488 Elias’ theory on state monopoly in order to explain why the common people became more disciplined. More peaceful solutions to disputes were in their own interests. This interpretation presupposes that society at large became more peaceful, which was undoubtedly the case after the warlike 17th century. In other parts of Europe it is evident too that, on the part of the English, Germans and French for example, the 17th century was considerably more unsettled than the following century before the French Revolution. This does not exclude that the transition to a certain extent was promoted by the “reeducating” activities which were being carried out from above, not least by the Church at a local level. Church discipline, as it was exercised in the parishes during this period, was a means to combat all kinds of bad habits. It is an exaggeration to state that church discipline in its entirety was met with the understanding and support of the parishoners, but there is no reason to suppose that it always had been fought against. In fact the priests’ and the established farmers’ strivings could, on the contrary, sometimes go hand in hand, when it was a case of dampening conflicts and educating unruly neighbours. Such morality-governing tendencies with the permission of the local establishment have been found in 17th century England too. The battle for law and order was not a purely repressive instrument reserved for the central government, if considered externally from the point of view of the local, established community. In time the legal system and the activities of the Church came more and more to concentrate on the socially and economically marginal part of the population. The local elite, especially in areas with a growing propertyless population, and this already was the case in towns the size of Linköping at the end of the 18th century, saw a need to sharpen its control. The crimes against property grew in number, which was interpreted as proof that the propertyless were in the process of creating “a dangerous class”. The French Revolution had shown what could happen if one wasn’t on guard. While the town courts in the 17th century primarily were occupied with the solving of disputes between equals, the number of directives regarding fines against the propertyless, apprentices and servants grew rapidly. Sometimes even groups of craftsmen who were dissatisfied with the direction the economic transition had taken, appeared in the lists of fines. The large number of crimes of dispute and order, which the court records bear witness to, were partly of a different kind than those of the 17th century, even if a certain percentage of the cases still were concerned with the settling of disputes between individuals. Justice had, to a greater extent than previously, become an instrument for repression against the propertyless. How large a proportion of the increase was caused by social discontent and increased drunkenness, respectively intensified control, is difficult to decide. It was most probably an interplay between different factors. That socio-economical conditions influenced the number of disputes and thefts was obvious even towards the end of the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=