![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
The parish church held a central place in local communities in the 18th century, both physically and symbolically; however, the institutions and practices governing the churches differed significantly between the Scandinavian countries. This article traces the development of local church government in Norway from its position under 18th-century absolutism to its inclusion into the new system of local self-government, established in 1837. It is compared to the very different institutions of self-government in Sweden in the same period. Although there were many lines of continuity within local government across the political dividing line marked by the Norwegian constitution of 1814, both local church offices and the parish community underwent conceptual changes related to the new constitutional system. Local church government therefore provides an example of how the notion of the population in general changed from absolutism to constitutional rule; from commoners in contradistinction to the state to communities constituting the very foundation of the state.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 On the church sales in general, see Mykland, Guds hus under hammeren.
2 ‘Siden Kirkerne paa Landet ere solgte, ere der ingen Kirke-Værger mere, men med hjelpere, som foreslaaes av Præsten med Provstens Raadføring og beskikkes av Kirkens forsvar […]’. Fæhn, Betenkninger fra geistligheten i Norge, 225.
3 Imsen and Winge, Norsk historisk leksikon, 200–1.
4 Dyrvik, Vegar til sjølvstende, 179.
5 Steen, Lokalt selvstyre i Norges bygder, 42.
6 Dyrvik, Året 1814, 116.
7 Sars, Historisk innledning til grunnloven; Koht, Trongen til demokrati i 1814; Bergsgård, Styringa i bygder og byar. The idea that the constitution of 1814 re-established an ancient free society was present also in the minds of the constitution makers themselves. One of the key architects of the constitution, Christian Magnus Falsen, wrote in 1815 that they had drafted the same kind of constitution as was made under King Haakon I in the 10th century. Sunde, Constitutionalism before 1789, 14.
8 Ida Bull and Jakob Maliks argue that the constitution of 1814 established a national hegemony in Norway, in place of a regional administrative and economic structure during absolutism. The reforms of local government in 1837 reinforced this hegemony by creating a standardized structure for local government within the new state structure. Bull and Maliks, ‘Med regionen som utgangspunkt’, 32–7.
9 Gustafsson, Kommunal frihet för nationell samling.
10 This is a basic part of the concept of ‘communalism’ as it is developed by Peter Blickle (Blickle, Deutsche Untertanen; Blickle, ‘Kommunalismus, Parlamentarismus, Republikanismus’). Even though local government in Norway in the Middle Ages was characterized by extended cooperation between the state and the local communities, the latter was not a function of the former. In modern times, however, the state unquestionably is primary to local government. On communalism in Norway in the Middle Ages, see Imsen, Norsk bondekommunalisme.
11 For example Blomsted et al., Administrasjonen på 1700-tallet; Myking, ‘Lagrettemenn og bygdeelite ca. 1650–1750’; Tretvik, Tretter, ting og tillitsmenn; Gjerdåker, Statstenestemann og «Almuens Formand».
12 Nevers and Olsen, ‘Indledning’, 12–13.
13 Koselleck, ‘Begriffsgeschichte and Social History’.
14 I have chosen largely to omit material from Denmark, and focus on the difference between Norway and Sweden. There are two related reasons for this. First, Swedish local government is characterized by a continuity that sets it apart from both Norway and Denmark. It thus makes a better contrasting example from the Norwegian case. Second, I argue that the terms of local government were related to the state formations of Sweden-Finland and Denmark-Norway, respectively. Thus, Denmark and Norway share some characteristics by virtue of being part of the same state formation prior to 1814, for example a narrow and elitist type of local government. Again, Sweden provides a better contrasting example. On Danish local government in a comparative perspective, see, for example, Kayser Nielsen, Bonde, stat og hjem, 229–37.
15 For a general introduction, see Wilson, Absolutism in Central Europe. For absolutism in Denmark-Norway, see, for example, Feldbæk, Danmark-Norge 1380–1814, 25 ff; Rian, Sensuren i Danmark-Norge, 106–43.
16 However, the Danish king also reigned over other territories, in which his rule was not as absolute. The most important were the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. The Danish monarchy in the 18th century has thus been characterized as a conglomerate state in which different parts of the realm were connected to the central government in different ways. See Gustafsson, ‘The Conglomerate State’; Bregnsbo and Vilalds Jensen, Det danske imperium, 148–72.
17 Bregnsbo, ‘Det dansk-norske enevælde som forudsætning’, 163.
18 Ihalainen et al., Scandinavia in the Age of Revolution. In the General Introduction, the editors argue that, despite the new constitutions in Sweden (1809) and Norway (1814), the ‘“Age of Revolution in Scandinavia” shows a remarkable continuity with the past’, and they expand the concept of revolution to encompass a wider definition of cultural and social change in this period. Ihalainen et al., Scandinavia in the Age of Revolution, 1.
19 Rian, Sensuren i Danmark-Norge, 331–91.
20 Bergström, Lantprästen, 11.
21 This is in contrast to the situation in the cities, in which there existed civil administrative institutions in both Norway and Sweden that were dominated by merchants and civil servants. See Ericsson, Stadsadministrasjonen i Norden på 1700-talet; Bull, ‘Politisk kultur i stiftsbyene’.
22 Gustafsson, Kommunal frihet för nationell samling, 19–25.
23 Steen, Lokalt selvstyre i Norges bygder, 13–21; Næss, ‘Det lokale selvstyrets røtter’; Pryser, Frå standssamfunn mot klassesamfunn, 249–58; Dørum, ‘Et oppgjør med eneveldet og standssamfunnet’, 91–123.
24 Although, conflicts in connection with replacements of Kingo’s Psalm book and Pontoppidan’s exposition of church catechism at the turn of the century show that religious teachings could be a matter of great importance for the congregations. See Horstbøll, ‘Pietism and the politics of Catechisms’, 154–6.
25 See Lindström, Prästval och politisk kultur. The parishes were divided between three types: regal, consistorial, and patrimonial. The ordinance of 1739 concerning priest elections gave the congregation influence over the election both in the regal and consistorial parishes. The greatest influence was granted in consistorial parishes, but, even here, the congregation had to choose between three government-appointed candidates. In patrimonial parishes, the right of election was granted to the churches’ ‘patron’, usually a local nobleman. Bergstrøm, Lantprästen, 66–87.
26 For example, the congregation in Oppdal complained in 1633 that its choice of priest was neglected by the dean. Statsarkivet i Trondheim (SAT), Oppdal sokneprest, Forskjellige papirer vedk. embetet, 1633–1876 – Klage fra Oppdals allmue om prostens forbigåelse av den av menigheten valgte prest. The congregation’s right of vocation was stated in the church ordinances of 1539 and 1607. See Aschehoug, De Norske Communers Retsforfatning, 87; Daae, Geistliges Kaldelse, 13 ff.
27 Imsen and Winge, Norsk historisk leksikon, 186–7; Rørdam, Valget af kirkens tjenere i Danmark, 47 ff.; Daae, Geistliges Kaldelse, 41 ff.
28 Christian V’s Norwegian Law (CVNL), 2–3–2, in Mejlænder, Almindelig Norsk Lovsamling, 37–8.
29 Pedersen, Kirkebygging i Søndre Trondhjems amts landdistrikter, 255–8.
30 Johansson, Svensk sockensjälvstyrelse; Österberg, ‘Svenska lokalsamhällen i förändring’; Jansson, Agrarsamhällets förändring; Aronsson, Bönder gör politik, 133–65; Gustafsson, Sockenstugans politiska kultur.
31 Johansson, Svensk sockensjälvstyrelse, 201.
32 An obvious exception to this is the prevalent use of guardians for women with voting rights. But this does not alter the general character of the assembly. The guardians represented individuals with voting rights; they were not elected representatives. On the use of guardians, see Sjögren, Männen, kvinnorna och röstretten, 92 ff.
33 Gustafsson, Sockenstugans politiska kultur; Aronsson, Bönder gör politik.
34 Lagerroth, ‘Mantal och fyrk’; Aronsson, Bönder gör politik, 135.
35 Voting rights were largely defined by property criteria. That meant that widows could exert an influence on the assembly. Research has shown, however, that women’s participation was more marginal in the parish assembly than in decision-making bodies in the cities. Additionally, the women actively taking part in the parish assembly were more often than not members of the higher estates, such as estate owners and priests’ widows. Sjögren, Männen, kvinnorna och röstretten, 92 ff.
36 Aronsson, Bönder gör politik, 162.
37 Johansson, Svensk sockensjälvstyrelse, 238–54; Sörndal, ‘1817 års förordning’; Aronsson, Bönder gör politik, 120–7.
38 See note 31.
39 Johansson, Svensk sockensjälvstyrelse, 267–79.
40 Aronsson, Bönder gör politik, 115–18.
41 Gustafsson, Lokal självstyrelse, 98–9.
42 Aronsson, Bönder gör politik, 153–65.
43 Gustafsson, Kommunal frithet för nationell samling, 19–25, argues that the two Scandinavian state formations in the 18th century provided different terms for local government, which had consequences long after the break-up of both Denmark-Norway and Sweden-Finland. Thus, parliamentary proposals for local self-government in the 19th century showed many similarities between Sweden and Finland on the one hand and Denmark and Norway on the other. Gustafsson calls this an effect of ‘the inertia of the administrative tradition’.
44 See, for example, Nordin, ‘The Monarchy in the Swedish Age of Liberty’.
45 Hallenberg, Holm, and Johansson, ‘Organization, Legitimation, Participation’.
46 On parish assemblies in Jämtland, see Wichman et al., Jämtlands och Härjedalens historia, 320–1, 340–1; on Jämtland as part of the Norwegian Realm in the early 17th century, see Andresen, Landskap og maktstat.
47 On the visitations as public arenas, see Bjerkås, ‘Fra eneveldets scene mot representative forsamlinger’.
48 The thing (tinget) was, at least since the early Middle Ages, the main local assembly and court of law in Scandinavia. In early modern times, it increasingly assumed the function of lower court within the legal structure of the emerging state, but it also functioned as an arena for tax collection and, more generally, as an arena in which the state officials and local population interacted. See, for example, Myking, ‘Peasant Participation in Local Thing and Conflict Handling’; Sandvik, ‘Rettsvesenets utbygging i Norge’.
49 According to an ordinance from 1784, the congregation should be presented with plans and cost estimates for church repair at the thing, so that it could voice its opinion. This, however, only applied to churches owned by the congregation. Forordning 20. feb. 1784, in Mejlænder, Almindelig norsk lovsamling, 222.
50 Tretvik, Tretter, ting og tillitsmenn, 269–70.
51 An example of a conflict involving both mass petitioning and legal action is the sale of two farms belonging to the church in Oppdal in the 1760s. SAT, Trondheim bispearkiv pakkesaker 052, SAT, Oppdal sogneprest Ang. Oppdal kirke 1723–1786.
52 CVNL 2–9–5: ‘tiene hannem til Hielp og større Myndighet.’, in Mejlænder, Almindelig norsk lovsamling, 38.
53 Imsen and Winge, Norsk historisk leksikon, 284; Rian, Sensuren i Danmark-Norge, 375–6.
54 Hannibal Sehested to the Norwegian chancellor Jens Bjelke, 1645, in Samlinger til det norske Folks Sprog og Historie, 441.
55 Fæhn, Betenkninger fra geistligheten i Norge, 340.
56 Sandvik, Prestegard og prestelønn, 30–55.
57 Sandvik, Prestegard og prestelønn, 36–43.
58 For example, Ståle Dyrvik writes that the congregations in the 17th and 18th centuries elected church wardens and that the office circulated among the farmers. Dyrvik, Vegar til sjølvstende, 179.
59 CVNL, 2–9–2, in Mejlænder, Almindelig norsk lovsamling, 37–8. Church wardens and priest helpers in the countryside should be the same person, appointed by the ‘church defence’ (Kirkens Forsvar). This paragraph is a direct import from the Danish law of 1683. According to Christian IV’s recess of 1643, the church defence could be the king’s vassals (lensherrer), noblemen, persons with jura patronatus, or others. K. H. Johansson concludes from the paragraph that the congregations in Denmark had no say whatsoever in the election of church wardens (Johansson, Svensk sockensjälvstyrelse, 358–9). It is unclear how the provision was actually interpreted in Norway, where the nobility was of little importance and jura patronatus never gained much importance. Bishop Pontoppidan wrote in 1753 that the church defence meant the bailiff (fogd) (Fæhn, Betenkninger fra geistligheten i Norge, 352), although the priest helpers clearly were appointed by the priests and the clerical administration. In any case, the right to appoint these offices were in the hands of the king’s servants.
60 See note 55.
61 Fæhn, Betenkninger fra geistligheten i Norge, 239–40.
62 Fæhn, Betenkninger fra geistligheten i Norge, 307.
63 Gunnerus’ visitation protocolls are digitalized by Det Kongelige Norske Videnskabers Selskab (DKNVS): http://www.dknvsjubileum2010.no/images/dknv/1764_vp_s458–460.pdf, http://www.dknvsjubileum2010.no/images/dknv/1771–1773_VP2_ark2–11.pdf In 1780, however, two church wardens for the main church in Oppdal are mentioned in a dean’s visitation rapport. SAT, Dalernes prosti visitasprotokoll 1776 – 1846. Visitation i Oppdal 17. juni 1780..
64 SAT, Dalernes prosti visitasprotokoll 1776 – 1846. Visitation i Buvika 26. juli 1786.
65 SAT, biskopen i Nidaros, pakkesaker, Da. 52; kirkernes tilstand i Dalernes prosti: Pro memoria from Hans Steenbuch to the regional governor von der Osten and bishop Bang, 22. sep. 1780.
66 Forordning 20. feb. 1784, in Mejlænder, Almindelig norsk lovsamling, 222.
67 Reskript om kirkebesøk 26.10.1818; Vogt and Vogt, Love, Anordninger, Kundgjørelser, aabne Breve, Resolutioner m.m, 540–4.
68 SAT, Oppdal sogneprest, I.2d.2 Brev 1816–1823: Opptegnelse over de som har tjent i Oppdals skoler og kirker året, 2. des 1820.
69 SAT, biskopen i Nidaros, pakkesaker, pakke nr. 52: Oppdal kirkes regnskap, 1802–1836.
70 Ibid.
71 Fæhn, Betenkninger fra geistligheten i Norge, 129: ‘saa nødvendige og nyttige til Embedet, som Øine og Øren for Legemet’.
72 Fæhn, Betenkninger fra geistligheten i Norge, 129–30, 176, 183, 239, 289.
73 Expressed in the formulation in the Gulating law that the bishop should ‘kirkium ráða’; Sandvik, Prestegard og prestelønn, 67.
74 Sandvik, Prestegard og prestelønn, 67–80.
75 Ersland and Sandvik, Norsk historie 1300–1625, 156.
76 Sandvik, Prestegard og prestelønn, 224.
77 Forordning ang. Kirkerne, 13. aug. 1734, in Mejlænder, Almindelig Norsk Lovsamling, 150–1.
78 However, this only applied to churches owned by the congregations, not to churches owned by other private individuals. Forordning 20. feb. 1784, in Mejlænder, Almindelig Norsk Lovsamling, 222.
79 Dørum, ‘Opprør eller legitim praksis’, 83–5.
80 Anderson, Lineages of the Absolutist State, 429. Anderson links this to the absolutist regimes’ appropriation of Roman law: ‘The juridically unconditional character of private property consecrated by [Roman civil law (jus)] found its contradictory counterpart in the formally absolute nature of the imperial sovereignty exercised by [Roman public law (lex)]’. Ibid, 27.
81 On this much-discussed topic, see, for example, Dyrvik, Vegar til sjølvstende, 123 ff. For a divergent view, see Lunden, Norges landbrukshistorie 1350–1814, 291 ff. In Denmark, this process towards freehold played itself out within a much shorter timespan and, after a much more direct initiative from the government, with the sweeping agrarian reforms at the end of the 18th century. See, for example, Feldbæk, Danmark-Norge 1380–1814, 230 ff.
82 There were many regional and local exceptions to this general description of the process towards freehold peasantry. A national overview can be found in Dyrvik, ‘Overgangen til sjølveige i Norge’.
83 For a national overview of the church sales, see Mykland, Guds hus under hammeren.
84 Skrondal, Orkdalsboka, 183 ff.
85 Leland, Det kommunale sjølvstyret i Orkdal, 38.
86 The deed for the purchase can be found in SAT, Oppdal sogneprest, 1.3f.2 – Ang. Oppdal kirke, 1723–1786.
87 This information was conveyed by Feldman’s widow to Jens Lemvig, who became vicar in Oppdal in 1763. See SAT, biskopen i Nidaros, pakkesaker, pakke nr. 52: Kirkene i Dalerne 1736–1845; Kirkens tilstand i Oppdal: Jens Lemvig to the dean Hans Steenbuch 15. May 1770.
88 SAT, biskopen i Nidaros, pakkesaker, pakke nr. 52: Kirkene i Dalerne 1736–1845; Kirkenes tilstand i Dalernes prosti: Beretning om Dalernes Prostis Kirker, 19. April 1805.
89 SAT, Oppdal sogneprest, Ang. Oppdal kirke, 1723–1786 (1.3f.2) – Innberetning til biskop og stiftamtmann fra sogneprest Kielstrup, 4. sept. 1759.
90 SAT, Trondheim bispearkiv, pakkesaker – Da. 052 Kirkenes tilstand i Dalernes prosti 1736–1845; Kirkenes tilstand i Oppdal: Correspondence between dean Steenbuch and vicar Lemvig, May 1770.
91 Ibid.
92 ‘vælges og antages af Sognepræsten med Herredsprostens Approbation’, SAT, Oppdal sogneprest, brev 1805–1816: Parelius to Rønnau, 19. juni 1807. Later that year, it was stated that this decision was based on a resolution from the diocese (stiftet). SAT, Oppdal sogneprest, brev 1805–1816: Parelius to Rønnau, 3. aug. 1807.
93 Skrondal, Orkdalsboka, 187.
94 See SAT, biskopen i Nidaros, pakkesaker, pakke nr. 52: Kirkens tilstand i Oppdal: Rønnau og kirkevergene til Bugge og stiftamtmann, 30. mai 1820.
95 Johansson, Svensk sockensjälvstyrelse, 159 ff. Johansson argues that decisions about expenses and improvements of the church were regarded as belonging to private law (privaträttslig natur).
96 Condorelli, Quod omnes tangit, debet ab omnibus approbari, 65.
97 Habermas, Borgerlig offentlighet, 4–11. The conceptual division between the absolute (state) power and the atomized ‘people’ is of course related to a Hobbesian defence of absolutism. A great analysis of the origins of this notion can be found in Koselleck, Critique and Crisis.
98 We can construct an etymological link to illustrate the point. The English word ‘common’ corresponds to the Danish word ‘menig’, the first part of ‘menighet’ (congregation). ‘Menig’ is, of course, related to the German ‘Gemeinde’, which means both ‘congregation’ and ‘common’.
99 The Church Ministry confirmed just this line of reasoning, when commenting on a case from the parish of Gran in Hadeland in 1840. The municipal council in Gran had decided to purchase the local churches on behalf of all the inhabitants who were obliged to pay the tithe. The ministry reacted against this, arguing that the municipal council only represented the municipality as a collective unit (‘ikkun repræsenterer den samlede Commune […] altsaa i ethvert Tilfælde et vidst Districts Indvaanere betragtet som Heelhed […]’). Steen, Lokalt selvstyre i Norges bygder, 72.
100 Lov 24.apr. 1818 ang. vedkommende menigheders Forpligtelse til at overtage og vedligeholde deres Sognekirker, in Mejlænder, Almindelig norsk lovsamling, 327.
101 Stortingets forhandlinger: Royal proposition 12.2.1818.
102 The transition was ambiguous, however. Even after 1837, cotters and others who had not partaken in the purchase of the churches still had to pay tithe or other church fees. IKATrøndelag; Orkdal formannskapsprotokoll, 1837–1860, folio 6a, formannskapsmøte, folio 12a, Formannskapsmøte 8. sept. 1838.
103 ‘Medens Kirkerne ved Salgene i Begyndelsen af forrige Aarhundrede og tidligere for største Delen kom ud af Menighedernes Eie, er Udviklingen især i dette Aarhundrede gaaet i den Retning, at de fleste Menigheder igjen har erhvervet sine Kirker, saa der kun er forholdsvis faa, som nu er i Privates Eie’. Quoted in Stortingets forhandlinger. Oth.prp. nr. 28, 1897, 1.
104 Oth.prp. nr. 28, 1897, 10–11.
105 Aronsson, Bönder gör politik, 306–7.
106 Steen, Lokalt selvstyre i Norges bygder, 13–21; Hovland, Grotid og glanstid, 83.
107 Leland, Det kommunale sjølvstyret i Orkdal, 38; IKATrøndelag, Oppdal formannskapsprotokoll 1837–1859, kommunestyremøte 7. des. 1844, folio 83b, formannskapsmøte 15.dec 1846, folio 119b, 133b.
108 The municipal council’s control over the church property was so well-established that the vicar in Oppdal in 1846 had to ask council for permission to use the church for mission meetings (Oppdal formannskapsprotokoll 1837–1859, folio 114b, formannskapsmøte 1 okt. 1846). The council had no objections to this request.
109 Gustafsson, Sockenstugans politiska kultur, 98–9.
110 Instruction for the church wardens in Orkdal. IKATrøndelag, Orkdal kommune, formannskap, korrespondanse 1847–1850.
111 IKATrøndelag, Oppdal kommune, formannskapsprotokoll 1837–1859, folio 105b, 107b, 109a–b, 111a, 112a–b 119b, 130b–131a, 133b–134b, 137b, 139b–140a, 140a, 141b; IKATrøndelag, Orkdal formannskapsprotokoll, folio 6a, 12a, 13a–b, 15b, 114b.
112 The source material on the election of church wardens prior to 1837 is scant. In Oppdal, the church accounts show that there were four church wardens and that they usually were replaced simultaneously. This may indicate a lack of competition for the position (SAT, Trondheim bispearkiv, pakkesaker – Da. 052 Kirkenes tilstand i Dalernes prosti 1736–1845. Inkluderer regnskap for Oppdal kirke 1802–1836). According to a statement from the dean, they were chosen by the vicar. SAT, Oppdal sogneprest, brev 1805–1816: Parelius to Rønnau, 19. juni 1807. In Orkdal the church wardens were chosen by the congregation after 1794, but further information about the process is lacking. Leland, Det kommunale sjølvstyret i Orkdal, 39.
113 Oppdal kommune, formannskapsprotokoll 1837–1859; folio 3b., folio 15a–b; IKATrøndelag, Orkdal kommune, formannskap, korrespondanse 1847–1850.
114 See note 85.
115 Oppdal kommune, formannskapsprotokoll 1837–1859, folio 3b.
116 See note 76.
117 Gustafsson, Sockenstugans politiska kultur, 102 ff.
118 Aronsson, Bönder gör politik, 343 ff.
119 Gustafsson, Kommunal frihet för nationell samling, 19–25; Jansson, Agrarsamhällets förändring, 90–3.
120 On the social composition of the municipal councils, see Steen, Lokalt selvstyre i Norges bygder, 122–33.
121 IKATrøndelag, Orkdal kommune, formannskap, korrespondanse 1847–1850.
122 Based on the cadaster of 1838: http://arkivverket.no/URN:db_read/db/35488/43/?size=bigger&mode=0
123 The man chosen in Orkdal in 1847, John Vormdal, was a former member of the municipal council.
124 Other municipal council members who acted as church wardens in Oppdal in the 1840s were Erik S. Wognild, Even Mjøen, and Ole Larssen Rise. IKA Trøndelag, Oppdal kommune, formannskapsprotokoll 1837–1859, folio 111a, 119b, 133b.
125 For example, in 1838, the church warden in Orkdal wrote to the municipal council that the dean, on his latest visitation, had ‘suggested, or rather demanded’ (‘blev det forelagt, eller ligesom befalet, af Provsten’), that the church building should be whitewashed. The warden asked the council to consider the best way to keep the costs as low as possible. IKATrøndelag, korrespondanse. The church warden John Sorgaard to the municipal council, 26. Jan. 1838. Edgar Hovland writes that the municipal councils in the decades after 1837 exhibited ‘a mania for saving’ (‘sparemani’). Hovland, Grotid og glanstid, 76 ff.
126 Pedersen, Kirkebygging i Søndre Trondhjems amts landdistrikter, 178–83.
127 SAT, Oppdal sogneprest, brev 1816–1823: Rønnau to the regional government (stiftsdireksjonen), 16. May 1816. SAT, PL 372 Oppdal: Church wardens and the vicar Rønnau to the regional government (stiftsdireksjonen), 15. Nov. 1822.
128 SAT, Oppdal sogneprest, brev 1816–1823: Rønnau and the church wardens to the regional government (stiftsdireksjonen), 30. May 1820.
129 Steen, Det norske folks liv og historie, 87; Sandvik, ‘Salet av landskyrkjene i Sør-Noreg’; Dyrvik, Vegar til sjølvstende, 179 ff.
130 Koselleck, ‘Begriffsgeschichte and social history’, 89.
131 Dyrvik et al., Norsk økonomisk historie 1500–1970, 122–32, 184–9.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Trond Bjerkås
Trond Bjerkås defended his PhD thesis in 2016 at NTNU in Trondheim. He currently holds a position as associate professor at The University of Agder in Norway. His work is mainly concentrated on political culture in the 18th and 19th centuries.