preface – mia korpiola 19 of course, following somewhat different legal sources, arguing routinely withius commune authorities (Roman law, learned jurisprudence) and with learned advocates representing the parties. Pihlajamäki’s findings suggest that a comparison between several aspects of the Swedish courts of appeal may lead to observations about their particular features. The court of appeal had proved itself a useful institution for the administration of justice, adjudicating cases and legitimizing the rule in the eyes of the Crown. Yet, the Swedish courts of appeal may have had somewhat individual identities depending on the special qualities of the soil of the region in which they were planted. Indeed, this is also suggested by the research of Iisa Vepsä on the Court of Appeal of Vaasa (Sw. Vasa), established in 1775. In the jurisdiction of the Vaasa Court, there were few noble estates and, as Vepsä has observed, “from the viewpoint of the litigants, it [the Vaasa Court of Appeal] was first and foremost the court of peasants.”16 This is in stark contrast with what Heikki Pihlajamäki has observed about the Dorpat Court; namely, that “the access of peasants to the Court of Appeal was effectively barred.”17 This made the Vaasa Court probably into the most down-to-earth and least sophisticated of the Swedish courts of appeal. By contrast, Maria Ågren has used her analysis of the cases of the Svea Court of Appeal in 1686-1687 to suggest that the Svea Court largely served Stockholm and its surroundings, which were over-represented (Stockholmsområdet var […] överrepresenterat) in the total number of cases.18 Thus, the wealthy and cosmopolitan capital gave a special flavour to the cases of the Svea Court, probably also adjudicating some of the most legally complex disputes in the Realm. As Elsa Trolle Önnerfors has argued in her chapter, a significant number of the litigants at the Svea Court of Appeal in the latter half of the seventeenth century were noble. While almost a quarter of the litigants were noble on average, their proportion increased to a third at the end of the seventeenth century. This was partly due to new ennoblements and partly to the Great Reduction of 1680, the repossession of Crown lands (Sw. reduktionen), which came to nearly halve 16 Vepsä, Iisa 2009 p. 223: “oikeudenhakijoiden näkökulmasta se oli ennen kaikkea talonpoikien oikeus.” 17 See Heikki Pihlajamäki’s chapter in this volume. 18 Ågren, Maria 1997 p. 59.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=