486 manslaughter cases, above all those unpremeditated, decreased in relation to the population fromthe first half of the 17th century to the middle of the 19th century. The relationship between the two periods is difficult to determine, but the major decrease appears to have taken place at least before the middle of the 18th century. It is, however, difficult to find any similar decrease in less violent acts in the court records. Where Linköping is concerned it can be seen that the number of recorded thefts increased at the beginning of the 19th century, although not to such levels that the relationship between violence and theft m any decisive way was altered. At the end of the 19th century the number of recorded crimes against property decreased, rather. The significant increase did not occur until after the Second World War. The elementary theory must, at least on Sweden’s part, be rejected but that does not mean that important events did not take place. In order to understand this it is necessary to first and foremost stop regarding violence and theft as chronological covariances, even if one can find certain factors common to their existance. Let us first discuss acts of violence and dispute, as they appeared m this investigation and as a starting point consider the decrease in violent crimes resulting in death. Norbert Elias’ theory that a disciplining of people by means of a state monopoly of violence is then not very illuminating. The state did not always have a dampening effect on violence. It exercised forms of not insignificant violence itself in connection with war operations during the 17th century, amongst other instances, manifested in the wars in the border counties between Denmark and Sweden. Nor did the “pacifying” of the previous border counties, at the end of the 17th century, pass by without any spectacular use of repression on the part of the central powers. These events contributed rather to an increase in violence, including that which was exercised by others than the state’s own representatives. Nor is there any clear proof that the government would have been capable of bringing violence to a lower level in its inner domains than on its perimeters. There are, therefore, no unequivocal connections between the increased influence of the central government and the level of violence. Everything depended on circumstances, e.g. the presence of undisciplined soldiers. What is also striking in the judgement books from the 17th century is how often weapons were used in disputes in inns, at weddings and on other occasions, when intoxication had made feelings rise. The fact that people were so often armed was in certain areas, e.g. the district of Göinge, partly a result of the turbulent conditions which the presence of two central powers, Sweden and Denmark, created. During the 18th century, when weapons became less usual everyday objects, the number of fights resulting in death decreased. It is selfevident that over a period of time these factors contributed to influencing attitudes against the use of violence. The more often a dispute ended with bloodshed, the more natural violence appeared and vice versa.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=