67 tion continued to be organized more or less along these lines. In the same way, legal literature was twofold: some of the works - such as Ralamb’s “Observationes” - are scientific works and as such mixtures of Roman-canon, Swedish, and natural law; others are mainly handbooks for practicing judges or lawreaders, such as Nehrman’s major works. The Lawof Proof and the Reception: The Doctrine Simplified Fromthe comparative perspective, the lay character of Swedish lawis evident. This specifically Swedish characteristic of law is reflected in all its levels: legislation, legal practice, and jurisprudence. Therefore, before going into the details of premodern Swedish legal doctrine, a general comment to avoid anachronisms should be made. Although interesting in their own right, the Swedish premodern legal treatises ought not to be read like modern works of law. They do not reflect the judicial practice of their times, or at the most, they do so partially. They hardly mirror the legislation of their time, either. The Swedish books of lawwere written for other purposes. They were practical guides for practicing judges with little or no legal training; they were not studied as such in the universities - as I have claimed above, universities were directed more toward the general upbringing of young nobles than toward practical professional abilities. The books of such writers as Rålamb and Kloot also show the learnedness of their authors; at times they point in the direction that the authors wish the law to take de lege feranda. The legal treatises were few: the important writers on legal procedure in the 1600s and 1700s can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Therefore, they did not formschools, “prevailing opinions” — hardly even traditions with a proper Swedish continuity; nor were there scholarly debates between authors. There were not even true debates between Swedish and foreign authors, although Swedish authors did frequently comment on foreign ones. It could be said, therefore, that the major Swedish authors, instead of building on an indigenous Swedish tradition, clung to the foreign, continental traditions of their time.5"* As in modern law, the premodern Swedish legal science, however, conceived of interpretation and systematization of statutes as its task, although the interpretation was not based on any closed hierarchy of legal sources as it is today.-‘’5 The position of theoretical jurisprudence, fromthe point of view of how courts perceived their being bound to different legal sources, was, however, very different from the modern conception. The particularly dominant According to Letto-Vanamo, it is questionable whether one can even speak of a Swedish jurisprudence before the eighteenth century. Letto-Vanamo 1994 p. 1146. See also Björne 1984 who suggests that the social position of Loccenius, Rålamb, and Kloot may have affected the way they chose the foreign models for their systems of law. Paasto 1994 pp. 204—206.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=