Summary 285 for example by Gerhard Oestreich and Norbert Elias) or ‘order’ in the sense of uniform legal rules, predictable court practice and freedom of contract as a basis for economic life (as discussed by representatives of institutional economics). But a host of empirical studies have also shown howtraditional, local legal norms and customs survived to a surprising extent. Local communities seem to have retained a powerful influence over legal practice well into the early modern period. This is certainly true of Sweden, where we can talk about a transition fromcommunity law to state law, but where the notion of a ‘jucficial revolution’ (as coined by Lenman & Parker) grossly exaggerates the speed and scope of the process. The epoch is therefore best characterised with reference to its peculiar mixture of legal influences, old and new. It is within such a context of differing and contradictory traits that the problem of rights to landed property has to be considered. It also seems as if the notion of increasing order, while drawing attention to an important process, simplifies and distorts the picture of the pre-modern period. It would be wrong to ascribe to these earlier epochs a total absence of order, in either social relations or economic life. It is much more appropriate to talk of different types of order, favouring different types of social organisation. Chapter 3. Situationsfavouringrights of ancient usage Was it at all likely that anyone would have to resort to defending his land by claiming ancient usage, having no other legal title to invoke? This chapter maps out three important factors in early modern Swedish society, all of which promoted situations in which the origins of possession were unknown. First of all, land transactions were not supervised and registered in the same way as they are today. Some transactions were not even made public, such as many inheritances and exchanges of land. As regards sales of land, judges did not require the seller to provide written evidence of his legal title until 1805. Prior to that date, it was mainly the active participation of members of the local community in court sessic^ns that ensured that people did not sell land of which they were not the rightful owners. Second, land was frequently abandoned in the late Middle Ages, and even in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries this was not
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=