Search

The Swedish conglomerate state has been characterized by the special status of its provinces. While serfdom did not exist in Sweden and Finland, it was accepted in the Baltic and German provinces. The main aim of the paper is to explore how the institution of serfdom was understood and interpreted in Stockholm. It will analyse the question of how the Swedish central government's position on serfdom changed between 1561 and 1806. It will argue that there were clichés, stereotypes, and prejudices that have shaped the discourse on serfdom. The sources leave us no doubt that the labels and emotions around serfdom were very important to the authorities, the nobility and later to the public commentators who opined on the issue. Serfdom did not live up to the ideals expressed by the Swedish authorities, and a critical discussion of serfdom started much earlier than the mid-eighteenth century process of peasant emancipation. However, there were always both practical and ideological considerations around serfdom and Stockholm's policy did not change throughout the 17th and 18th century when it came to restricting peasants' free movement or using serf labour in manor fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Historica Tallinnensia is the property of Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article discusses a recent argumentation by Heikki Pihlajamäki according to whom the medieval seigneurial courts in Livonia were not dismantled with the Swedish court ordinances at the beginning of the 1630s but continued to exist as manorial courts throughout the period of Swedish rule until 1710. In fact, Arnold Soom and many other renowned historians of this period have also mentioned the practice of manor courts (Gutsgerichte) in seventeenth- century Livonia. After the 1630s, the landlords of Livland and Estland retained considerable power to solve local civil, disciplinary and petty criminal cases. These, however, were not processed as court cases, rather they were part of ordinary domestic discipline (Hausdisciplin) on the manor. The court ordinance of 1632 officially accepted and institutionalised landlords' rights to administer domestic discipline in Livonia. The sources from the 1630s up to 1700 never mention manorial courts (Gutsgericht) in Livland or Estland. The only exceptions were the manors that had been granted to Swedish counts (the families of Oxenstierna, Thurn, De la Gardie) who held a special privilege to run patrimonial courts on their possessions. Such patrimonial courts remained active in Livland and Estland until the 1680s, when the Swedish high aristocracy lost their fiefs in the Baltic provinces through the reduktion. After the reduktion of the 1680s when many noble estates reverted back into crown hands, the new leaseholders of crown estates retained only modest rights for administering domestic discipline over crown peasants. Clearly manorial courts did not exist on crown manors. However, at the same time the provincial administration in both Livland and Estland started actively trying to revive the old village office known as law-finders (Rechtsfinder) or hirsnik. Although the role of the law-finders had historically been to participate in local court sessions as peasants' representatives, during the last two decades of the 17th century, the law-finders chosen on crown estates did not sit in courts. Instead, their function was to moderate and look after the leaseholders' limited rights to discipline and punish peasants, and to act as overseers in the village. The administrative and court documents of the 1680s and 1690s leave no doubt that after the reduktion, the peasants had increasingly started to communicate with the state and the royal courts. The number of court cases where peasants were involved increased tremendously and this was clearly connected with the restricted rights of the leaseholders of crown estates to solve local disciplinary and petty criminal cases at their own will. The royal courts and provincial administrations of Estland and Livland took supplications and complaints submitted by crown peasants very seriously and peasants acted as subjects in their own right without the custody of any lord. Nevertheless, the state still addressed official responses, state taxes and other public commitments to the manors and not directly to peasants since all crown peasants were still bound to a certain manorial estate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been a tendency in historical literature to characterise serfdom through cases where landlords have displayed extraordinary cruelty towards peasants. It is questionable if and to what extent such isolated examples of sadistic violence on the part of landlords reveal the actual legal framework of serfdom. A distinction should be made between legal violence (e.g. ordinary domestic discipline) and illegal violence that was considered criminal by society and the state already during the period of serfdom. One cannot speak of the limitless right of landlords to mete out corporal punishment in the provinces of Estonia and Livonia in the 17th and 18th centuries. Besides, the most notorious acts of cruelty have become famous only because of officialcriminalinvestigations.Onthe other hand, this does not mean that systematic illegal violence did not play a role in the formation of relations between the manor and the peasantry. In the historiography so far, domestic discipline on the manor and cruel violence towards the peasantry in the provinces of Estonia and Livonia have attracted a great deal of attention. However, the actual role of violence in a Gutsherrschaft society still needs to be clarified.Theaimofthisarticleistoofferaclearerframe of reference for the position of ordinary and extraordinary violence in serf relations in Estonia and Livonia based on the example of 17th century sources. What were the nobility's arguments to justify both ordinary and extraordinary violence? Which cases of violence carried out by landlords were considered "ordinary" or normal and which were declared illegal and unacceptable? In the 17th century, the clearest legal restriction that applied to landlords in relation to their serfs (compared to Roman law) was that they did not have the right to kill. Therefore, the last part of the article closely examines court material from the 17th century in order to provide a deeper and more systematic analysis of cases where peasants were beaten to death. The court material provides the sources that form the basis for this article. Moreover, the written complaints by peasants from the 17th century provide a significantcontributionthatallowsustocapturethethoughts of the peasants on manor violence as well. The physical disciplining and punishing of peasants was clearly one means of communication between the manor and the peasantry. However, the landlord had the right to apply domestic discipline and mete out punishment only for minor misdemeanours. According to 17th century source material, one cannot speak of the absolute power of private landlords (not to mention the leaseholders of crown manors) over peasants in the provinces of Estonia and Livonia. There is abundant court material to prove that both legal and social rules were in place to view exaggerations of domestic discipline ("tyranny") as something forbidden. This definitelyincludedthekilling of peasants. Also, stabbing a peasant with a sword or wounding him with pistol (even in cases of minor scuffles)werealwaysconsideredcriminaloffences. However, landlords were rarely convicted for the outright killing of their peasants. The responsibility for excess violence was more often placed on overseers, bailiffs and others whose tasks included the disciplining and punishing of peasants. However, sources indicate the existence of a clear right of appeal for peasants in cases of exaggerated corporate punishment. These appeals were accepted and given due process both by the provincial government and the courts throughout the century. This meant that the state and the courts repeatedly intervened in relations between the manor and the peasantry in terms of the question of the limits of violence and also made landlords responsible for their actions. This definitelyhadanimpactonserfrelations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article details the opportunities of serfs to get medical care in the Baltic provinces of the Russian Empire before the abolition of serfdom in 1816-19. It argues that although at the beginning of the nineteenth century estates still played the main role as providers and mediators of medical aid to the peasantry, pressure to improve serfs' health standards had started to come from the state and the authors of popular enlightenment from the 1760s. In general, the landlords did not show any clear interest in providing medical care for their serfs, although they accepted it as one of their commitments. In the reign of Catherine II medical police became a part of state policy, and the private serf peasantry was not ignored. The state expected that the landlords would keep control over the spread of disease on their manors, but in cases of the discovery of communicable or venereal diseases the government showed its determination to intervene in private affairs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]