Narva in Estonia and of Nyen in Ingermanland argued that this part of the draft was contrary to the tradition of their own regions. Since the country people were unreliable, the magistrates wrote, the worker as well as his widow must be committed to remain for life-long work under one and the same master. These demands from the Baltic areas on a duty to life-long servitude, however, did not gain a hearing in Sweden. On the contrary, at the same time as the Code of 1734maintained most of the harsh rules on landbolega that had been developed since medieval times, in glaring contrast to the proposals from the provinces, it completely skipped the rule on a minimum time-period for landbolega.102 Thus, the Swedish lawmaker did not receive the legal solution that was common and well established on the European continent. Although many of the rules of the Code of 1734 may seem harsh from our contemporary Swedish perspective, at least some of them were lenient from a contemporary comparative perspective.103 As was mentioned in the introduction, Claes Peterson and other legal historians have asserted that the Code of 1734 was a continuation of a century-old European legal tradition rather than the introduction of a new way of legal thinking.This study of a limited area of law, the relationship between master and servant, leads to a similar result, however with a slight reservation. On the one hand, when considering the content of the rules, the Code of 1734 and the writings of David Nehrman did not represent a break with the past.The substance of the rules in the p a r t 1 i , c h a p t e r 2 56 102 Förslag till Jordabalk (Draft to the Book on Land Law) 1695, of the Law Commission of 1686, Sjögren1900-1909, IV, pp. 193, 261V, pp. 97,V, pp. 142,VI, pp. 133, 149; Opinions from Ingermanland on the commission’s draft of 1695, Sjögren1900-1909,VII, pp. 202-204;The Code of 1734, Jordabalken, (The Book on Land Law), chapter 16. 103 Comparative conclusions of this kind are discussed by Winroth 1889; Malmström 1934, pp. 127-128; Munktell 1943, p. 189;Anners 1965, pp. 11, 17, 33; Jägerskiöld 1984, p. 693; Kumlien 1997, p. 181. 2. 5 concluding remarks i i
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=