the execution and its message man scene could occur where the priest worked for four hours at the site of the execution seeking to obtain a confession, and the urge for getting the execution done was answered with the admonition that the fate of an immortal soul was at stake.297 In Sweden and other countries that had no special ceremonies associated with sentencing, and where the processions often seem to have been much less impressive, it was the liturgical ceremonies of preparation that dominated the picture. The last service in the prison-chapel or some nearby church attended by the condemned prisoner, often called condemned sermon, were sometimes very well attended, and in reality often were a service aimed for the visitors and not for the one that was going to die.298 The name condemned sermon comes from Britain. In London the condemned sermon in Newgate, until its abolishment in 1845, was an event were many, especially from the upper classes, strived to attend.299 Although the condemned sermon in Newgate is the most studied, it also occurred in other places in England.300 In this and other settings the condemned could be used as a caution. Johann Christian Lange, writing under a pseudonym in 1698, suggested that the condemned ahead of the execution should be displayed in the church and in a sermon be exhibited as a deterring example.301 Thus the church through its clergy could deliver a message both theological reasonable in pursuit of repentance but also accurate for a state seeking deterrence. Johan Niklas Holmgren more than 150 years later programmatically describes the service of the condemned sermon not primarily relating to or aiming at the condemned. The condemned sermon was a service for the large number of other visitors. According to Holmgren the service den Menschen noch in dem Verbrecher, und versagen ihm daher auch den geistigen Beistand nicht, der es ihm möglich, oder doch leichter macht, in einer besseren Verfassung des inneren Menschen die unsichtbare Welt zu betreten.” 297 Hardeland 1898 p 472. 298 Bergman 1996 p 174 sqq, Odhelius 1842 p 12 sq. 299 Laurence 1932 p 184, Gatrell 1994 p 83, see also Linebaugh 1977 p 250 sqq, Potter 1993 p 20, and Wakefield 1831 p 254 sqq. 300 Potter 1993 p 23 sq, Rawlings 1988 p 786 note 9. 301 Leucopolitanius 1698 p 23 sq. The real author is identified in Doering 1832 p 258. 96
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=