This article was downloaded by: [Tampere University]On: 26 February 2015, At: 04:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studia NeophilologicaPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/snec20

Discerning Voices and Values in theFinnish Witch Trials RecordsRaisa Maria Toivo aa School of Social Sciences and Humanities University ofTampere FI-33014 University of Tampere , FinlandPublished online: 15 Mar 2012.

To cite this article: Raisa Maria Toivo (2012) Discerning Voices and Values in the Finnish WitchTrials Records, Studia Neophilologica, 84:sup1, 143-155, DOI: 10.1080/00393274.2012.668081

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2012.668081

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primarysources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Studia Neophilologica 84: 143–155, 2012

Discerning Voices and Values in the Finnish Witch TrialsRecords

RAISA MARIA TOIVO

1. Reading court records

In the historiography of witchcraft and witch trials, there has been much discussion aboutwho determined the content of our records, especially court records. Were the commonerwitnesses and the defendants telling a story of their own, or were the elite judges andaccusers forcing it to be told? In witchcraft trials, where the part of the imagination con-tinues to be greater than in many other cases, the question becomes more obvious, but itapplies to any court dealings. And if historians use court records to investigate opinions orcultural and social values or features of the past, whose opinions or values are they? Whodetermines what is said in the court record or how it is said?1

The question has received different answers. To take some best-known examples,Norman Cohn (1975) emphasised the influence of the Inquisition and traditional theo-ries of treason on the formulation of confessions and testimony. Stuart Clark (1980: 103,1997: 25), likewise, considers it almost impossible to draw any conclusions about whatthe accused peasant witches thought about the witches’ Sabbath. Theories of the Sabbathwere produced by the elites and then imposed on the people involved in the trials, con-structing a kind of formula to which the accused and the witnesses had to conform. Clark’smaterial does indeed obediently echo the elite theories, but not all witchcraft trials doso. Nor were other kinds of trials exclusively elite driven: trials that sprung from amongthe neighbours, especially when they had no connection to the witches’ Sabbath, seem toreflect popular world views as extensively as the views of the elite. Nevertheless, LyndalRoper (1994: 55) has read the Augsburg magistrates’ records as “forced discourses,” whichthe same persons would not have used had they not been under threat of torture.

A very different kind of reading – of a different kind of material – is that by NatalieZemon Davis (1983) on the French pardon tales, which she claims provide insight into thepeople’s mental world, although their factual content may be more obscure. Carlo Ginzburg(1992, Italian original 1966) goes even further and operates largely on the assumptionthat the suspects consciously told and phrased their own stories, describing how they sawmatters. Some more recent scholars, like Diane Purkiss (1996) and Marion Gibson (1999),or from a more social historical point of view, William Monter (2002) and Brian Levack(2006) have pointed out that the stories were “negotiated” between the questioner and theaccused, and co-authored by the judge, the accused, the interrogator, and the scribe – andin the case of the pamphlet literature, the author and his financier.

This paper deals with some ways to discern different “voices,” aims, and values of dif-ferent actors in Finnish witchcraft trial records. It is clear that the character of the recordsdepends on the character of the court system, and consequently scholars who work ondifferent series of court records in Europe and the New World must read their materialdifferently. The court records of the Finnish witchcraft trials merit a discussion of theircharacter because they share characteristics with all parties in the debate. The Finnishand Swedish court records are produced by relatively free discussions between the par-ties before or with the judge and jury. They are not forced discourses; there is no torture,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00393274.2012.668081

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tam

pere

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:50

26

Febr

uary

201

5

144 R.M. Toivo Studia Neophil 84 (2012)

even in most of the criminal cases (in the rural courts very rarely), although Eilola (2009)reveals a violent and imposing atmosphere in the panic trials in Sweden. However, thepanic trials were very rare compared to the totality of witchcraft and magic trials in Finlandand Sweden. According to quantitative analysis on the 16th and 17th centuries by MarkoNenonen (1992: 300–312, 405–418) the percentage of cases that included a notion of theSabbath, Blåkulla – i.e. the trials that had the capacity to develop into panics – was around7%. The rest of the cases were thus of the milder sort, where the trials make it possible tostudy and to some extent distinguish the views of different social groups, be they farmersand burghers or workers and landless people, young or old, popular or learned. All hearingsand information in the Finnish trials were public and could be confirmed or contradictedby a wide audience. Yet there is no reason to assume that the members of the populace tes-tified naïvely only what they thought to be true: the participants were competing, and eachsought to present themselves in the best and their opponents in the worst possible light.

The lowest level of the judicial system in Finland and Sweden was divided into townand rural courts. The principles of their work were largely the same, and their recordsare similar in character, although obviously town courts were attended to by burghers,craftspeople and apprentices, and town labourers with their businesses whereas rural courtswere filled with farmers, farm labourers, and all sorts of people and important things in thecountry-side. In the following text, I shall take my example with its social and judicialcontext from the rural areas. Although I use only one case as an example, the case isillustrative of the nature and possible readings of court records from both the rural areasand towns in Finland.

2. Court records as products of the judicial system

The Finnish lower court records have survived from the 1620s onwards and provideexcellent material for various research purposes, including work using cultural studiesmethodology, and trials and hunts for witchcraft and magic or superstition. At the highpoint of witchcraft trials, from around 1660 to 1700, the formally accusatorial Swedishsystem was gradually turning towards a more inquisitorial process, as officials and vicarsadopted the role of public prosecution, and the characteristics of the older system werelosing their importance. The talion principle – that individuals who brought but failed toprove charges at law risked the same punishments their opponents would have suffered, hadthe charges been proven against them – was used less and less often, and the punishmentswere no longer the same, but usually turned into small fines. Group testimonies, like thewater or fire ordeals, or group oath – i.e. systems where the community, be it kin, village,or parish, was given a chance to assess whether they thought the accused person was to bepunished – were legally abandoned by 1695, and assessment of formal evidence insteadof reputation by an educated judge from outside the community was given more and moreweight. (Taussi Sjöberg 1996: 21–23; Ylikangas 1988: 50–77; Andersson 1998: 102)

The courts at the end of the 17th century in Finland were working on a mixture ofmedieval town and rural laws, compiled by Magnus Ericksson in the mid-14th and byChristopher the Bavarian in the mid-15th century respectively, and a range of more recentordinances, verdicts, and statutes subsequently issued by the crown. In 1608 the king hadalso issued that the Mosaic Law from the Bible was to be followed in the law courts of therealm, although it never gained an equal footing with the law of Christopher the Bavarianin the Finnish rural courts.2 The legal codification was therefore both old and fragmented.Moreover, customary law and tradition was also used. Therefore judicial praxis did notalways follow the law – or any of the different law codes – as such, but it strove for thetransparency, predictability, and verifiability that the High Court demanded (Letto-Vanamo1997).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tam

pere

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:50

26

Febr

uary

201

5

Studia Neophil 84 (2012) Voices and Values in the Finnish Witch Trials 145

The Finnish and Swedish early modern judicial system was one based on interactionin the local community, on the one hand, and between different governmental and juris-dictional levels, on the other hand. On the lowest level of the rural district courts or townmagistrate’s courts, the participants were summoned to tell their stories in person. Thehearings were normally oral, face-to-face, public situations, although written testimoniesand contracts, etc. were also used. Along with the plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses,there was also a varied crowd of local people, who could offer additional information andaffect the outcome of the trial. Anonymous accusations that characterise some Europeantrials were simply not heard.

The officials included the judge, the scribe, and a jury. The former two were not locals,but represented a higher level of learning and the central government. The jury, however,was composed of prominent local farmers. Unlike juries today, the rural and town mag-istrate’s jurors were expected to act as local experts providing information; deliveringsummonses; negotiating settlements; verifying damages, payments, or borders; etc. Thejudge and the jury passed the sentence together, although the judge’s influence on it grewmarkedly towards the end of the century. Educated judges might sometimes hire a substi-tute law reader to act in their stead, but this was less common than office hiring elsewherein Europe (Blomsted 1958; Inger 1980: 46–62, 70–71, 80–85; Karonen 1995: 116–124,145–147; Letto-Vanamo 1997; Karonen 1999: 188–194).

All the proceedings of lower courts were eventually reviewed by the High Court. Duringthe 17th century, there was one High Court in the whole of Finland, in Turku (from1623 onwards). The court records that historians use today were, in fact, mostly createdfor this very purpose: for the High Court to read and review. Each town and, in the ruralareas, each district parish had a session three times a year. If something highly unusual orurgent turned up, an extraordinary session would be organised to deal with that. Witchcraftwas rarely thought of as urgent enough for that much trouble to be taken; the extraordi-nary sessions were organised for things like murder, infanticide, suicide, major theft, anddisobedience or rebellion against authorities. At the end of the year, the records from allsessions in the jurisdiction area of each judge were compiled, edited, reviewed, and signedby the judge and most often the scribe – and finally sent to the High Court. In the case ofwitchcraft, however, as with all other crimes that could possibly carry the death penalty,the process was somewhat quicker: the cases were reviewed in the High Court before thesentence – whatever it might be – was carried out. It happened very often that the HighCourt changed – usually in a more lenient direction – such a sentence after its review.According to Per Sörlin (1999: 63–65) and Marko Nenonen (1992: passim) both the lowercourts and the high courts were legally bound to act rigorously according to the very strictlaw, but the High Courts all around the country started to mitigate sentences fairly early inthe 17th century. By the 1660s, the lower courts followed their lead, and dealt out a widerand more often lenient range of punishments than before. Still, when the lower courts usedharsh punishments like the death penalty, imprisonment, or very heavy fines for witchcraft,the High Courts often showed some form of clemency.

The populace acted in court as plaintiffs or petitioners, defendants, and witnesses, or asmembers of the general crowd that was watching, listening, and talking to each other andcould always offer a word in the actual hearing if they thought it necessary. The trials werealways public. The authorities in court were the judge and the scribe, aided by the vicarand the crown bailiff. Between the authorities and the populace was the jury, consistingin the rural courts of 12 farmers. The judge and the jury of course held tangible power inthe court. Nevertheless, the others could also use the court arena for their purposes, withequally tangible results in their lives and the lives of their village competitors.

It is generally acknowledged that in the Swedish rural courts the actors consisted mostlyof peasant farmers. Whether they dominated the action, or were dominated by other actors,has been the subject of historians’ debates. Swedish historians like Eva Österberg (1987,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tam

pere

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:50

26

Febr

uary

201

5

146 R.M. Toivo Studia Neophil 84 (2012)

1989) and Gudrun Andersson (1998) have emphasised the active part played by farmersand the “peasantry” in the countryside and the burghers and craftspeople in the towns,whereas somewhat more leftist historians like Ylikangas (1988, 1998) and Taussi-Sjöberg(1996) or more recently Petri Karonen (1999 and 2002) and Jari Eilola (2003) in Finlandhave emphasised that the courts were essentially a tool of control used by the Crown onthe populace. The part played by the non-farmers of the allmoge – the landless workers,the elderly, the poor – has received considerably less attention. Their proportions, if theyreceived attention at all, have been concluded to be small. Accordingly, peasant farmersand their wives form the largest social group in all roles in the rural courts of law.

Along with peasant farmers, some other groups appear to have had significant roles.In the 1670s the gentry and local government did indeed take considerable initiatives inreligious crimes and fornication trials. They acted as plaintiffs or petitioners and as wit-nesses, but not often as defendants, although the option for using the court system to controlbailiffs and other officials was an important part of the modernization of the judicial system(Österberg 1989; Katajala 2002). Servants, soldiers, and other landless people appeared inmodest numbers only. Soldiers and landless people were most often witnesses. Servantswere concerned in disputes with their masters over wages or breaches of contract. Chastitycrimes, too, brought landless people to court as defendants (Aalto 1996; Pylkkänen 1990;Miettinen 2003).

3. Narratives for the High Court

The court records were written according to a fixed pattern, comprising more and lessformal parts. As in all literature, there are many interlinked situations and narratives presenton the same pages of the court records. One level of narrative is about the events in court,the trial. This is the main narrative of the court record. Other levels were formed by thesub-narratives of the plaintiff and the defendant and the witnesses, describing the eventsthat led to the court action, either the actual crimes or disputes or the original contractsmade by the parties.3

The main narrative – the beginning and end of the case, the introduction of witnesses,the note that some witnesses were challenged and others not, and why the former stillwere heard and so on – concentrates on matters required by the law and uses legal andcriminal terminology. The following example from a witchcraft trial in Ulvila 1693 servesto highlight this (my translation; for the original, see Appendix):

Ulvila District Court 18.–20. October 1693(District of Ala-Satakunta II, KO a 1: 433–435. National Archives in Finland),

p. 433

Item was now taken up concerning Christer Olofsson from Tunajärvi with Henrich Jöransson Janckarifrom Pomarkku, who were by the District Bailiff Hedman reported of witchcraft against late MichelMatson from Pomarkku during the previous Summer Session. The witnesses who were named at theprevious session (and whose absence then caused the matter to be postponed) were heard. The wit-nesses include tenant farmer Johan Matson from Pomarkku, who was challenged by Janckari, becausehe has been accused to be a thief by be the late Michel’s Mother’s Father Bertill Larsson Sawo andhis Daughter’s daughter, the sister of the deceased, Dårdi Matsdotter, but Bertil and Dårti denied this,moreover, Johan highly protested against such accusation and as Johan is not convicted, Janckari’schallenge was considered groundless. Therefore Johan [Matson] took oath to testify in the presenceof Christer’s son, Johan [Christersson], who heard him on behalf of his father. Johan [Matson] testi-fied that Christer and Janckari had had disagreements because Janckari wanted to hinder his Sister’sson, this Johan [Christersson] from marrying the above-named Janckari’s sister-in-law and wife’s sisterDårdi, and that Christer had among other things said: Well shall you be off the farm, when my son comesthere, calling Janckari a thief. To this Janckari answered: If I am a thief, then you are the one who killed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tam

pere

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:50

26

Febr

uary

201

5

Studia Neophil 84 (2012) Voices and Values in the Finnish Witch Trials 147

and bewitched Sawo’s Son Michel. Then he had gone out and, coming back in again, said: I often gethard address from my parents-in-law for the same thing. Janckari denied Johan Matson’s testimony, butadmitted in Johan Christersson’s presence, that a few years ago he had found, between the villages ofNoormarkku and Pomarkku, a shirt that belonged to a farm hand named Jöran Peersson, and that hehad not disclosed having found the shirt but, he had brought it home to be washed by his Sister, the wifeof the said Christer. Johan said it was possible to prove that Christer had informed the people of thematter. Lars Johansson from Pomarkku testified upon oath and unchallenged that the above-describedconversation had

p. 434

taken place in his house, saying he wanted to remember that Janckari, when Christer had called him athief, has said to Christer (being in disagreement about Son Johan’s above-named engagement, whichhas also been separately investigated by this court during this session) if I am a thief, then you aresuspected of being a witch-man and of bewitching the Sawo Boy Michel, who was Janckari’s wife’s fullbrother. Lars also testified that Janckari had answered Christer, when Christer, according to Johan’sdescription, had held him obliged to quit the farm when his Son Johan marries Dårdi, who is olderthan Janckari’s wife, “How shall you with your son Johan Drive me away from the farm when I havewith my children settled there?”. And moreover this Lars testified that Christer had informed him ofan axe that had gone missing from Bertill Sawo, of which Janckari was suspected because of the shirtwhich he had concealed like a thief. To this Janckari had responded: Before you can prove me to be athief, you are taken as a witch-man and for having bewitched Michel as is described above. The above-introduced Bertill Sawo, whom the Jury testifies to be an honourable and truthful man, said that he doesnot want to see Janckari’s ruin, as he is his daughter’s husband, and because of his own old age, butstill he suspects Janckari of the often-mentioned Michel’s death, that he had, as the above-mentionedwitnesses show, urged his brother-in-law, Christer, to bewitch Michel. Bertill Sawo says that to this deedJackari was so much more to be suspected because he had always hated Michel. And Janckari had also,during the previous Easter Week Wednesday, in the presence of farm hand Jöran Jöransson who wasnot present in the court, in hateful mood, pushed him (Bertil) so that his elbow hit the bench and he felldown,

p. 435

injured, and also he had, on Christmas 1690, pushed his Mother-in-law, daughter of this Bertil, MariaBertilsdotter, who was not present in court. And Bertil complained of Janckaris indecent and very evilmanners, his making noise and cursing, and having often pulled the above-mentioned Dårdi by her hair.Therefore Bertil wished that he could be driven out of the farmstead, as he had also entered it againsthis will by sleeping with his daughter and then marrying her. He [Bertil] also informed that the lateMichel had on his sickbed dreamt of Christer Olofsson cutting his neckerchief in two, so that he wouldnot be better from his illness, while Janckari had so hard and constantly cursed him and wish him somuch ill, and he had in the same dream seen Janckari chopping his foot off. And also Lars Johanssontestified upon oath that he had heard the deceased Michel talk about this dream and also that BertilSawo had last spring complained to him of how ill Janckari had pushed him, although Lars had notseen it himself. Janckari denied all accusations, but said he was suspected of Michel’s death becauseof the above-mentioned dream. This case still depends on the appearance of Christer Olofsson, farmhand Jöran, Lars Johansson’s wife and Janckari’s Mother-in-law, after which a further sentence can begiven.

The purpose of the main narrative is to verify that the court proceeded perfectly legally andthat there were no deficiencies in the work of the court. For example, it was necessary tonote that Johan Christersson heard the testimonies on behalf of his father, because legallythe defendants were always entitled to hear everything that was said: without the presenceof themselves or a formal proxy, the hearing could not legally continue.

Legal or criminal terminology and definitions appear most often in the presentation andjudgement of the cases. The sub-narratives in the testimonies are usually dominated by thepopulace. Some rather common features can be observed, most of which are unsurprising.Sometimes it may be that the formal charges define the crime differently from what thetestimonies suggest. For example, Linda Oja (1999: 173ff) has noted that the authoritiessometimes converted peasant information on maleficium into accusations and trials onmagic and superstition.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tam

pere

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:50

26

Febr

uary

201

5

148 R.M. Toivo Studia Neophil 84 (2012)

Finnish rural farmers were, nevertheless, willing and able to speak in abstract and legalterms or at least were familiar with their content and the workings of the law, as is shownby the fact that witnesses were challenged and proxies used by the farmers.

The stories told by the witnesses concern themselves more with the actual contents ofthe crime or suspicion. Most of the above record deals with testimonies of the suspicion ofwitchcraft that had arisen against Henrich Janckari and Christer Olofsson, and these weretestimonies that had been asked for by the court, and especially by the bailiff who hadreported the matter to court. The scribe seems to have written things down as the matterproceeded in court. This is, however, at least partly an illusion: in reality, the narrativewas compiled afterwards, and sometimes the court record even mentions that somethingrelevant happened “the next day”, for example when a group of deserter soldiers werebeing tried and one more man was caught “on the third day”, or when a burgher widow’sproxy had an insufficient credentials, was sent away and came back the next day with anew letter of attorney (Ulvila court records Ulvila 13.-16.2.1704, distirict of Vehmaa andAla-Satakunta II: KO a 20, pp. 283–304 and Ulvila 8.-9.11.1704, District of Vehmaa andAla-Satakunta II: KO a 21, pp. 161-v).

By and by the scribe made a few notes to clarify himself to any reader who had notbeen present in court and did not know the participants: expressions like “the above-mentioned”, “the often-named”, etc. On top of page 434 there is also the note that the“disagreement on the engagement” of Johan Christersson and Dårdi had been investi-gated previously in the same court session and, consequently, a closer look at it couldbe found on the earlier pages of the same court record volume. The note is perhapseven more enlightening to a modern reader than it was to the High Court: it revealsHenrich Janckari trying to prevent Dårdi’s marriage to Johan by spreading rumours thatDårdi was a whore, because she had had two suitors at one time and possibly sex-ual encounters with both. The attempt failed – the court rather encouraged the coupleto marry – but it also reveals the extent and cause of the rupture in the householdthat was behind the suspicions. (There is a further discussion of the case and its socialbackgrounds in Toivo 2008: 71–72, 101–104, 139–143, 145–146, 161–162, 168–169,190, 192.)

In all court cases, the scribe translated, edited, and recorded what the witnesses saidin court, but at times he did this in a way that at least seems to be a direct translation.At times he also translated, recorded, and edited what the witnesses testified that otherpeople had said, in a way that seems authentic. The two descriptions of the exchange ofwords between Christer and Henrich in the above court record, slightly different, yet similarin content, serve as an example of this. Contrasting the two written descriptions in the waythat the court record does also serves to highlight that the stories were stories, not faultlessre-enactments of the past. The two oral statements by Mats Johansson and Lars Johansson,one after the other, may have had the same effect in the court, but oral culture worksdifferently and the similar content of the statements was probably more important than thedifferences in wording.

In other documents there are points in which the scribe seems to have translated directly,or even left untranslated, some sentences that were either uttered in court or descriptions ofwhat had been said outside. As Kustaa H. J. Vilkuna (2010: 103–113) points out, insults andthreats are usually among these testimonies, and the court records refer to a wide variety ofpopular expressions for smelling genitalia and excrement. Threats and insults were fairlycommon in witchcraft cases, but even more commonly untranslated parts of testimoniesare the spells or charms that were sometimes cited in court. These were all points in whichthe exact words were important to be known. In the case of spells they even had power inthemselves. They are still rare, however, and it seems that even more often than wantingto quote the words, the scribe wanted to tidy them up into expressions like “he said twocommon words,” “he made a bad noise,” or that the speaker said he did not respect the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tam

pere

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:50

26

Febr

uary

201

5

Studia Neophil 84 (2012) Voices and Values in the Finnish Witch Trials 149

parish Vicar “more than the uncleanness under his shoes” – expressions more presentablein the literary culture of the High Court.

The purpose of the court records was to transport the lower court’s dealings, togetherwith the local people’s actions, pursuits, and testimony, to the High Court. For this pur-pose, the oral hearings were written down, made coherent, elegant, and flowing accordingto the rules of the legal genre and translated both into the other language – from Finnishto Swedish – and into the other culture – from popular, oral, rural, and agricultural tothe elite, literary, legal, and at times urban or semi-urban. The cultural translation willobviously have its influence on the text, but that does not mean that the text lost the“original” meanings and all the forms of the oral narratives of the court. A good transla-tion – which the court records had to be, to be able to perform their controlling function –preserves and conveys as exactly as possible the meanings and forms of the original ina manner understandable to the other culture. Moreover, a constant control – the courtrecords were public, open to inspection by the populace, and they included informa-tion that was constantly needed and frequently reread – ensured that both meaning andform remained faithful enough to the original. The meanings and forms had to remainunderstandable to the populace, too. Therefore the court records should not be read as elite-dominated distortions of peasant narratives but as peasant-influenced (if not dominated)elite narratives.

4. Arguments for the aims of the actors

Trying to distinguish different voices from the court record is not the only way of trying todistinguish the values and goals of different actors. Whereas everyone in court chose theappropriate words and arguments to pursue their own goals, they also had to choose theirwords and arguments according to their audience: the judge, the jury, their neighbours andopponents, as well as the rest of the court audience – and the scribe.

Most of the time people naturally speak in court, because they know something aboutthe crime of witchcraft committed, either as accusers, the accused, or as witnesses. Allof them, especially the two latter, also answer questions that are posed to them. Butsometimes they seem to offer information that was not asked for, nor even strictly rel-evant. Why, for example do all three witnesses in this case tell the story of the stolenor missing shirt? This was not a trial for theft, nor did it turn into one, although thecourts sometimes took up new charges in the middle of a trial. Still they all seemto have thought it important. This is largely because theft was a highly dishonourablecrime in rural society, a social discredit worse than that produced by the use of occa-sional magic or chastity crimes. The 17th-century rural Finns thought they could andoften had to do business with people who had been caught having sex and even begotchildren outside of marriage, who were somewhat violent, and who drank too much.These vices were common enough. Stealing, however, meant that a person could not betrusted, and it was especially the farmers who loathed stealing even more than witchcraft.Notes like this are often the most interesting sources for a study of the values of thepeople.

Whereas the theft stories were clearly all told by and reacted to by farmers and otherlay people, and most likely meant to influence the neighbours and villagers that could hearit, there are other points on which the witnesses seem to have talked – or refrained fromtalking – to the authorities. One of these points is quite unusual: the witnesses openlyused the term witchcraft. Usually the commoner witnesses described concrete deeds andevents: that someone tied loops from her neighbours’ nets into her own fishing nets, tooka few straws of hay from the neighbour’s barns to her own or brewed beer a in cer-tain unusual way or that someone had offered advice about how to get better luck with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tam

pere

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:50

26

Febr

uary

201

5

150 R.M. Toivo Studia Neophil 84 (2012)

calves or in general talked about magic. Usually the witnesses did not openly evaluatewhether it was witchcraft to do so, although this is implied. Sometimes a negative asser-tion is explicit. Linda Oja (1999: 173–177) has found a the same pattern in Sweden –the generalising terms like trolldom, förgörning meaning maleficium, or signeri, lövjeri, orvidskepelse are more often found in the plaintiff ’s presentation, most often by the courtauthorities. Similar features have also been reported in England by Peter Rushton (2001:21–35) and in France by Robin Briggs (1998: 67–68). Some of this may be due to the formof court records: it was the court’s task to determine whether something was witchcraftor magic, not the populace’s; therefore it is possible that the populace’s judgements justwere written down without the terminology. Likewise, the witnesses knew that in all like-lihood the harshest punishment that would be imposed on the defendant would be fines.Therefore they would have to live with their opponents also after the trial. Consequentlyit was best to steer clear from excessively open judgements. However, it may be worthnoting that also in this case other witnesses only repeat what they had heard others sayabout witchcraft; only Bertil Sawo’s testimony includes the word “bewitch” when hedescribed what he himself thought. However, he, too, went on to his son Michel’s dreamon the deathbed and the open hostility, hatred, and ill will between Henrich and Michel.Robin Briggs (1998: 67–68) noted that in France the “diagnosis” of witchcraft was oftenattributed to a third, preferably dead, party, and if possible to the witch’s victim, whichseems to have corresponded to the elite ideas of witchcraft. Bertil’s way of proceedingseems similar. Especially deathbed testimonies were often considered by both the author-ities and the populace of extreme importance and of greater evidential value than othertestimonies.

The point when Bertil says he would like to see Henrich move out from the farmsteadis especially interesting. He cannot have imagined he would gain the judge’s sympathiesby implying that he had an ulterior aim. Although hostility and disorder in the householdmay have boosted belief in witchcraft both in the household members and outsiders –hostility and disorder as such were the work of sin – it is important to understand thatwitch trials were no cynical excuses to get rid of anyone. Firstly the trials required genuinebelief in witchcraft; secondly in Finland the most common punishments were fines, andtherefore such an excuse would have worked poorly. Moreover, the judge was unable todo anything about moving Henrich out. In 17th-century society everyone who was not afarm owner or the craftsman or burgher in town in his own right was supposed to have“legal protection” – that is, a working contract – from someone who was a landowner ora burgher (see e.g. Nygård 1989). The law was enforced more enthusiastically in timesof labour shortage and less enthusiastically in times of dearth, but nevertheless Henrichhimself could not be expected or legally forced to move out before he got work or afarm4 for himself. On the other hand, it would have been socially unexpected and per-haps disapproved by the neighbours if Bertil just threw out his son-in-law and his daughterwith him. According to Arfmann (2008), it was culturally important that families and kingroups took care of their members if they could. Where that was not possible, the obli-gation for charity lay with the home village, then with the parish and only lastly withthe rest of the society. Therefore it may have been necessary to Bertil’s social statusto explain himself in public. He managed, however, to slip in a few points that madehim seem better in the eyes of the crown as well as the farmers: he presented himselfas old and “unwilling to see his son-in-law’s ruin”, but characterized the son-in-law asoften violent “in hateful mood”, as disobedient towards himself as the patriarchal ownerand ruler of the household. The patriarchal values of age and ownership and protectionthat deserved obedience were those put forward by the authorities, although the popu-lace largely shared them. Bertil seems to have used the ideals of patriarchy to gain hisown ends, this time the rather un-patriarchal end of getting rid of his unwanted householdmembers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tam

pere

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:50

26

Febr

uary

201

5

Studia Neophil 84 (2012) Voices and Values in the Finnish Witch Trials 151

5. Conclusion

The Finnish lower court records were written on the basis of an oral hearing of mostlypeasant actors, interrogated by elite judges. They were written for the needs of the Court ofAppeal, which consisted of more prestigious elite members and operated mostly in writing.In the Finnish case, where the populace operated in Finnish and the central authorities inSwedish, most of the material was translated from Finnish to Swedish and at least partlyrephrased by the court scribe. The court records can therefore be placed in a highly complexpoint of intersection between popular and elite, oral and written cultures. They are neitherone nor the other, but partly everything. The categories of elite and popular are usefulonly insofar as they serve to roughly place people in formal society, but they need to betranscended.

Court material is thoroughly influenced by the judicial system and learned elite views.Yet the degree to which these elites dominate the judicial system may vary. Everyone whospoke in court had a purpose to serve, and to serve it they had to convince other peoplein court. To successfully do so, they had to accommodate the other people’s expectationsas values while arguing for their own. Distinguishing between the values and goals ofdifferent actors in court requires therefore considerable social and historical context. Onetext or case alone does not reveal much, but if read carefully and compared to other trialsand other texts, as well as the historiographical context, the sort of reading done in theabove example can yield insight not only into the values of different groups as such, butalso into the dynamics with which the values were negotiated and traded on in the witchtrials.

Finally, although it is not relevant to the purposes of this article, it may be beneficialfor the nerves of the readers to give a little glimpse on the fates of Henrich, Christer, andBertil.5 The trial continued at least five years until 1698. During this time, Henrich andBertil lived in the same household, together with Johan Christersson, who married Dårdiby 1695. Christer continued on his own farm. None of them was imprisoned (there wouldhave been no prison in Ulvila, anyway). Accusations of witchcraft and other crimes flewboth ways between Bertil and his daughter Maria, on one hand, and Henrich, on the other.Christer, although he had been a reputed witch since the 1680s, was actually left out of theaccusations fairly soon, with the same reference as given in the above: Henrich was a lotmore suspect. In 1698 Bertil and Maria announced in court that Henrich had found himselfanother farm to live on and that they had themselves begun to think that their suspicion ofwitchcraft may have originated from parental grief over their dead son. All charges wereeventually dropped.

School of Social Sciences and HumanitiesUniversity of TampereFI-33014 University of TampereFinlandE-mail: Raisa.Toivo@uta.fi

NOTES

1 This work has been funded by the Finnish Academy as part of the project “Orthodox LutheranConfessionalism in 17th-century Sweden and its European Context” at University of Tampere, for whichI am grateful.

2 The Laws and ordinances can be found in Schlyter 1869, Ulkuniemi 1978, and the most important collectionsof statutes in Schmedemann 1706; concerning the 18th century Modée et al. 1742–1809 and, concerning thechurch, Wilskman 1781.

3 Assessments of different levels of narrative, narrators, authors, and audiences are numerous in narratologyand semiotics. Onega and Landa 1996: 10–11, 25–27; Sulkunen and Törrönen 1997 (an earlier version ofSulkunen and Törrönen in English was originally published in Semiotica); Czarniawska 2004. I have found

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tam

pere

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:50

26

Febr

uary

201

5

152 R.M. Toivo Studia Neophil 84 (2012)

Marion Gibson’s (1999) reading of different kinds of materials on witchcraft very inspiring, although mymaterial seems to be only partly similar to the court records she used.

4 There was a system in the Swedish realm that if a farmer left his taxes unpaid, he could be evicted by thecrown and a new farmer could take up the farm in the hope that he would succeed better. This was the wayeveryone hoped that Henrich could get away from his father-in-law’s household. The new farmer, however,needed six other farmers to stand as his guarantors, who would pay the taxes in case he, too, should fail. SeeJutikkala (1958: 115–119).

5 The whole story can be read from Toivo 2008: 71–72, 101–104, 139–143, 145–146, 161–162, 168–169,190, 192).

REFERENCES

1. Archival material

National Archives in Finland.District of Ala-Satakunta II, KO a 1: 433–435.

2. Contemporary literatureModée, R. G. et al. 1742–1809. Utdrag utur alla ifrån den 7 december 1718 utkommne Publique handlingar,

Placater, Förordningar, Resolutioner och Publicationer I–XV . Stockholm.Schlyter, D. C. J. 1869. Konung Christoffers Landslag. In Samling af Sweriges Gamla Lagar. Lund.Schmedemann, Johan. 1706. Kongliga stadgar, förordningar och resolutioner ifrån åhr 1528 in til 1701. Uppsala.Ulkuniemi, Martti. 1978. Kuningas Kristofferin Maanlaki 1442. Proceedings of the Vaasa School of Economics

(Reprints series 19). Vaasa.Wilskman, Sven. 1781. Swea Rikes Ecclesiastiqve Werk i Alphabetisk Ordningh, Sammandragit Utur Lag och

Förordningar, privilegier och Resolutioned samt Andra Handlingar, I . Örebro.

3. Literature since 1809Aalto, Seppo. 1966. Kirkko ja kruunu siveellisyyden vartijoina. Seksuaalirikollisuus, esivalta ja yhteisö Porvoon

kihlakunnassa 1621–1700 (Bibliotheca historica 12). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Andersson, Gudrun. 1998. Tingets kvinnor och män. Genus som norm och strategi under 1600- och 1700-tal

(Studia Historica Uppsaliensia 187). Uppsala: Uppsala University Press.Arffman, Kaarlo. 2008. Auttamisen vallankumous: luterilaisuuden yritys ratkaista köyhyyden aiheuttamat

ongelmat. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Blomstetd, Yrjö. 1958. Laamannin ja kihlakunnantuomarinvirkojen läänittäminen ja hoito Suomessa 1500- ja

1600-luvuilla (Historiallisia tutkimuksia 51). Helsinki: Societas Historica Finlandiae.Briggs, Robin. 1998. Witches and Neighbours. The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft.

New York: Penguin Books. (Originally HarperCollins Publishers 1996).Clark, Stuart. 1980. Inversion, misrule and the meaning of witchcraft. Past and Present 87(1): 98–127.Clark, Stuart. 1997. Thinking with Demons. The Idea of Witchcraft in Early Modern Europe. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Cohn, Norman. 1975. Europe’s Inner Demons. An Enquiry Inspired by the Great Witch-Hunt. New York: Basic

Books.Czarniawska, Barbara. 2004. Narratives in Social Science Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Davis, Natalie Zemon. 1983. The Return of Martin Guerre. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Eilola, Jari. 2009. “Kirkkoherranvaimo sieppasi minut kuusi kertaa viimeyönä”. Lapsitodistajat ja Blåkulla-

kertomukset Ruotsin suurissa noitavainoissa. Kasvatus ja aika 3/2009. http://www.kasvatus-ja-aika.fi/site/?lan=1&page_id=224

Eilola, Jari. 2003. Rajapinnoilla: sallitun ja kielletyn määritteleminen 1600-luvun jälkipuoliskon noituus- jataikuustapauksissa (Bibliotheca Historica 81). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.

Gibson, Marion. 1999. Reading Witchcraft. Stories of Early English Witches. London: Routledge.Ginzburg, Carlo. 1992. The Night Battles: Witchcraft and Agrarian Cults in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth

Centuries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Italian original 1966).Inger, Göran. 1980. Svensk rättshistoria. Lund: Liber Läromedel.Jutikkala, Eino. 1958. Suomen talonpojan historia. Second, renewed edition. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Karonen, Petri. 1995. “Raastuvassa tavataan”. Suomen kaupunkien hallinto- ja oikeuslaitoksen toim-

intaa ja virkamiehiä suurvalta-aikana (Studia Historica Jyväskyläensia 51). Jyväskylä: Studia HistoricaJyväskyläensia.

Karonen, Petri. 1999. Pohjoinen suurvalta: Ruotsi ja Suomi 1521–1809. Porvoo: WSOY.Karonen, Petri. 2002. Johdanto: moninainen patriarkaalisuus – normien ja käytäntöjen mukaiset solmukohdat. In

Pia Einonen and Petri Karonen (eds.), Arjen valta. Suomalaisen yhteiskunnan patriarkaalisesta järjestyksestämyöhäiskeskiajalta teollistumisen kynnykselle v. 1450–1860. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tam

pere

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:50

26

Febr

uary

201

5

Studia Neophil 84 (2012) Voices and Values in the Finnish Witch Trials 153

Katajala, Kimmo. 2002. Suomalainen kapina. Talonpoikaislevottomuudet ja poliittinen kulttuuri SuomessaRuotsin ajalla n. 1500–1800 (Historiallisia tutkimuksia 212). Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.

Letto-Vanamo, Pia. 1997. Käräjäyhteisö tuomarina. In Anu Koskivirta and Sari Forsström (eds.), Tie tulkintaan.Juhlakirja akatemiaprofessori Heikki Ylikankaalle 6. marraskuuta 1997. Helsinki: WSOY.

Levack, Brian B. 2006. The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe. New York: Pearson. (Third edition. First edition1987).

Miettinen, Tiina. 2003. Huonosti vartioidut tyttäret. Avioton syntyvyys ja avioliitto hauholaisissa perheissäRuotsin ajan lopulla. Unpublished licenciate thesis. Tampere: University of Tampere.

Monter, William. 2002. Witch trials in continental Europe. In Bengt Ankarloo and Stuart Clark (eds.), Witchcraftand Magic in Europe. The Period of the Witch Trials. London: Athlone.

Nenonen, Marko. 1992. Noituus, taikuus ja noitavainot Ala-Satakunnan, Pohjois-Pohjanmaan ja ViipurinKarjalan maaseudulla 1620–1700 (Historiallisia tutkimuksia 165). Helsinki: Societas HistoricaFinlandiae.

Nygård, Toivo. 1989. Suomen palvelusväki 1600-luvulla. Palkollisten määrä, työ, palkkaus ja suhteet isäntävä-keen. Helsinki: Societas Historica Finlandiae.

Oja, Linda. 1999. Varken Gud eller natur. Synen på magi i 1600- och 1700-talets Sverige. Stockholm: BrutusÖstlings Förlag.

Onega, Susana and José Ángel Garcia Landa (eds.). 1996. Narratology. London: Longman.Österberg, Eva. 1987. Svenska lokalsamhällen i förändring ca. 1550–1850. Participation, representation och

politisk kultur i den svenska självstyrelsen. Ett angeläget forskningsområde. Historisk tidskrift 107(3):321–340.

Österberg, Eva. 1989. Bönder och centralmakt i det tidigmoderna Sverige: konflict –kompromiss – politisk kultur.Scandia 55(1): 73–95, 153–154.

Purkiss, Diane. 1996. The Witch in History. Early Modern and Twentieth-Century Representations. London andNew York: Routledge.

Pylkkänen, Anu. 1990. Puoli vuodetta, lukot ja avaimet. Nainen ja maalaistalous oikeuskäytännön valossa 1660–1710. Helsinki: Lakimiesliiton kustannus.

Roper, Lyndal. 1994. Oedipus and the Devil. Witchcraft, Sexuality and Religion in Early Modern Europe. Londonand New York: Routledge.

Roper, Lyndal. 2004. The Witch Craze. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Rushton, Peter. 2001. Texts of authority. Witchcraft accusations and the demonstration of truth in early modern

England. In Stuart Clark (ed.), Languages of Witchcraft. Narrative, Ideology and Meaning in Early ModernCulture, 21–39. London: Macmillan. (Originally 2000).

Sörlin, Per. 1999. Wicked Arts. Witchcraft & Magic Trials in Southern Sweden 1635–1754. Leiden/Boston, Köln:Brill.

Sulkunen, Pekka and Jukka Törrönen. 1997. Puhujakuva: enonsiaation rakenteet. In Pekka Sulkunen andJukka Törrönen (eds.), Semioottisen sosiologian näkökulmia. Sosiaalisen todellisuuden rakentuminen jaymmärrettävyys. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.

Taussi-Sjöberg, Marja. 1996. Rätten och kvinnorna. Från släktmakt till statsmakt i Sverige på 1500- och 1600-talet. Stockholm: Atlantis.

Toivo, Raisa Maria. 2008. Witchcraft and Gender in Early Modern Society. Finland and the Wider EuropeanExperience. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Vilkuna, Kustaa H. J. 2010. Katse menneisyyden ihmiseen. Valta ja aineettoman elinolot 1500–1850. Helsinki:Finnish Literature Society.

Ylikangas, Heikki. 1988. Valta ja väkivalta keski- ja uuden ajan taitteen Suomessa. Helsinki: WSOY.Ylikangas, Heikki. 1998. What happened to violence? In Mirkka Lappalainen (ed.), Five Centuries of Violence

in Finland and the Baltic Area, 7–128. Helsinki: Academy of Finland.

5. Appendix

Ulvila 18.-20.10.1693, 433–435District of Ala-Satakunta II, KO a 1: 433–435. National Archives in Finland

Saken angående dett Christer Olofsson i Tunajärfwimed Henrich Jöransson Janckari i Påmark sidstl. Somman Tingaf häredz Befall:n Heedman angaffz för förgiörning på framl:e

Michel Matson i Påmark, bleff nu förehaffd, och produceradedhe wid omrörde Ting påberopade witnen /: för hwilkes uthwarel-sse saken och opsattes:/ som äro Landbonden Johan Matsson iPåmark, emoth hwilken Janckari exciperade, som wore han afden afflednes Michels Moder Fader Bertil Larsson Sawo medBertils dotter dotter den afflednes Syster Dårdi Mattzdotter

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tam

pere

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:50

26

Febr

uary

201

5

154 R.M. Toivo Studia Neophil 84 (2012)

beskylt för tiuff, hwar till Bertill med Dårdi nekade, föru-than dett Johan der emoth hogt protesterar, hwar till som hanicke lagwunnen, Jackaris Jäff oskiäligt pröfwades, fördenskuldJohan Eeden utj Christers Sons Johans, å fadrens wägnar,närwaro opleetz, hwilken bekiende Christer med Janckarihafft oeenighet sin emellan för dett Janckari will förhindrasin Syster Son denna Johan bygga ächtenskap med ofwanbem:te

Janckaris Swågerska och hustrus Syster Dårde, och att Christeromsiider sagt: Noch skall du från hemmanet när min Son kom-mer dijt, Kallandes honom Janckari tiuf, hwar på Janckariswarat: Är iagh tiuf, så är du Sawo Sons Michels dödzwål-lare och förgiörare, hwar wid Janckari uthgått, och då in-kommande sagt: Jagh får ofta hårdt tiltahl aff mina Swär-föräldrar för samma Saak. Janckari nekade till denne Jo-hans bekennelsse, tillståendes dock på Johan Christerssonsförehållande sig funnit tienstedrängens Jöran Peerssons skior-ta för några åhr sedan emellan Nårmark och PåmarkzByer, den han icke optäckt, uthan hoos sin Syster bem:te

Christer’s hustru optwetta låtit, hwar med Johan sade wa-ra bewisligit dett fadren Christer honom Janckari för-wijt. Lars Johansson i Påmark att witna framhafdojäfwat Eedel:n bekiende ofwanber:de samtahl emellan Christer

p. 434

och Janckari skiedt i hans Pörtte, föregifwandes sig williaminnas dett Janckari på Christers förwijtelsse aff tiuff sagttill Christer /: Warandes oeensse sins emellan om SonensJohans som bem:te är Giftermåhl, hwar om och detta tingsärdeles undersökt är:/ är jag tiuff så håller du misstänkt förTrollkarl, och att hafwa förgiordt Sawo Poicken Michel som wa-rit denne Janckaris hustrus kiötzlig broder, så och att Janc-kari honom Christer swarat, då Christer som Johan landtbondeandragit, förehållit honom böra affstijga hemmanet der So-nen Johan ächtar Dårde, som äldre är än Janckaris hustru,huru kommer du medelst din Son Johan att trängia mighfrån hemmanet, der jag med mine Barn är bofast blef-wen. Ehrhindrandes sig ytterligare denne Lars dett Christeroch honom förwitt för een yxes affhändande som för BertillSawo förekommit, hwarföre Janckari misstänkt hålles, aff detthan funde skiortan eij optäckt uthan som een tiuf fördålt,hwar till Janckari swarat: Förr än du kan bewijsa migh förtiuf, så hålles du för trållkarl och att förgiort Michel somförr bekendt är. Ofwanbemt:te Bertill Sawo, aff Nebdenintygat beskedelig och sanfärdig Man, sade sig utj sin ålderdomeij willia see Janckaris ofärd som hans dotter dotters Man mendoch hålla honom misstänckt wara för omrörde farml:e Michelsdödzwållare, den han som aff ofwanber:de witnen är att ehr-fara, inrådt sin Swåger Christer förtrålla, till hwilcken giör-ning Janckari så mycket mehra är troende som han altstadigt burit haat till Michel hwilcken och honom Ber-till sidstl:e Påske weka om een Onsdag utj drängens Jö-ran Jöranssons närwaro som nu eij tillstädes war i wredesmod skuffat att hans armboga blifwit mot bäncken och han

p. 435

nedfallit, såårat, hwilcken och dess uthom sin Swär Moder denneBertils dotter Maria Bertilsdotter 1690 före Juhl sammaledesSkuffat den nu eij war hijt Kommen, Klagandes ofwer dennaJanckaris otillbörliga och mycket onda förde lefwerne, med Olåtoch banskap, den och öfwannembde Dårdi esomofftast håårdragit,Hwarföre Bertill giärna önskade dett han hemmanet affdrifwas måt-te,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tam

pere

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:50

26

Febr

uary

201

5

Studia Neophil 84 (2012) Voices and Values in the Finnish Witch Trials 155

hwilcken och emoth hans Bertils willia fått först inrymma påHemmanet att det han under warande tiensten besufwit hans dotterDotter och sedan den ächtat. Anmälandes der iempte den affledneMichel på sin Söthesäng sagt sig drömt huruledes Christer Oloffssonaffskurit een hans hwita på halssen hafwa halsduk, så och att eijblifwa bättre aff sin siuka, emedan Jankari honom så swårtalt stadigt illa bannar och förönsker, den han och i samma sin öfwan-ben:de dröm sedt med lija hans Been affhuggit, hwilcket om den-ne afflednes dröm Lars Johansson opå sig giorde Eedh Conte-sterade sig hödt honom Michel omtahla, så och att BertillSawo i wåhras för honom Klagat att Janckari honom illa skuf-fat men sielf sådant icke sedt. Till detta Bertils angif-wande nekade Janckari eenständigt, men sade sig aff ofwan-ben:de dröm hållas mistänkt till Michels död. DenneSaak beroor ännu till Christer Olofssons, drängens Jörans,Lars Johanssons hustrus och Janckaris Swärmoders ankombst, hwareffter häruthinnan wijdare uthslag föllia skall.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tam

pere

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

4:50

26

Febr

uary

201

5