Den ärlige kyrkoherden och den våldsamme drängen. Etablering av trovärdighet och sanning i den tidigmoderna häradsrätten 1687–1704

Abstract

In this thesis, the establishment of truth in the early modern district court is analyzed through a collection of seven criminal cases from 1687 to 1704. The aim is to understand contemporary notions of truth, credibility, and who was deemed credible. Previous research on historical law and truth has primarily focused on the processes of the court and the structure of judicial work. Additionally, the court's role in society and other cultural phenomena observed in the courtroom have also been subjects of interest in earlier studies. This thesis, however, shifts the focus to the actors in the assembly, including the court itself and the other participants, how they acted, and what made someone credible. The theoretical framework for this study is performativity theory and the concept of the performative power of language. Therefore, a key assumption is that the court functioned as a performative arena where statements had a performative, and thus creative, force utilized by both the participants and the court. To build on research regarding honour and its connection to credibility, the performative theory's method is combined with the concepts of subject position and subject positioning. These concepts refer to the position a person held and how someone was positioned, either by themselves or by others, within the early modern culture of honor. The study is organized by initially analyzing what can be considered physical evidence and its role in court, followed by an analysis of witness testimonies as evidence. Subsequently, the court's work toward the suspects is analyzed, concluding with an analysis of the court's reasoning in the verdicts. Throughout the study, the participants and their involvement in various aspects are also presented. In analyzing the participants' actions in the court, I demonstrate how events were established as crimes and how individuals were positioned in various roles in the courtroom. The court's work and its verdicts established these positions beyond the courtroom as well. Through what I refer to as collective knowledge, the local community exerted power and influence in the court. By analyzing collective knowledge and the court's actions, I show that subject position, and thus subject positioning, played a significant role in determining credibility. Those who deviated or stood alone in their statements found it harder to be believed. Simultaneously, statements from individuals holding credible subject positions were not questioned, meaning that those deemed credible were also perceived as truthful. Thus, one can speak of an absolute view of truth, where statements by credible individuals were unquestioned, but also of a relative view of truth, where something was true relative to who said it.