a safe haven in the shadow of war? – mia korpiola 103 Thus, both the Reichskammergericht and the Svea Court of Appeal were to some extent results of the ruler’s need to address the grievances of the people for domestic reasons and part of political negotiations in order to have consent for extraordinary aid for warfare and campaigns abroad. In Sweden, however, the Court became first and foremost a royal court symbolizing royal power, whereas theReichskammergericht rather reflected independence from the Emperor. This can be explained to some extent by the different political level and more centralized royal government in Sweden (a largely non-feudal national state vs. the feudal Empire) and the fact that one of the reasons for founding the Svea Court was to free the King from the burden of day-to-day judicial matters while he was on campaigns. The Swedish king had a greater personal interest in establishing the Court of Appeal, which is why it took place on his initiative and came to reflect his power and authority. Moreover, the King could delegate any tasks to the Court of Appeal he thought fit according to the 1615 Procedural Rules for the Court of Appeal.292 Thus, again drawing on German parallels, one may observe that the Svea Court of Appeal not only performed the adjudicatory functions of the Reichskammergericht but also some of the more political and administrative ones of theReichshofrat.293 The various different names both in Swedish and in Latin may also reflect the diversity of the tasks of the new court and the multiplicity of foreign models for it. Thus, the somewhat precipitous establishment of the court was a crisis management measure that proved successful in the long run even if it required modifications and adjustments with time. As the central task of the Court of Appeal was to provide justice for the people under its jurisdiction, it is difficult to regard the establishment of other similar tribunals in Turku, Tartu and Jönköping between 1623 and 1634 as a failure of the expectations invested in the court as Michael Roberts has suggested.294 As the independent ducal hovrätter of Östergötland and Södermanland died out in 1618 and 1622, the workload of the Svea Court may have been growing. Rather, establishing more high royal courts 292 Rättegångs-Process, 23 June 1615, Kongl. stadgar, ed. Schmedeman, p. 156: “Skole och wår Domhafwande och Bijsittiare wara förtänckte at vptaga the Ärender, som wij sielfwe af höghwichtige betänckiande kunne til them skiuta, särdeles the som oss sielfwe angå..” 293 For the activities of the Reichshofrat, see Ortlieb, Eva 2003 pp. 235-248, 258-269. 294 Roberts, Michael 1953 p. 267.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=