 1945, Stockholm. [PRP 1720] Prästeståndets riksdagsprotokoll från frihetstidens början. På Riksgäldskontorets uppdrag utgivna av Lennart Thanner, 5, 1719–1720, 1980, Stockholm. [RAP 1720] Sveriges ridderskaps och adels riksdagsprotokoll från och med år 1719. D. 1. H. 2, 1720, Landahl, Sten, 1875 (ed.), Stockholm. [BRP 1786] Protocoller, hållne hos Borgare-Ståndet vid Riksdagen i Stockholm år 1786, Stockholm, tryckt hos commissarien P. A. Brodin, 1786. [PRP 1786] Prästeståndets riksdagsprotokoll: På riksdagens förvaltningskontors uppdrag utgivna av Stefan Lundhem, 25, 1786, 1987, Stockholm. [RAP 1786] Utdrag af protocoller, hållne hos högloflige ridderskapet och adelen wid riksdagen i Stockholm år 1786, Stockholm, tryckt hos Johan Christ. Holmberg, 1786, Stockholm. [BRP 1823, vol. I] Protokoll, hållna hos Vällofliga Borgare-Ståndet vid Lagtima Riksdagen i Stockholm, år 1823. Första bandet, Stockholm, tryckta hos Fr. B. Nestius, 1823. [BRP 1823, vol. II] Protokoll, hållna hos Vällofliga Borgare-Ståndet vid Lagtima Riksdagen i Stockholm, år 1823. Andra bandet, Stockholm, tryckta hos Fr. B. Nestius, 1823. [BRP 1823, vol. V] Protokoll, hållna hos Vällofliga Borgare-Ståndet vid Lagtima Riksdagen i Stockholm, år 1823. Femte bandet, Stockholm, tryckta hos Fr. B. Nestius, 1823. [BRP 1823, vol. VI] Protokoll, hållna hos Vällofliga Borgare-Ståndet vid Lagtima Riksdagen i Stockholm, år 1823. Sjette bandet, Stockholm, tryckta hos Fr. B. Nestius, 1823. [BRP 1823, vol. VII] Protokoll, hållna hos Vällofliga Borgare-Ståndet vid Lagtima Riksdagen i Stockholm, år 1823. Sjunde bandet, Stockholm, tryckta hos Fr. B. Nestius, 1823. [PRP 1823, vol. I] Protocoll, hållna hos Högvördiga Preste-Ståndet, vid Lagtima Riksdagen i Stockholm, år 1823. Första Bandet, Stockholm, tryckte hos Olof Grahn, 1823. [PRP 1823, vol. III] Protocoll, hållna hos Högvördiga Preste-Ståndet, vid Lagtima Riksdagen i Stockholm, år 1823. Tredje Bandet, Stockholm, tryckte hos Olof Grahn, 1823. [PRP 1823, vol. IV] Protocoll, hållna hos Högvördiga Preste-Ståndet, vid Lagtima Riksdagen i Stockholm, år 1823. Fjerde Bandet, Stockholm, tryckte hos Olof Grahn, 1823. [RAP 1823, vol. I] Protocoll, hållna hos Högloflige Ridderskapet och Adeln, vid Lagtima Riksdagen i Stockholm, år 1823. Första Bandet, Stockholm, tryckta hos Olof Grahn, 1823.

80

[RAP 1823, vol. IV] Protocoll, hållna hos Högloflige Ridderskapet och Adeln, vid Lagtima Riksdagen i Stockholm, år 1823. Fjerde Bandet, Stockholm, tryckta hos Olof Grahn, 1823. [RAP 1823, vol. V] Protocoll, hållna hos Högloflige Ridderskapet och Adeln, vid Lagtima Riksdagen i Stockholm, år 1823. Femte Bandet, Stockholm, tryckta hos Olof Grahn, 1823. [RAP 1823, vol. VI, part I] Protocoll, hållna hos Högloflige Ridderskapet och Adeln, vid Lagtima Riksdagen i Stockholm, år 1823. Sjette Bandet, del 1, Stockholm, tryckta hos Olof Grahn, 1823.

Literature

Adolfsson, Maria, 1994, “Fria, stolta danemän och vårdslösa, liderliga bönder: ämbetsmännens syn på allmogen under 1700- och 1800-talen”, in Kulturmiljövård, 1994:5, Stockholm. Adolfsson, Maria, 2000, Fäderneslandets kännedom: om svenska ortsbeskrivningsprojekt och ämbetsmäns folklivsskildringar under 1700- och 1800-talet, Stockholm. Alm, Mikael, 2003, “Royalty, Legitimacy and Imagery”, in Scandinavian Journal of History 28:1. Alm, Mikael, 2002, Kungsord i Elfte Timmen: Språk och Självbild i det Gustavianska Enväldets Legitimitetskamp 1772–1809, Uppsala. Alm, Mikael, 2016, “Making a Difference: Sartorial Practices and Social Order in Eighteenth- Century Sweden”, in Costume, 50:1. Anderson, Benedict, 1991, Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, London. Aronsson, Peter, 1992, Bönder gör politik: Det lokala självstyret som social Arena i tre smålandssocknar, 1680–1850, Lund. Aronsson, Peter, 1994, “Bondeidentitet i Förändring: Från Bonde till Hemmansägare – Från Hushållsideologi till Upplysning”, in Bo Larsson (ed.), Bondens Självbild och Natursyn, Stockholm. Berg, Anne & Enefalk, Hanna, 2009 (eds.), Det mångsidiga verktyget: Elva utbildningshistoriska uppsatser, Uppsala. Bossenga, Gail, 2012, “Estates, Orders, and Corps”, in Doyle, William (ed.), The Oxford handbook of the Ancien Régime, Oxford University Press. Braddick, Michael J & Walter, John, 2001 (eds.), Negotiating power in early modern society: Order, hierarchy and subordination in Britain and Ireland, Cambridge. Bregnsbo, Michael & Ihalainen, Pasi, 2011, “Gradual Reconsiderations of Lutheran Conceptions of Politics”, in Bregnsbo, Michael, Ihalainen, Pasi, Sennefelt, Karin & Winton, Patrik (eds.), Scandinavia in the age of revolution: Nordic political cultures, 1740–1820, Farnham. Burke, Peter. 1992, “The Language of Order in Early Modern Europe”, in Bush, Michael L. (ed.), Social Orders and Social Classes in Europe since 1500: Studies in Social Stratification, London. 81

Båtefalk, Lars, 2000, Staten, samhället och superiet: Samhällsorganisatoriska principer och organisatorisk praktik kring dryckenskapsproblemet och nykterhetssträvandena i stat, borgerlig offentlighet och associationsväsende ca 1770–1900, Uppsala. Bäck, Kalle, 1984, Bondeopposition och bondeinflytande under frihetstiden: Centralmakten och östgötaböndernas reaktioner i näringspolitiska frågor, Stockholm. Carlsson, Carl Mikael, 2016, Det märkvärdiga mellantinget: Jordbrukares sociala status i omvandling 1780– 1900, Stockholm. Carlsson, Sten, 1973, Ståndssamhälle och ståndspersoner 1700–1865. Studier rörande det svenska ståndssamhällets upplösning, Lund. Claréus, Anders, 2003, “På offensiven: Bondeståndet under slutet av frihetstiden”, in Skucke, Marie-Christine & Tandefelt, Henrika (eds.), Riksdag, Kaffehus och Predikstol: Frihetstidens politiska kultur 1766–1772, Stockholm. ”Danneman”, 1906, in Nordisk Familjebok, Stockholm. Duby, Georges, 1980, The three orders: feudal society imagined, Chicago. ”Drank”, 1907, in Nordisk Familjebok, Stockholm. Ekedahl, Nils, 2010, “En dynasti blir till”, in Ekedahl, Nils (ed.) En dynasti blir till: medier, myter och makt kring Karl XIV Johan och familjen Bernadotte, Stockholm. Englund, Peter, 1989, Det hotade huset: Adliga föreställningar om samhället under stormaktstiden, Uppsala. Ericson, Lars, 1995, Svenska knektar: indelta soldater, ryttare och båtsmän i krig och fred, Lund. Eriksson, Bo, 2011, Svenska adelns historia, Stockholm. Fiebranz, Rosemarie 2002, Jord, linne eller träkol? Genusordning och hushållsstrategier, Bjuråker 1750–1850, Uppsala. Fox, Adam, 2015, “Food, Drink and Social Distinction in Early Modern England”, in Hindle, Steve, Shepard, Alexandra & Walter, John (eds.), Remaking English society; Social relations and social change in early modern England, Boydell. Giertz, Martin, 2009 Svenska Prästgårdar, Stockholm. Glete, Jan, 2002, War and the State in Early Modern Europe: Spain, the Dutch Republic and Sweden as Fiscal- Military States, London. Greig, Hannah, 2012, “’All Together and All Distinct’: Public Sociability and Social Exclusivity in London’s Pleasure Gardens, ca. 1740–1800”, in Journal of British Studies 51. “Gårdfarihandel”, 1909, in Nordisk Familjebok, Stockholm. Habermas, Jürgen, 1984, Borgerlig offentlighet: Kategorierna "privat" och "offentligt" i det moderna samhället, Lund.

82

Hallberg, Peter, 2003, Ages of liberty: Social upheaval, history writing, and the new public sphere in Sweden, 1740–1792, Stockholm. Harvey, Karen, 2012, “Ritual Encounters: Punch Parties and Masculinity in the Eighteenth Century”, in Past Present 214:1, Heß, Cordelia, 2013, Social imagery in Middle Low German: didactical literature and metaphorical representation (1470–1517), Leiden. Holm, Johan, 2002 “Formeringen av det svenska bondeståndet i riksdagen”, Scandia 68:2, Lund. Jansson, Torkel, 2008, “Between two worlds. Nordic political cultures in a comparative perspective”, in Alm, Mikael & Johansson, Britt-Inger (eds.), Scrips of kingship: Essays on Bernadotte and dynastic formation in an Age of Revolution, Uppsala. Johannesson, Kurt, 1997, “Om furstars och aristokraters dygder. Reflexioner kring Johannes Schefferus Memorabilia”, in Nilsson, Sten Åke & Ramsay, Margareta (eds.), 1600-talets ansikte. Symposier på Krapperups borg 3, Krapperup. Karlsson, Linus, 2010, Bergsmän och tackjärnspatroner: perspektiv på industrialiseringsprocessen 1810–1900, Göteborg. Keith, Thomas, 2009, The ends of life: roads to fulfilment in early modern England, Oxford. Laslett, Peter, 1988, “Social Structural Time: An Attempt at Classifying Types of Social Changee by Their Characteristic Paces”, in Schuller, Tom & Young, Michael (eds.), The Rhythms of Society, London. Larsson, Esbjörn, 2009, “Klasser i sig och för sig. Skillnader i växelundervisningens tillämpning för olika samhällsklasser i Sverige, ca 1820–1870”, in Berg, Anne & Enefalk, Hanna (eds.), Det mångsidiga verktyget: elva utbildningshistoriska uppsatser, Uppsala. Linde, Lars Gustaf, 1887, Sveriges finansrätt, Stockholm. Lindberg, Bo, 2003, “Inledning: Politisk kultur och idéer”, in Skucke, Marie-Christine & Tandefelt, Henrika (eds.), Riksdag, Kaffehus och Predikstol: Frihetstidens politiska kultur 1766–1772, Stockholm. Lindström, Jonas, 2008, Distribution and Differences: Stratification and the System of Reproduction in a Swedish Peasant Community 1620–1820, Uppsala. Maza, Sarah, 2003, The Myth of the French Bourgeoisie, Cambridge. McKendrick, Neil & Brewer, John, 1982, The birth of a consumer society: The commercialization of eighteenth century England, London. Melkersson, Martin, 1997, Staten, ordningen och friheten: En studie av den styrande elitens syn på statens roll mellan stormaktstiden och 1800-talet, Uppsala.

83

Metcalf, Michael F., 2003, “Hattar och mössor 1766–72: Den sena frihetstidens partisystem i komparativ belysning”, in Skucke, Marie-Christine & Tandefelt, Henrika (eds.), Riksdag, Kaffehus och Predikstol: Frihetstidens politiska kultur 1766–1772, Stockholm. Mousnier, Roland, 1973, Social hierarchies 1450 to the present, London. Nordin, Jonas, 2003, “Frihetstidens radikalism”, in Skucke, Marie-Christine & Tandefelt, Henrika (eds.), Riksdag, Kaffehus och Predikstol: Frihetstidens politiska kultur 1766–1772, Stockholm. Norrby, Göran, 2005, Adel i förvandling: Adliga strategier och identiteter i 1800-talets borgerliga samhälle, Uppsala. Ogilvie, Sheilagh, 2010, “Social Capital, and the ‘Industrious Revolution’ in Early Modern Germany”, The Journal of Economic History, 70:2. Olofsson, Sven, 2011, Till ömsesidig nytta: Entreprenörer, framgång och sociala relationer i centrala Jämtland ca 1810–1850, Uppsala. Overton, Mark, 2004, (eds.), Production and consumption in English households, 1600–1750, London. ”Passevolans” 1888, in Nordisk Familjebok, Stockholm. ”Rote”, 1916, in Nordisk Familjebok, Stockholm. Runefelt, Leif, 2001, Hushållningens dygder. Affektlära, hushållningslära och ekonomiskt tänkande under svensk stormaktstid, Stockholm. Runefelt, Leif, 2005, Dygden som välståndets grund: Dygd, nytta och egennytta i frihetstidens ekonomiska tänkande, Stockholm. “Rustning”, 1916, in Nordisk Familjebok, Stockholm. Scherp, Joakim, 2013, De ofrälse och makten: En institutionell studie av Riksdagen och de ofrälse ståndens politik i maktdelningsfrågor 1660–1682, Stockholm. Schück, Herman & Stjernquist, Nils, 1985 (eds.) Riksdagen genom tiderna, Stockholm. Schön, Lennart, 2010, Vår världs ekonomiska historia. D. 2, Den industriella tiden, Stockholm. Sennefelt, Karin, 2001, Den politiska sjukan: Dalupproret 1743 och frihetstida politisk kultur, Uppsala. Sennefelt, Karin, 2011, Politikens hjärta: Medborgarskap, manlighet och plats i frihetstidens Stockholm, Stockholm Simon, Brian, 1987, “Systematisation and segmentation in education. The case of England”, in Müllers, Detlef K, Ringers, Fritz K. & Simon, Brian (eds.), The rise of the modern educational system. Structural change and social reproduction 1870–1920, Cambridge. Sjödin Lindenskoug, Susanna, 2011, Manlighetens bortre gräns: Tidelagsrättegångar i Livland åren 1685– 1709, Stockholm. Stadin, Kekke, 2004, Stånd och genus i stormaktstidens Sverige¸ Lund. Söderberg, Johan, 2007, Vår världs ekonomiska historia. D. 1, Den förindustriella tiden, Stockholm.

84

Tilly, Charles 1985, “War making and state making as organized crime”, in Evans, Peter, Rueschemeyer, Dietrich & Skocpol, Theda (eds.), Bringing the state back in, Cambridge. Tjeder, David, 2003, The power of character: Middle-class masculinities, 1800–1900, Stockholm. Tjerngren, Beverly, 2014, God's Little Acre: Status and Power Manifestation on an 18th-century Swedish Vicarage, Uppsala. (unpublished master thesis) “Torpare”, 1919, in Nordisk Familjebok, Stockholm. Vincent, Susan, 2003, Dressing the elite: Clothes in early modern England, Oxford. Wahrman, Dror, 2004, The Making of the Modern Self: Identity and Culture in the Eighteenth-Century England, Yale. Weatherill, Lorna, 1996, Consumer behaviour and material culture in Britain, 1660–1760, London. Winton, Patrik, 2006, Frihetstidens politiska praktik: Nätverk och offentlighet 1746–1766, Uppsala. Withington, Phil, 2007, “Company and Sociability in Early Modern England” in Social History, 32:3. Withington, Phil, 2015, “Intoxicants and the Early Modern City” in (eds.) Steve Hindle, Alexandra Shepard & John Walter, Remaking English Society: Social Relations and Social Change in Early Modern England, Boydell. Wolff, Charlotta, 2016, Noble conceptions of politics in eighteenth-century Sweden (ca 1740–1790), Helsinki.

85

APPENDIX I. TRANSLATIONS

Footnotes:

1 RAP 1720, pp. 32 & 314–315. Translation: “mista vi ingenting, emedan det då star hoos de andre Stånden at taga den frågan före och afgiöra den, när de behaga.”

54 BRP 1720, p. 370. Translations: “gement folk”; “emädan de ibland Almogen komma at räcknas”; “af ringare wärde anses än Bönderne”; “myssor, tröijor, hufwor, stycken, halsdukar eller andre kläder”.

55 BRP 1720, p. 370. Translations: “bruka skor af rugkardewan, saffianer eller andre färgade och brokuge skin.”; “8 dagars fängelse på watn och bröd samt sitja en söndag i stocken utanför kyrkjodören.”

63 BRP 1720, Appendix 3, nr. 41, p. 74. Translation: “allerunderdånigst, at kyrkioherdarne måtte sielfwa wid makt hålla och bygga deras prästegårdar å landet, lika som andra civil- och militairbetiente bygga och bota deras boställen samt capellanerne deras hemman.”

65 PRP 1720, p. 311. Translations: “icke äro theras utan publici el:r sochnens egendom”, “en stor åtskilnad wara emellan the tider, tå then lagen giordes, och nu närwarande, i thy at presterna tå uti catholiska tiden lefde uton ächtenskapet och således icke behöfde widlöftig hushåldning”, “at almogen hafwer så byggt och byggia prestegårdarna, at presterna aldeles intet sielfwe behöfdt byggia.”

68 RAP 1720, p. 150. Translation: “Bonde-Ståndet hvarcken har like tilfälle at lära kiänna dem, som til Riks-Råder kunna komma i förslag […] af hvilka en stor dehl här i Stockholm vistas, hvarest affairerne inlöpa, och bättre kundskap inhämtas kan om hvars ock ens förhållande”.

69 RAP 1720, p. 150.Translation: “ey heller lika förstånd med de andre Stånden at döma om de qualiteter, som hoos en Riks-Råd erfordras.”

74 BRP 1720, p. 328. Translation: “med godt maner, at dheras närwaro i -secrete utskåttet intet wore nödig, efftersom dher förehades sådanne saker, som Bondeståndet till ingen dehl angingo.”

75 BRP 1720, p. 329. Translation: “öfwertala Bondeståndet at sig härutinnan foga effter det som wanligit warit.”

78 PRP 1720, p. 195. Translation: “med tacksäijelse uptager thet förtroende, som bondeståndet til them hafwer, och at thetta ärendet är i öfrigit af then wicht, at theröfwer wil fordras öfwerläggiande med the andra stånden, skolandes presterskapet icke låta tilbaka, hwad thet möjeligast kan til theras förmohn och fägnad åstadkomma”.

79 PRP 1720, p. 195. Translation: “en del handlingar i thet secrete utskottet äro högre än at the kunna af them begripas, häldst angående tractaterne med the utländska puissancerne, uti hwilka handlingar åskilliga skriffter på fremmande språk författade förekomma.”

86

81 RAP 1720, pp. 30–32. Translations: “de tre andre Stånden äre de, som ha rest och äre studerade, hvilket felar hoos deras Stånd”; “Dessutom lärer minsta delen vara på Svänska, som i Secrete Utskåttet förekommer”.

84 RAP 1720, p. 32. Translation: “Bonden sade, at de intet varit hoos de andra Stånden”.

87 BRP 1720, pp. 431–432. Translation: “hwilka Riketz egentliga hushåldning angå, men intet uti de måhl, som secretessen beröra”; ”de därom ej kunna hafwa något särdeles begrep eller kunskap.”

99 BRP 1786, pp. 138–139. Translations: “som swårligen om ej omöjeligen kan hämmas eller förekommas”; “den nogaste hushållningen wid förbrukandet af denna nödwändighets waran i ackt tages”; “nöden blifwa swår och under-balancen i Handeln wiss och oundwikelig.”; “til en dryck hwars bruk icke är nödwändigt”; “öfwerflödiga nyttjande […] medförer en i så många afseende synbar olägenhet för allmän wälmåga, för Seder och sjelfwa Folkets hälsa”.

107 PRP 1786, pp. 117–118. Translation: “Tänke hwar med sig, hwad werkan det skall hafwa, då man kan säga att snart tiondedelen af menighetens barn upfödes i krogstugan, ty så utwidgad är denna näring; att desse olycklige barn, som uti föräldrarnes hus stundeligen förledas af gästernes oordentliga lefnad och tal, blifwa tidigt skilde wid blygsamhet och anständighet”.

109 PRP 1786, p. 118. Translations: “med det förgift, som en mognad ondska i krogstugan ständigt utgjuter”; “utan behäftade med alle slags liderlighet”.

110 PRP 1786, p. 118. Translation: “när hela consumtionssumman af brännewinets wärde flyter utur landsorterne, i synnerhet de ställen där brännerierne äro grundade på utländsk spannemål, landet utblottas och behofwet förleder till lönbränning”.

114 RAP 1786, pp. 183 & 192. Translations: “som wi alt för wäl kunna wara utan”; “en landsplåga, den där ödelägger land och rike”; “men gamla wanan behåller sit inritade wälde”; “jordbrukaren tror sig sjelf böra förälda den gröda, hwarmed hans swett och möda blifwit wälsignad”.

116 RAP 1786, pp. 186, 192 & 205–206. Translations: “i alla tider warit Swenska Folkets urgamla rättighet, at sjelf förädla de producter, det med slit och möda utur egen jord framalstrar”; “de manbaraste arbetare ifrån åkerbruket, hwilka sedermera blifwa frie uslingar, otjänlige til alt arbete”; “då förfaller idoghet till lättja, fosterjordens odlande fält förbrytas til ödemarker, utom hwars gränsor dess magtlöfte inbyggare söka en bättre utkomst, och ärligheten och wälmågans fordna boningar inrymmas åt lastfulle uslingar, eller olycklige förbuds-brytares öfwergifne makar och barn”; “som ty wärr! nu blifwit et ibland landtmannens mäst oumgängeliga och begärliga behof”.

119 RAP 1786, pp. 8–9. Translations: “den gamla Swenska redligheten, som hos det Ärbara Bondeståndet altid med deras fädersjord gått i arf, äfwen wid detta Riksmöte lärer styra och utmärka alla dess rådplägningar”; “hwars trefnad utgör dess wälmåga, och hwars arbete stadgar dess tilväxt”.

120 RAP 1786, pp. 8–9. Translations: “följa den röst som talar i deras bröst; den talar för en älskad fosterjord”; “så många år tagit sitt bröd, och den de hoppas, at en gång

87

uppå lika fått til sine barn få öfwerlämna.”; “en oskyldig lefnad och et godt samwete altid, åtföljer; ja, måtte det Ärbara Bonde-Ståndet, i fridens lugn få binda ymniga skylar af den jord, de så ofta med sin swett wattnat.”

127 BRP 1786, pp. 66–67. Translation: “både tåga och lefwa som i Fält.”

129 BRP 1786, p. 87. Translation: “Indelningsverket och kringstjensten grunda sig på 2:ne Contracter, det förra emellan Kongl. Maj:t och Kronan å ena och Roterade Allmogen och Ständerne samt Rusthållarne å andra sidan, det andra emellan de Roterade och rustade å ena samt den enrollerade Ryttaren, Soldaten och Båtsmannen å andra sidan.”

130 BRP 1786, p. 89. Translation: “Höglofl. Ridderskapet och Adeln, som Krigskonsten och wetenskapen bäst känner, och det hedervärda Bonde-Ståndet, som passevolancens förmoner och olägenheter erfarit, sine tankar med Högwördige Präste- och Wällofl. Borgare-Stånden communicerat.”

131 BRP 1786, p. 88. Translation: “Beware Gud Wår Swenska Soldat ifrån förlusten af det till tapperhet muntrade skälet! At han med lif och blod förswarar det Fosterland, hwars torfwar han wändt och där han bland kärfwarne lämnat en kär Hustru och älskade barn.”

132 BRP 1786, p. 101. Translation: “Jag har i går eftermiddagen sedt och hördt åtskilligt wara utom oss skrifwit och talt, som borde afråda, ja afskräcka detta Högtärade Stånd, at åtminstone icke yttra sig öfver passevolance-saken, innan de öfrige Respective Stånden den afgjort.”

133 BRP 1786, pp. 102 & 105. Translation: “hwar och en känner bäst hwar skon trycker”.

135 PRP 1786, pp. 39–40. Translation: “att som detta ämne directe rörer höglofl. Ridderskapet och adeln samt det hederwärda bondeståndet”.

136 PRP 1786, p. 47. Translation: “betänkeligt”.

138 PRP 1786, p. 47. Translation: “af fri wilja, af ömhet för sin soldat, af medlidande öfwer dess hustru och barn gifwit honom mat och drickespenningar under påstående möten, så är han icke därtill hwarken genom lag eller contract förbunden. Han hafwer största rätt på sin sida att indraga sin wälgärning emot soldaten, om och när han beahagar.”

141 RAP 1786, p. 56. Translations: “måste man känna och betrakta den til alla sina sidor. Man måste granska, undersöka, nagelfara, jämföra, för all ting icke förhasta sig med slutsatsers widtagande.”; “ju ömare bör den handteras, ju nogare pröfwas, ju försigtigare handhafwas.”

142 RAP 1786, p. 58. Translations: “Förfarenheten är det starkaste af alla bewis.”; “då han frågade sina hemmawarande medbröder, om de woro nöjde med passevolancen, hafwa de med enhälligt bifall förklarat sin åstundan, at få behålla en inrättning, om hwars nytta de alt mer och mer blifwit öfwertygade.”

144 RAP 1786, p. 60. Translation: “wälwilja för Soldaten, hustru och barn, til deras understöd, i synnerhet under Soldatens frånvaro i Rikets tjänst. Detta förbinder

88

soldaten til tacksamhet och kärlek för bonden, samt, at genom en dygdig och sedig lefnnad, göra sig däraf mera förtjänt.”

145 RAP 1786, p. 60. Translations: “nationella esprit”; “med mannamod wåga sit lif för fäderneslandet”; “Den nationella esprit förfaller, kärleken til landet förloras, och om jag wågar så säja, sjelfwa Regeringssättet.”

149 BRP 1786, pp. 138–139. Translation: “olägenhet för allmän wälmåga, för Seder och sjelfwa Folkets hälsa”.

151 PRP 1786, Appendix 18, pp. 176–177. Translation: “flitige och trogne undersåtare åt konungen”.

152 PRP 1786, Appendix 18, pp. 176–177. Translation: “som från kyrkan bör fortplantas til enskildta hushåll och slägter för at derifrån lämna dygdige och nyttige medborgare åt samfundet, flitige och trogne undersåtare åt konungen”.

153 PRP 1786, p. 118. Translation: “behäftade med alle slags liderlighet”.

154 PRP 1786, p. 118. Translation: “en mognad ondska i krogstugan ständigt utgjuter”.

156 RAP 1786, pp. 183 & 192. Translation: “men gamla wanan behåller sit inritade wälde, och jordbrukaren tror sig sjelf böra förälda den gröda, hwarmed hans swett och möda blifwit wälsignad”.

158 RAP 1786, pp. 186, 192 & 205–206. Translations: “ifrån åkerbruket”; “frie uslingar, otjänlige til alt arbete”.

159 RAP 1786, pp. 186, 192 & 205–206. Translations: “wälmågans […] boningar”; “lastfulle uslingar”; “olycklige förbuds-brytare”.

167 BRP 1823, vol. I, p. 256. Translations: “visserligen ej saknar jord; men jag kan likväl icke finna något skäl, hvarför Brännvinsbrännings-rättigheten borde vara förenad med jorden. Behofvet af Brännvin är gemensamt för dem, som ega, och dem, som icke ega någon jord”; “bör, i min tanka, vara grundad på behofvet, men icke på något annat.”

169 PRP 1823, vol. I, pp. 137–138. Translations: “efter många växlande öden; blifvit förklaradt för en nödvändighets-vara uti vårt kalla och hårda luftstrek”; “såsom ett vigtigt bidrag till utfordringen i ladugårdarne”; “rönt den högsta liberalité, då äfven Ständerne kunna, till denna vara, (som man säger) förädla Landtmannens sädes- produktion”.

170 PRP 1823, vol. I, pp. 137–138. Translations: “ännu en klass af medborgare, hvars fördel hittils blifvit förbisedd och obevakad; och som, ehuru jordbrukande, saknar denna rättighet. _ Jag menar Torpare.”

172 PRP 1823, vol. I, pp. 137–138. Translations: “arbetande Nordboen”; “Hårdt och orättvist synes mig alltså, att bränvins-bränningsrätten blifvit dem förmenad.”

173 PRP 1823, vol. I, pp. 139, 140 & 147. Translations: “den priviligierade tillverkarens åsatta pris […] nödsakas vända sig till Krogarne”; “Laglydnad och moralité”.

89

179 PRP 1823, vol. I, p. 28. Translations: “begrafva sig under gruset af sitt Fäderneslands ruiner, än att som fega slafvar bära ett främmande ok.”; “häfderna, som vittna derom, känner man sig stollt af att vara Svensk.”

180 PRP 1823, vol. I, p. 28. Translation: “Hedervärda Bonde-Ståndet leder sin upprinnelse från dessa manliga fäder, så kan Preste-Ståndet, som närmast känner Dess tankesätt, icke ett ögonblick betvifla den berömliga anda, som ännu lefver uti Svenska Allmogens bröst.”

185 RAP 1823, vol. VI, part I, p. 79. Translations: “en förstörande njutning som förslappar och förderfvar en obildad Folk Class”; “en bättre bildning _ en sann moralité”; “huru snart kan man väl hoppas att uppnå detta mål?”

186 RAP 1823, vol. VI, part 1, pp. 84 & 93. Translation: “söka bedöfva bekymren, hvilket någon gång kan vara förlåtligt”; “förlorat hågen att supa”; “en åter vaknad heders- känsla, eller måhända ifrån efterdömet hos de mera bildade Classerne.”; “lägre Classerne”.

187 RAP 1823, vol. I, p. 151. Translation: “som till och med är rusig, utan att af densamma förolämpas.”

189 RAP 1823, vol. V, pp. 518 & 575. Translations: “missbruk och till ett ytterligt begagnande deraf”; “som bor aflägse från Staden att få sälja sin säd och att derföre köpa sig bränvin”; “ganska lätt att hemma genom bränning förvandla den till bränvin, hvaraf följden blef att han längre fram på året med hustru och barn måste lida nöd, kanske svälta sig fram.”

191 RAP 1823, vol. IV, pp. 670 & 675. Translation: “grundadt på en viss del af Norra meridian, väl är lika för hela verlden”; “som med det Franska systemet äro oskiljaktiga och hvilka blott Vetenskaps-mannen med lätthet kan öfvervinna […] Ty hvilken vanlig Svensk Bonde kan väl begripa huru stor Tiomillion-delen af jordens Norra meridian är?”

192 RAP 1823, vol. V, p. 26. Translations: “abstract ting”; “hvilka äga känsla af väl och ve, och af allt det, som på menniskor verkar.”

194 BRP 1823, vol. II, p. 842. Translations: “Församlingen knappast afbider Predikans slut innan den börjar begifva sig ur Kyrkan”; “troligen att icke åhöra många Kungörelser af ganska stor vigt.”

196 BRP 1823, vol. II, p. 844. Translations: “Den serskilta tanka, Bonde-Ståndets Ledamöter uti Lag-Utskottet yttrat och låtit bifoga Betänkandet, synes mig vara ett uttryck af allmänna rösten från den del af Allmänheten, som ej på annat sätt, än genom uppläsningen i Kyrkorne, har tillfälle att få kännedom af Författningarne”; “ganska väl låter förena sig att hafva vördnad för Religionen.”

198 BRP 1823, vol. VI, pp. 523–524 & 526. Translations: “väckt af en person, som säkert lika med mig känner det ringa förråd af både Spannmål och Skog, som finnes inom Provinsen”; “på en gång, det vare sig till skulders betalande eller nya Hemmans inköp, borthugga all sin Skog, hvarigenom, då Egendomar på detta sätt ruineras, den vackra Provinsen skulle efterhand förvandlas till kala Berg […] hvarpå så många märken redan finnas, och hvilkas antal med hvarje år ökas”; “Allmogens eget Ombud

90

fortfarande vill tillstyrka en extenderad export af Träd-varor, som, då den […] skulle snart föröda Skogs-tillgången inom Länet, och äfven derigenom försvåra Invånarnes framtida bergning”; “skulle, äfven för Allmogen sjelf, blifva högst skadlig”.

203 PRP 1823, vol. IV, p. 68. Translations: “alltför litet känner verkliga förhållandet med Rikets Läro-Verk och Skolväsende”; “talar emot sitt eget och landets sanna intresse då de ängsligt påyrkar”; ”böra från den arbetande aktningsvärda classen kasta sig, oftast utan urskiljning, in i de lärda eller åtminstone lärande och predikande casterna.”

207 RAP 1823, vol. I, p. 62. Translations: “Gemensamma deltagare i Fosterjordens odling”; “personliga försvaret af Fosterlandets ära, frihet och sjelfständighet”; “afvände Utländskt ok från Nordens fria Innebyggares skuldror […] som höjde Vasars odödlige Stamfar på Sveriges Thron”.

208 RAP 1823, vol. I, p. 63. Translation: “Redlige Dannemän, värdige afkomligar af Thronens, Frihetens och Fosterlandets försvarare, minnens hvad Edre Fäder voro för Eder, de dyra pligter de Eder i arf lemnat, det förnyade åligg J Eder påtagit, det ökade ansvar till hvilket J Eder förbundit, hvad J ären i Eder sjelfve, Edra hemmavarande bröder, Eder Efterkommande skyldige, erkännen värdet af de förmåner J ägen framför Edre likar i Europas alla öfriga Länder,[...] att deltaga i Fosterlandets lagstiftning _ i fördelningen af dess bördor _ i frivilliga åliggandera f dess försvar, _i äran af dess sällhet och dess anseende.”

210 RAP 1823, vol. I, p. 63. Translations: “Glömmom ej att rättigheter ännu aldrig gåfvos utan motsvarande pligter, att säkraste bibehållandet af de förre endast grundas i noggrant uppfyllande af det senare.”; “hädanefter som hittintills vördnad för Religionens heliga sanningar _ tillgifvenhet för Regeringen _ lydnad för lagarne _ omsorg för Medborgarens ömsesidiga rättigheter _ kärlek för den lagbundna friheten _ känsla för sjelfständighetens försvar, blifva föremålen för det Hedervärda BondeStåndets bemödanden, stämpla alla dess förehafvanden.”

214 BRP 1823, vol. V, pp. 94–95. Translations: “icke blott bereda Städernes bosatte Handlande och Haudtverkare [sic] att märkbart lidande, utan och medföra Städerne sjelfve den största oreda, ja i längden deras undergång”; “oinskränkta frihet”.

215 BRP 1823, vol. V, p. 96. Translations: “tids nog till det öde honom förestår, hvilket, sedan han inträdt i Borgeliga oket och fäst sig på ett sätt, som en lätt står att återkalla, icke torde blifva så behagligt”; “till eftersinnande af obetänksamheten deraf, att, medelst brödets ryckande från andra, tilltro sig kunna uppnå eget mått af de Handels- och Handtverks-förstjenster”.

216 BRP 1823, vol. VII, p. 25. Translation: ”gittat ens upptaga eller göra minsta afseende hvarken på de grundade anmärkningar.”

217 BRP 1823, vol. V, p. 118. Translations: “allena böra Borgare bygga och bo. Det bör vara en Samlings- och Förenings-punkt för Handel och Slöjder.”; “sjelfva grund- principen för Borgare-Ståndets existens”; “det egentliga Närings-Ståndet”.

218 BRP 1823, vol. VII, p. 36. Translations: “för Borgares distinktifva egenskap, att utgöra ett Riks Stånd, likasom Adelnsmannens, att antingen vara född af Adeliga föräldrar, eller med Adelskap af Konungen benådad; Prestens, att, efter undergången

91

examen, dertill vara vigd och innehafva Presterlig Lägenhet; samt Bondens, att aldrig hafva innehaft något publikt Embete i Staten”; “experiment på Borgare-Ståndets tillvarelse”; “början till en sammangyttring af serskilta Samfunds-klasser, och af alla ingredierande delar af det hela; hvarigenom den stora beprisade Enheten visserligen lättast skulle tillvägabringas, men hvarigenom också Samhället i sin grundval skulle skakas, om icke helt och hållet upplösas.”

223 BRP 1823, vol. I, p. 727. Translations: “Bergs-bruks-rörelsen hörer närmare till Jordbruket, än till de Borgerliga Näringarne”; “att få säte och stämma uti Bonde- Ståndet.”

224 BRP 1823, vol. I, p. 729. Translation: “för annat, än Bonde, som hvarken har varit eller är Embetsman, eller hör till något af de andra Riks-Stånden”.

229 PRP 1823, vol. I, pp. 254–255. Translations: “oupphörligen öfversvämmar våra landsorter”; ”kringstrykande, att sprida fåfänga och luxe ibland Allmogen”; “De komma nu som förr om Somrarne med sina säckar, hvilka innesluta mycket lite af egna tillverkningr, men desto större förråd af förbudet gods […] för att reta i synnerhet qvinkönets begär”.

230 PRP 1823, vol. I, p. 255. Translation: “shawlar, silkesdukar, tyll, sockerduk m. m. Begäret väckes. Nu skall fadern och husbonden skaffa penningar. Har han inga, så lemnas credit till flyttningstiden, då de återkomma och bortsopa allt hvad husfadern kunnat bespara och tjenstehjonet förtjena. Finnes något silfvermynt i en bondes gömmor, så afstå de ej förr än de liksom Judar fått tillvexla sig detsamma.”

231 PRP 1823, vol. I, p. 255. Translations: “i dess egne landsmäns vana och färdighet, att, under skydd af urgamla privilegier”; “enfaldig och dåraktig att handla med dem”.

232 PRP 1823, vol. III, p. 415. Translations: “Trefligare, snyggare, sedligare och i allmänhet mera välmående allmoge”; “man- och qvinkön täfla i tillverkning inom hus.”

234 PRP 1823, vol. III, p. 422. Translations: “afvande från jordbruket”; “vänjes ifrån ungdomen till vinningslystnad […] och till fallenhet för mindre ärlighet.”

236 PRP 1823, vol. III, pp. 432–433. Translations: “hatade den lyxe, som för några år sedan var bland allmogen”; “anständig klädedrägt verkar såsom driffjäder till arbetsamhet”; “hvarje Bondhustru likväl går högtidsklädd i siden”; “Sveriges Bondhustrur att få vara väl klädde, om de genom idoghet gjort sig dertill berättigade, ock önskar jag, att det vore allmänt, hvad jag ofta sedt i de Härader af denna trakt, dem jag berest […] blänka af Silfverpiecer”.

237 PRP 1823, vol. III, pp. 434–435 & 443. Translation: “För Gudaktighet och sedighet i allmänna lefvernet, för sparsamhet, belåtenhet och snygghet i det husliga älskar jag Folket i den del af denna ort, som tillhör min vård, och jag skulle djupt smärtas, om det anständiga välstånd, som jag har all anledning tro vara en följd af den afsättning, binäringarne genom Gårdfarihandeln vinna, skulle frångå detsamma.”

240 RAP 1823, vol. IV, pp. 688–689. Translation: “Det är väl sannt, att några missbruk vid denna handel äga rum; det är kändt, att Gårdfarihandlande ofta jemte sina egne produkter medföra utländska varor och någon gång möjeligen äfven lurendrägeri-

92

gods; men för detta afsteg begånget af någre enskilde, är det icke skäl och åtminstone ganska obilligt att betaga en hel Landsort medlen för dess bestånd.”

242 RAP 1823, vol. IV, p. 693. Translation: “Man säger väl att de borde odla jorden, i stället för att sysselsätta sig med stadsmanna-näringar, med det är ju bekant att de icka hafva någon odlingsbar mark, utan endast gungfly, sandhedar eller slätter fyllda med klapper.”

93