1. Svea hovrätts arkiv, Liber causarum 135:9, case no. 17, fol. 9. Riksarkivet, Stockholm (hereafter RA).

2. To translate the Swedish term is not uncomplicated. It is useful, however, to compare the description of prescriptive titles given in A. Simpson, W. B., A History of the Land Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 109f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Simpson quotes Bracton's definition of the user needed to found such a title: “user for a long time with peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted enjoyment of the right”and also mentions that the common law looked upon long user as based on “time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.” This description fits very well with the title of urminnes hävd. Bracton also says that the lord should be aware of the use and choose not to interfere, but Simpson states that “in Bracton there is no theory that acquisition by prescription depends upon any fictional presumption of a lost grant; long user of itself founds a right of property.” By the seventeenth century, however, legal doctrine had begun to assume that such a use was based on a previous grant by the lord. The idea of a grant is absent in the case of urminnes hävd, even though, as we shall see, the notion of tacit consent resembles the notion of the landlord choosing not to interfere.

3. Loccenius, J., De Usucapione et Longi Temporis Praescriptione (dissertation, University of Uppsala, 1644), sec. xxGoogle Scholar; Sidenius, D., De Immemoriali Praescriptione (dissertation, University of Uppsala, 1662), thesis 1, vi.Google Scholar

4. Motiver m.m. till Civila Lag-Förslaget (Stockholm, 1826), 89.

5. See, for example, Schlatter, Richard, Private Property: The History of an Idea (London: Allen and Unwin, 1951)Google Scholar; Kiernan, V. G., “Private Property in History,” in Family and Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200–1800, ed. Goody, Jack, Thirsk, Joan, and Thompson, E. P. (Cambridge 1976).Google Scholar A useful point of departure is also provided in Reeve, Andrew, Property (London: Macmillan, 1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6. For a theoretically inspired discussion of this, see, for example, Dobb, Maurice, Studies in the Development of Capitalism (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1946; Swedish edition, 1981)Google Scholar, chaps. 5 and 6; for a local study, see Thompson, E. P., Whigs and Hunters: the Origin of the Black Act (London: Allen Lane, 1975).Google Scholar

7. Thirsk, Joan, “Enclosing and Engrossing,” in The Agrarian History of England and Wales, vol. 4, 1500–1640, ed. Thirsk, Joan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 200–55Google Scholar; Alan Everitt, “Farm Laborers,” ibid., 406–12. Wordie, J. R., “Chronology of English Enclosure,” The Economic History Review 36 (November 1983): 502Google Scholar, estimates that 45 percent of England was enclosed already by 1500.

8. For a favorable view of enclosure, see, among others, Chambers, J. D. and Mingay, G. E., The Agricultural Revolution, 1750–1880 (London: Batsford, 1966).Google Scholar For a more pessimistic view, see, for example, Thompson, E. P., Customs in Common (London: Merlin Press, 1991)Google Scholar; Snell, K. D. M., Annals of the Labouring Poor: Social Change and Agrarian England, 1660–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Neeson, Jeanette M., Commoners: Common Right, Enclosure and Social Change in England, 1700–1820 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9. Cf. Rule, John, “Against Innovation? Custom and Resistance in the Workplace, 1700–1850,” in Popular Culture in England, c. 1500–1850, ed. Harris, Tim (London: Macmillan, 1995), 168–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the meaning of “custom” in the crafts sector.

10. Thompson, “Custom, Law and Common Right,” in Customs in Common, 97f.

11. Neeson, Commoners, 78, 84, 86, 92, 162. See also Searle, Charles E., “Custom, Class Conflict and Agrarian Capitalism: The Cumbrian Customary Economy in the Eighteenth Century,” in Past and Present 110 (1986), 106–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12. North, Douglass, Structure and Change in Economic History (New York: Norton, 1981)Google Scholar; Baland, J.-M. and Platteau, J.-Ph., “Division of the Commons: A Partial Assessment of the New Institutional Economics of Land Rights,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 80 (August 1998): 644–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13. Demsetz, Harold, “Towards a Theory of Property Rights,” American Economic Review 57 (May 1967): 347–73.Google Scholar

14. See, for example, The Question of the Commons. The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources, ed. McCay, B. J. and Acheson, J. M. (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1987).Google Scholar

15. See, for example, Pettersson, Ronny, Laga skifte i Hollands län, 1827–1876 (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell International, 1983).Google Scholar

16. Hoppe, Göran and Langton, John, Peasantry to Capitalism: Western Östergötland in the Nineteenth Century, Cambridge Studies in Historical Geography no. 22 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 58Google Scholar (summarizing the work of, for example, Birgitta Olai and Kalle Back).

17. This is the theme of a dissertation project being undertaken in Gothenburg by Staffan Granér. See also Hoppe, Göran, “Skiftesreformerna och agrarutvecklingen,” Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift 5 (1983): 32–45.Google Scholar

18. Thirsk, “Enclosing,” 240ff.

19. Winberg, Christer, Grenverket. Studier rörande jord, släktskapssystem och ståndsprivilegier, Rättshistoriskt bibliotek 38 (Stockholm: Nordiska Bokhandeln i Distribution, 1985).Google Scholar

20. Stretton, Tim, Women Waging Law in Elizabethan England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. Österberg, Eva, “Brott och rättspraxis i det förindustriella samhället. Tendenser och tolkningar i skandinavisk forskning,” Historisk Tidskrifi 2 (1993): 201–26.Google Scholar

22. Inger, Göran, Svensk rättshistoria (rev. edition, Malmö: Liber Förlag, 1997), 70Google Scholar; Meurling, Anna Christina, Svensk domstolsförvaltning i Liviana, 1634–1700 (Lund: Gleerup, 1967), 44.Google Scholar

23. Disputes between noblemen and peasants were first tried in the hundred courts.

24. Myrdal, Janken, Jordbruket under feodalismen, 1000–1700 (Stockholm: Natur och Kultur/LTs förlag, 1999), 261–70.Google Scholar

25. This does not apply to ethnologists and historical geographers, who have devoted a great deal of attention to village organization. See, e.g., Erixon, Sigurd, Svenska byar utan systematisk regiering 1–2 (Stockholm: Nordiska Muséet, 1960)Google Scholar; Helmfrid, Staffan, “The Storskifte, Enskifte and Laga Skifte in Sweden: General Features,” Geografiska Annaler 43.1–43.2 (1961): 114–29.Google Scholar

26. These shares could be measured and expressed in various ways. See Kulturhistoriskt lexikon for nordisk medeltid, vol. 2 (Malmö: Allhems Förlag, 1957), “Byamål,” cols. 389 ff.

27. Legal Code of King Christopher (1442), Byggningabalken 11.

28. Ehn, Wolter, Mötet mellan centralt och lokalt. Studier i uppländska byordningar (Uppsala: Dialekt- och folkminnesarkivet, 1991), 11.Google Scholar

29. Dovring, Folke, Agrarhistorien (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1966), 55 ff.Google Scholar

30. Cf. Hoppe and Langton, Peasantry, 58. These authors mention that in the parts of Sweden where this system of solskifte had never been enforced, peasants were more worried about the impending enclosure, since “no certain measurements of the extent of farm properties existed.”

31. See for example Kulturhistoriskt lexikon för nordisk medeltid, vol. 2, “Bymark,” col. 426.

32. This policy can be compared with the restrictions imposed on some English tenants. See Whittle, Jane, “Individualism and the Family-Land Bond: A Reassessment of Land Transfer Patterns among the English Peasantry c. 1270–1580,” Past and Present 160 (1998): 25–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33. Inger, Svensk rättshistoria, 98 f. Between 1459 and 1684 the prohibition against subdivision was rigorously upheld, but Inger points out that it is likely that farms were subdivided unofficially. The prohibition against piecemeal selling of land began to be enforced at the end of the seventeenth century.

34. Hoppe and Langton, Peasantry, 56 f.; Inger, Svensk rättshistoria, 99, who points out that children who could not inherit the farm were given a right to reclaim new land (instead of buying smaller pieces from their parents). This practice is investigatedin Rantanen, Martti, Tillväxt i periferin. Befolkning och jordbruk i Södra Österbotten 1750–1890 (Göteborg: Ekonomisk-Historiska Institutionen vid Göteborgs Universitet, 1997).Google Scholar

35. King's Letter to Göta Hovrätt, 2 September 1689; reprinted in af Botin, A., Beskrifning om swenska hemman och jorda-gods. Del I. Hemman i allmänhet (Stockholm, 1798), 88 f.Google Scholar

36. Mingay, G. E., Land and Society in England, 1750–1980 (London, New York: Longman, 1994), 145.Google Scholar Neeson, Commoners, 308, argues that this is too low an estimate and that 20 to 30 percent is very probably a more accurate figure.

37. The nobility thus controlled as much as 60 percent of all incomes from landed property. Nilsson, Sven A., “Imperial Sweden: Nation-Building, War and Social Change,” in The Age of New Sweden, ed. Losman, Arne, Lundström, Agneta, Revera, Margareta (Stockholm: Lìvrustkammaren, 1988), 23.Google Scholar

38. This point has been stressed in particular by Ylikangas, Heikki, “Kampen mellan naturrätt och romersk rätt i Sverige,” in Den svenska juridikens uppblomstring i 1600-talets politiska, kulturella och religiosa stormaktssamhälle, ed. Inger, Göran, Rättshistoriska Studier no. 9 (Stockholm: Institutet för Rättshistorisk Forskning, 1984).Google Scholar It also stands out very clearly in Winberg, Grenverket.

39. Larsson, Lars-Olof, “Borgrätt och adelsjurisdiktion i medeltidens och 1600-talets Sverige,” in Historia och samhälle. Studier tillägnade Jerker Rosén (Malmö: Studentlitteratur, 1975)Google Scholar, and Johansson, Kenneth, “Herrar och bonder. Om Jurisdiktionen i några småländska friherrskap på 1600-talet,” Scandio 56.2 (1990): 161–91.Google Scholar These authors agree that, within the investigated area of jurisdiction, no special set of rules was used, but rather the ordinary legal code (combined, of course, with new statute laws). They mainly disagree about whether or not cases were scrutinized by the appeal courts in the same way as cases from the local hundred courts. See also Meurling, Svensk domstolsförvaltning, 44, who mentions that the Estonian nobility strongly opposed the proposal to make their verdicts subject to scrutiny by the Royal Court of Appeal in Dorpat.

40. Lindkvist, Thomas, Landborna i Norden under äldre medeltid (Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1979)Google Scholar, which focuses on the early medieval situation but is of relevance for this period.

41. Sundin, Jan, För Gud, Staten och Folket. Brott och rättskipning i Sverige 1600–1840, Rättshistoriskt Bibliotek no. 47 (Lund: Institutet för Rättshistorisk Forskning, 1992), 447 ff.Google Scholar; Thunander, Rudolf, Hovrätt i funktion. Göta hovrätt och brottmålen 1635–1699, Rättshistoriskt Bibliotek no. 49 (Lund: Institutet för Rättshistorisk Forskning, 1993), 282 ff.Google Scholar See also note 90 below.

42. Legal Code of King Christopher, Jordabalken 1.

43. A good example of this is that, according to the legal code, the kings of Sweden were to be elected. But since the reign of Gustav Vasa, the crown had been inherited. In spite of this glaring discrepancy on a very important issue, the wording of the legal code was not modified until 1734.

44. Agren, Maria, Att hävda sin rätt. Synen på jordägandet i 1600–talets Sverige, speglad i institutet urminnes hävd, Rättshistoriskt Bibliotek no. 57 (Stockholm: Nerenius and Santeras Förlag AB, 1997), 74 f., 206 f.Google Scholar

45. Legal Code of King Christopher, Konungabalken 2; Ågren, Hävda, 79.

46. Magnus Erikssons Landslag, i nusvensk tolkning av Åke Holmbäck och Elias Wessén (Stockholm: Nordiska Bokhandeln, 1962), 22, no. 17.

47. King's Letter to Kammarkollegium, 11 October 1690, reprinted in Samlingar i landtmäteri, ed. Ekstrand, V., (Stockholm: Isaac Marcus Boktr.-Aktiebolag [vol. 1], 1901–1902)Google Scholar; see also Ågren, Hävda, 76.

48. King's Letter to Gripenhielm, 1 July 1691, reprinted in Samlingar i landtmäteri, vol. 1; see also Ågren, Hävda, 77.

49. Rålamb, Claes, Observationes Juris Practicae (Stockholm, 1679), 1 f.Google Scholar

50. See Table 1, which shows that approximately 60 percent of farms (that is, those owned by the Crown/state and nobility) were held by tenants in the middle of the seventeenth century.

51. Since freeholding peasants were not allowed to let their land, i.e., to have tenants, this was not a problem to them before 1734 (when they were granted this right). Inger, Svensk rättshistoria, 101, 149.

52. Donahue, Charles Jr, “The Future of the Concept of Property Predicted from Its Past” in Property, ed. Pennock, J. R. and Chapman, J. W. (New York: New York University Press, 1980), 33.Google Scholar

53. Rålamb, Observationes, 19 f. See also Ågren, Hävda, 96 f.

54. Prezbeckius, Chr., De possessione hominum memoriam excedente sveo-gothis dicta urminnes häfd (Gymnasion dissertation; Stockholm 1646), 400Google Scholar, sec. 4 (emphasis added).

55. Sidenius, De Immemoriali, thesis 1, secs. 3, 5; Rålamb, Observationes, 15; Ågren, Hävda, 98.

56. Sidenius, De Immemoriali, thesis 1, sec. 11; Ågren, Hävda, 99.

57. Loccenius, De Usucapione, sec. 20; Ågren, Hävda, 99.

58. Sidenius, De Immemoriali, thesis 1, sec. 6; Ågren, Hävda, 99.

59. Johan Skyttes kommenter till den svenska stadsrätten 1608, ed. Almquist, Jan Eric (Stockholm: Rättsgenetiska institutet vid Stockholms universitet, 1962), 63 f.Google Scholar; Palmskiöldska samlingen, Collectiones Juridico-Politicae, vol. 126:22, Uppsala University Library; Ågren, Hävda, 100 f.

60. Wahlberg, C. J., Åtgärder för lagförbättring 1633–1665 (Uppsala, 1877), 73Google Scholar; Ågren, Hävda, 102.

61. On the importance of Gemeinwohl, see, for example, Schulze, W., “Gerhard Oestreichs Begriff ‘Sozialdisziplinierung’ in der Frühen Neuzeit,” Zeitschrift für Historische Forschung 14.1 (1987): 286.Google Scholar

62. The distinction between boundary disputes and disputes over pieces of land depends on the wordings used in the source material and should not be accorded too much importance.

63. Svea hovrätts arkiv 1653, Anders Palmcrona v. Maria Stengafvel.RA; Ågren, Hävda, 144, 166. See also Almquist, John Axel, Frälsegodsen i Sverige under storhetstiden (Stockholm, 1934), 352 f.Google Scholar

64. Svea hovrätts arkiv 1664, Carl Andersson v. Karin Månesköld. RA; Ågren, Hävda, 77 f. See also 132–34 for a number of other cases in which Crown land was the subject of alleged invasions.

65. See for example Svea hovrätts arkiv 1671, Jochim Schüttehielm/Sten Bielke, on behalf of Fabian Wrede. RA; Svea hovrätts arkiv 1665, Bengt Skytte/Ebba Willman. RA; Ågren, Hävda, 148–51.

66. Ågren, Hävda, 125.

67. Noblewomen also played an important role in preserving the memory of land rights; see Aurelius, Eva Haettner, Inför lagen. Kvinnliga svenska självbiografier från Agneta Horn till Fredrika Bremer (Lund: Lund University Press, 1996), 80 ff.Google Scholar

68. Svea hovrätts arkiv 1671, Erik Oxenstierna's heirs v. the inhabitants of Brunn. RA; Ågren, Hävda, 138.

69. Ågren, Hävda, 136.

70. Ibid., 139 (emphasis added).

71. Svea hovrätts arkiv 1667, Olof Svensson and Per Andersson in Tuna v. Johan Blanek. RA; Ågren, Hävda, 135.

72. Neeson, Commoners, 78, 84, 86, 92, 162.

73. Svea hovrätts arkiv 1670, Anna Skytte v. Mayor and Magistrate of Södertälje. RA; Ågren, Hävda, 140.

74. Thompson, “Custom,” 117 f.

75. That is, from the complementary sources included to overcome the bias of the appeal court material.

76. Öland 14 May 1616, reprinted in Landin, Lennart, På häradsting II. Om jordförsäljning och arvstvister enligt öländska domböcker 1613–1649 jämte 1638 års dombok för södra motet (Hälsingborg, 1964)Google Scholar; Ågren, Hävda, 143.

77. Larsson, “Borgrätt,” 59, 61.

78. Nilsson, Sven A., Kampen om de adliga privilegienla, 1526–1594 (Lund: Gleerup, 1952), 24 ff.Google Scholar, 47, 105 ff., 109, 119, 127.

79. Sveriges ridderskaps och adels riksdagsprotokoll (Stockholm, 1872), vol. 4.2, 492.

80. Winberg, Grenverket, chap. 3.

81. Sveriges rikes ridderskaps och adels riksdagsprotokoll, med tillhörande handlingar, från sjuttonde århundradet (Stockholm, 1856), vol. 2, 182 f.

82. Cf. Spring, Eileen, Law, Land and Family: Aristocratic Inheritance in England, 1300 to 1800 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993)Google Scholar, who makes similar remarks about the Tudors (94).

83. As Table 3 shows, peasants also used this argument, and if more material from the primary court level had been included, it is likely that we would have seen even more evidence of its use by peasants.

84. Strauss, Gerald, Law, Resistance, and the State: The Opposition to Roman Law in Reformation Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 96 f.Google Scholar

85. Thompson, “Custom,” 101.

86. Sveriges ridderskaps och adels riksdagsprotokoll (Stockholm, 1899), vol. 15:76, 222, appendix 10, 193 f.

87. Förarbetena till Sveriges rikes lag 1686–1734, ed. Sjögren, Wilhelm (Uppsala: n.p., 1900–1909), vol. 1: 8, 13, 233, 256, 349 ff.Google Scholar, 423, 427, 476; vol. 4, Jordabalken 15, 2 §; vol. 7: 207. See also Ågren, Hävda, 238.

88. Förarbetena, vol. 1: 12 f. See also Ågren, Hävda, 223 ff., 238.

89. Förarbetena, vol. 1: 343. See also Ågren, Hävda, 226 ff., 233 f.

90. Lenman, Bruce and Parker, Geoffrey, “The State, the Community and the Criminal Law in Early Modern Europe,” in Crime and the Law: The Social History of Crime in Western Europe since 1500, ed. Gatrell, V. A. C., Lenman, Bruce, and Parker, Geoffrey (London: Europa Publications, 1980), 23Google Scholar (emphasis added).

91. One of the main points of the article is to argue the impossibility of measuring crime. Lenman and Parker, “State,” 15.

92. Ågren, Hävda, 162.

93. Rålamb, Observationes, 16.

94. The same point is made, for example, in Goody, Jack, The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 136 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reynolds, Susan, Fiefs and Vassals. The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 58.Google Scholar

95. Uppländska dombòcker (Uppsala: Kungl. HumanistiskaVetenskapssamfundet i Uppsala, 1925–1950), vol. 8:42 (emphasis added).

96. Tingsprotokoll för Njurunda II. Ur Medelpads domböcker 1673–1699, ed. Hellbom, Algot (Sundsvall: Medelpads fornminnesförening i samarbete med Njurunda hembygdsförening, 1983), 1684Google Scholar, autumn session, case no. 6.

97. Magnus Erikssons Landslag, Jordabalken 12.

98. Svenskt diplomatarium (Stockholm: Riksarkivet), nos. 4964, 5896.

99. Clanchy, M. T., From Memory to Written Record: England, 1066–1307 (London: Ed ward Arnold, 1979), 24, 208 ff., 232.Google Scholar

100. Lenman and Parker, “State,” 19.

101. Strauss, Law, 115.

102. See also Thompson, “Custom,” 126: “we should not press the distinction between prescriptive rights and rights established by custom too far.”

103. Among the first to describe this crisis were Postan, M. M., “Revisions in Economic History: The Fifteenth Century,” The Economic History Review 9 (1939)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Abel, Wilhelm, Die Wüstungen des ausgehenden Mittelalters (1943; 3d rev. ed., Stuttgart: G. Fischer Verlag, 1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

104. See Gissel, Svend, Jutikkala, Eino, Österberg, Eva, Sandnes, Jörn, and Teitsson, Björn, Desertion and Land Colonization in the Nordic Countries c. 1300–1600 (Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell, 1981)Google Scholar, which argues that the general level of desertion was more modest (allowing for regional differences) than has recently been suggested by Janken Myrdal, “Senmedeltidens agrarkris. Ödeläggelse och produktionsomvandling,” unpublished paper from the Department of Agrarian History, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 1997.

105. Larsson, Gabriela Bjame, Stadgelagstiftning i senmedeltidens Sverige, Rättshistoriskt Bibliotek no. 51 (Stockholm: Nerenius and Santérus Förlag AB, 1994), 168 f.Google Scholar

106. Lundius, C., De Jure Usucapionis et Praescriptionis (dissertation, Uppsala University, 1698), chap. 3, 2, sec. 1.Google Scholar

107. Myrdal, Jordbruket, 221–23.

108. Gissel et al., Desertion, 121–28, 216–19.

109. Motiver, 89; Ågren, Hävda, 258 (emphasis added).

110. David Nehrman, De Praescriptione Immemoriali (Uppsala, 1750), sec. 9; Ågren, Hävda, 256, 259.

111. Hofsten, Erland and Lundström, Hans, Swedish Population History. Main Trends from 1750 to 1970, Urval, no. 8 (Stockholm: Statistiska Centralbyrån, 1976).Google Scholar

112. Gadd, Carl-Johan, “Jordbruksteknisk förändring i Sverige under 1700- och 1800–talen—regionala aspekter,” in Ett föränderligt agrarsamhälle. Västsverige i jämförande belysning (Göteborg: Humanistiska fakulteten, 1998), 83–228.Google Scholar

113. Qvist, Gunnar, Kvinnofrågan i Sverige 1809–1846. Studier rörande kvinnans näringsfrihet inom de borgerliga yrkena (Göteborg: Gumperts, 1960), 115 ff.Google Scholar

114. Ibid., 98, 129, 134, 164.

115. See also Myrdal, Janken, “Jordbruk och jordägande. En aspekt av sambandet mellan agrarteknik och samhällsutveckling i äldre medeltid,” in Medeltidens födelse, ed. Andrén, Anders (Lund: Gyllenstiernska Krapperapsstiftelsen, 1989)Google Scholar, which discusses the same relationship for the period ca. 1000–1200. Whittle, “Individualism,” also stresses the availability of land as a factor that affects property practices (47).

116. Perlestam, Magnus, Den rotfaste bonden—myt eller verklighet? Brukaransvar i Ramkvilla socken 1620–1820 (Lund, n.p., 1998), 164 f., 222 ff.Google Scholar

117. Ågren, Maria, Jord och gäld. Social skiktning och rättslig konflikt i sodra Dalarna ca 1650–1850 (Uppsala: Uppsala University, 1992), 226 ff.Google Scholar Some results from this study are presented in “Land and Debt: On the Process of Social Differentiation in Rural Sweden, circa 1750–1850,” in Rural History 5 (1994): 23–40; and in Iron-Making Societies. Early Industrial Development in Sweden and Russia, 1600–1900, ed. Ågren, Maria (Providence, R.I.: Berghahn Books, Oxford, 1998), 156–62.Google Scholar