Absolute Obedience: Servants and Masters on Danish Estates in the Nineteenth Century

IF 0.8 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY International Review of Social History Pub Date : 2023-03-02 DOI:10.1017/s0020859022000918
Dorte Kook Lyngholm
{"title":"Absolute Obedience: Servants and Masters on Danish Estates in the Nineteenth Century","authors":"Dorte Kook Lyngholm","doi":"10.1017/s0020859022000918","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article examines legal relations between estate owners and their servants and workers on Danish estates in the nineteenth century. From the end of the eighteenth century onwards, the traditional privileged role of Danish estate owners was changing, and their special legal status as “heads of household” over the entire population on their estates was slowly being undermined. The article investigates the relationship between estate owners and their servants and workers in legislation and court cases during these times of change. It examines the Danish servant acts from 1791 and 1854 and identifies the asymmetric order of subordination and superiority in this legislation. The core of the relationship was still a “contractual submission” that, to some extent, was private and unregulated by law, and estate owners were entitled to impose sanctions and physical punishment on their servants and workers according to their own judgement. When the Servant Law of 1854 abolished estate owners’ right to punish adult servants physically, it was a significant break from the old legal order. However, a central element in the legislation, before and after 1854, was that servants’ and workers’ disobedience towards estate owners was illegal. By analysing court cases, the article examines the borderlands of the legal definition of disobedience. The elasticity in the legal system was substantial – and frequently favoured the owners. In the legal system, the notion of disobedience served to protect the last remnants of the traditional legal order of submission and superiority.</p>","PeriodicalId":46254,"journal":{"name":"International Review of Social History","volume":"63 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Review of Social History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020859022000918","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article examines legal relations between estate owners and their servants and workers on Danish estates in the nineteenth century. From the end of the eighteenth century onwards, the traditional privileged role of Danish estate owners was changing, and their special legal status as “heads of household” over the entire population on their estates was slowly being undermined. The article investigates the relationship between estate owners and their servants and workers in legislation and court cases during these times of change. It examines the Danish servant acts from 1791 and 1854 and identifies the asymmetric order of subordination and superiority in this legislation. The core of the relationship was still a “contractual submission” that, to some extent, was private and unregulated by law, and estate owners were entitled to impose sanctions and physical punishment on their servants and workers according to their own judgement. When the Servant Law of 1854 abolished estate owners’ right to punish adult servants physically, it was a significant break from the old legal order. However, a central element in the legislation, before and after 1854, was that servants’ and workers’ disobedience towards estate owners was illegal. By analysing court cases, the article examines the borderlands of the legal definition of disobedience. The elasticity in the legal system was substantial – and frequently favoured the owners. In the legal system, the notion of disobedience served to protect the last remnants of the traditional legal order of submission and superiority.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
绝对服从:19世纪丹麦庄园的仆人和主人
本文考察了19世纪丹麦庄园中庄园所有者与其仆人和工人之间的法律关系。从18世纪末开始,丹麦地产所有人的传统特权角色正在发生变化,他们作为整个地产人口的“户主”的特殊法律地位正在慢慢被削弱。本文考察了在这一变革时期的立法和法院案件中,庄园所有者与他们的仆人和工人之间的关系。本文考察了从1791年到1854年的丹麦仆人法案,并确定了该立法中从属和优越的不对称顺序。这种关系的核心仍然是一种“合同服从”,在某种程度上是私人的,不受法律管制,庄园所有者有权根据自己的判断对仆人和工人施加制裁和体罚。1854年的《仆人法》废除了庄园主人对成年仆人进行体罚的权利,这是对旧法律秩序的重大突破。然而,在1854年前后,立法的一个核心要素是,仆人和工人对庄园主人的不服从是非法的。本文通过对法庭案例的分析,考察了不服从的法律定义的边界。法律体系的弹性很大,而且往往有利于业主。在法律体系中,不服从的概念保护了传统法律秩序的最后残余,即服从和优越。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: International Review of Social History, is one of the leading journals in its field. Truly global in its scope, it focuses on research in social and labour history from a comparative and transnational perspective, both in the modern and in the early modern period, and across periods. The journal combines quality, depth and originality of its articles with an open eye for theoretical innovation and new insights and methods from within its field and from contiguous disciplines. Besides research articles, it features surveys of new themes and subject fields, a suggestions and debates section, review essays and book reviews. It is esteemed for its annotated bibliography of social history titles, and also publishes an annual supplement of specially commissioned essays on a current theme.
期刊最新文献
“Human Beings Are Too Cheap in India”: Wages and Work Organization as Business Strategies in Bombay's Late Colonial Textile Industry Workers Reconstituting the Factory Navigating Labour Shifts: Early Modern Pearl Fishing in the Caribbean (1521–1563) On Power at Work Gender Conflicts on the Shopfloor: Barcelona Women at Chocolates Amatller, 1890–1914
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1