Full text of DOI:10.1016/S1081-602X(00)00044-0

WOMEN AND MEN AS GODPARENTS IN
AN EARLY MODERN SWEDISH TOWN
SOLVEIG FAGERLUND
ABSTRACT: This study analyzes godparenthood networks in Helsingborg, Swe-
den, in the period 1688–1709, from a gender perspective. Special concern is devoted
to the social relations underlying the godparenthood of women and men, respec-
tively, with the focus on women. In Helsingborg, in the period 1688–1709, godpar-
ent relations formed a gender-specific social-hierarchical network pattern in which
women played a prominent part. Married women, if not kin to the parents, were
chosen as godparents primarily from social strata higher than the biological par-
ents, thus expressing the vertical relations. Married men were chosen primarily from
the same social groups as the parents, expressing horizontal social relationships.
INTRODUCTION
On the 23rd of November, 1688, the city court judge Herman Schlyter and his wife
Gunilla Pihl baptised their daughter in St. Maria church of Helsingborg in Sweden.
Gunilla’s aunt presented the child at the font, and Maren, wife of the merchant
So¨ren Jo¨ranson, walked beside her. The male witnesses were the assistant vicar
Hans Jacobsson and the merchant Michel Swertfeger. The day after, both Michel
Swertfeger and Maren So¨ren Jo¨ranson were present at the baptism of Corporal
Joris Johanson’s and his wife Boel’s child. Maren presented the child at the font,
and the wife of a customs officer walked beside her. Also present were Michel
Swertfeger’s daughter and a miller’s daughter, the hatter Joens Larson, the ferryman
1
˚
Johan Clauson, the blacksmith Jo¨ns Larson, and the bricklayer master Hakan (LLA
[HSK2 FB3 1688.11.23, 1688.11.24]). These two baptisms serve well as examples of
Solveig Fagerlund is a doctoral student of History in the department of History, University of Lund,
Sweden.
THE HISTORY OF THE FAMILY An International Quarterly, Volume 5, Number 3, pages 347–357
Copyright 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.
All rights reserved.
ISSN: 1081-602X

348
THE HISTORY OF THE FAMILY Vol. 5/No. 3/2000
the pattern of godparent networks in Helsingborg at the end of the seventeenth
and the beginning of the eighteenth century.
In this article I present results from a study of baptismal records in Helsingborg
from 1688, when the record were introduced in the town, to 1709. The study
examines the number of female and male godparents as well as their social position.
Court records from the years 1681–1696 and inheritance records are used to further
analyse specific godparent networks. With those examples as starting point, I discuss
the social relations reflected in godparenthood for women and men, with special
focus on women.
The godparent’s prime duty, from the church’s point of view, was to ensure that
the child was brought up to be a good Christian. But the practical and social function
of godparenthood within Christianity varied both over time and according to re-
gional or local traditions (Wrigthson and Levine 1979, p. 93; Ericsson 1989; Sabean
1990, pp. 380, 420, 424; Hardwick 1998, pp. 167–181). According to the anthropolo-
gist B. D. Paul, it is possible to distinguish two kinds of godparent relations: (1)
the “intensive”, in which godparents were chosen among kin with the purpose of
intensifying the bond between kin; (2) the “extensive”, in which godparents were
chosen from nonkin, thus extending the family’s social relations. In the extensive
godparent relation, one can talk about horizontal relations when the godparents
were chosen from the same social group to which the parents belonged, and vertical
relations when they were chosen from socially higher groups (Paul 1942, pp. 56–58).
Before the Reformation, the numbers of baptismal witnesses in Scandinavia
usually numbered two or three persons. A higher number was precluded by the
fact that the spiritual relationship between witnesses, as well as between witnesses
and godchildren, constituted an impediment to marriage. During the Reformation,
this regulation was criticized and abandoned, and the number of witnesses increased.
In the beginning of the eighteenth century the average numbers of witnesses in
some parts of Sweden was six, although there are cases from this period time that
have as many as 18. Subsequently, the number decreased, and in the middle of the
twentieth century returned again to two or three (Bringe´us 1971, pp. 68–70; Ericsson
1989, p. 53). In Helsingborg, during the years 1688–1709, a baptised child could
have as many as 12 godparents, although the usual number was between five and
eight. Baptism was held within 8 days after birth, and the mother was not present.
The birth register from Helsingborg for 1688–1709 (Helsinborg–Fo¨delsebok
1688–1709) has entries for 1,647 baptisms, and these involve 8,870 names of godpar-
ents of whom 56 percent were female. Even though this is not a remarkable female
dominance, it is worth examining, nonetheless. In a study by Julie Hardwick of the
baptismal records of ten notaries in Nantes in France during the period between
1560 and 1660, only 10 percent of the witnesses in over 900 baptisms were women.
(Hardwick 1998, pp. 167–169). In Helsingborg, there cannot be found, as there can
in other parts of Europe and in earlier period some parts of Sweden, proposals
that there should be two male godparents and one female for a son, and the reverse
for a daughter (Jagger 1970, pp. 23, 39; Bringe´us 1971, p. 69; Fine 1994, p. 77), and
this could be an explanation for the uneven distribution. Another possible reason
is that the period considered was one of wartime, and many men were absent, but
this explanation fails, because the many soldiers located in the town could have

Godparents in an Early Modern Swedish Town
TABLE 1
349
Distribution of the Occurence of Male and Female Baptism Witnesses from Different
Occupational Categories in the Urban and Rural Parish of Helsingborg
1688–1709 (Nϭ 8,870)
Category
Men
Women
%
%
1. Nobility/high military officers
2. Clerical/scholars
3. Magistrates
4. Merchants
5. Customs officers/civil servants
6. Craftsman
7. Farmers, married men and women from the rural parish
8. Non-commissioned officers and soldiers
9. Young ladies/young masters, daughters and sons of Category 1–5
10. Servants, maids, daughters and sons of Category 6–8
11. unknown
1.2
1.2
4.1
4.1
3.1
14.5
7.8
2.5
1.4
3.2
0.8
44
0.1
0.9
9.2
6.1
3.6
9.8
6.1
0.7
7.3
11.5
0.6
56
Subtotal %
Source: LLA [HSK Ha¨ lsingborgs fo¨ delsebok 1688–1709].
filled the space of the absent men. Whatever the causes, the numbers indicate that
being godparent in Helsingborg was as much, if not more, a female task as that of
a male. From this perspective, it is important to consider Hardwick’s words concern-
ing the near-absence of female godparents in Nantes: “Men’s claiming of the public
celebration of a child’s birth reflected and reinforced the associations between
gender and authority that pervaded early modern society” (Hardwick 1998, p.
180). What kinds of gender relations were reflected in the baptism tradition in
Helsingborg?
As Table 1 shows, female dominance was not equally distributed over all social
strata. In Categories 3–5, women outnumbered men, while the opposite occurred
in Categories 1, 2, 6, and 7. Categories 1 and 2 contained primarily men who were
only visiting the town. Category 5, customs officers and civil servants, referred
mostly to customs officers and their wives. The most striking difference between
male and female participation occurred in Categories 9 and 10, where the female
portion was almost 75 percent. The categorization here may seem a bit problematic,
because many daughters and sons from higher classes were employed as servants
in other families. In any case, the numbers suggest that unmarried women were
far more popular godparents than unmarried men, regardless of social category.
The popularity of married female godparents increased according to their social
status, while the popularity of married male godparents was more equally distributed
over all social strata. The birth register clearly described the godmother—the woman
who presented the child at the font—and the woman who walked beside her. More
that 95 percent of these women were married. The other female witnesses were
mostly unmarried, and were sometimes called “maiden witnesses”. To distinguish
a special godfather among the male witnesses is impossible; at least the birth register
does not give any hints that one man played a special role among others. If the
ideal combination of female godparents seems to have been two married and two

350
THE HISTORY OF THE FAMILY Vol. 5/No. 3/2000
unmarried women, it is hard to see some special ideal combination for men. There
were more than two male godparents at fewer than than half of the baptisms.
The approximate number of individuals behind the names (or perhaps, more
correctly, designations) of godparents is 1,050 men and 1,200 women. To obtain an
exact number raises problems of identification. Many girls or women were referred
to only as, for example, “Anna, the maid” or “Nils’ wife,” which makes exactitude
impossible. As Table 1 shows, there are also some men who are difficult to identify.
According to the census records, the adult population of Helsingborg reached
approximately 1,000 during the period of investigation, and many of these persons
never were godparents. To this number can be added a natural replenishment every
year from children coming of age, soldiers located in Helsingborg, and visiting
godparents from the countryside or neighboring towns such as like Elsenore, Copen-
hagen, or Malmoe.
The popularity of individual men and women differed. Fewer than 50 percent
of the witnesses appeared more than once. The popularity of married women was
a matter of a few individuals, and the most popular choice were wives of magistrates.
The most popular godparent was Margreta Pihl, cousin of Gunilla Pihl. Margareta
was the daughter of a magistrate, and was married to one as well. During the period
of investigation, she was invited to 112 baptisms, at 44 of which she was godmother.
Her husband, Johan Co¨ster, was present at only 26 baptisms. We find the most
popular men among the crafts. In comparison to the women, the popularity among
men was more equally spread between individuals. The most popular male godpar-
ent was the ferryman Per Erikson. He witnessed 58 baptisms during the period,
while his first wife witnessed only one, and his second wife 28.
GODPARENTHOOD NETWORKS
The birth register of Helsingborg reveals both vertical relations, that is, members
from the elite classes acting as witnesses for children from the lower classes; and
horizontal relations, that is, godparent relations within the same social strata, formed
by both kin and nonkin. Although Margreta Pihl was a “maiden witness” and later
godmother to children from all social categories, Per Erikson witnessed mostly
baptisms among the craft families and in some soldier’s families. When Margreta
Pihl and Johan Co¨ster baptised their seven children, there were only four or five
godparents present at each baptism, many of whom were kin. Margreta’s mother
was godmother to six children. Johan Co¨ster came from Germany, and on his side
no kin were present (although a brother of Johan was once present at the baptism
of the notary Peter Ro¨rig’s child). It was not unusual, however, to find that relatives,
mostly female, came from less distant places, such as Copenhagen, Malmoe, or
Lund, to participate in the baptisms of the elite families. Among the families of
well-to-do craftsmen, the godparent networks could be both extensive and intensive,
both vertical and horizontal.
Johanna Axelsdotter had four children with her first husband, the baker Michel
Dreyer, who died in 1683. In 1687, she married Jo¨ns Bengtson, ferryman, who had
two daughters. When Jo¨ns’ eldest daughter Helena and her husband baptised their
first four children between 1695 and 1702, all godparents, except for Helena’s sister

Godparents in an Early Modern Swedish Town
351
Maria—a “maiden witness”—came from the stepfamily, but when they baptised
their fifth child in 1703, all the godparents were nonkin. Helena herself was only
given the honor of godparentage at 1 out of 18 baptisms of her stepsibling’s children.
Jo¨ns’ youngest daughter Maria, was, when unmarried, the “maiden witness” at four
baptisms of her stepsiblings’ children, but when she baptised her own children in
the years 1704–1705, only one member of the stepfamily was witness. Her biological
sister Helena attended both baptisms, and the other nine witnesses were nonkin.
Her husband came from Malmoe, and his parents were dead. To find an explanation
of why Maria seems to have been less attached to her stepfamily than Helena,
whose attachment was not reciprocal and seems to have declined after 1703, we
have to take a closer look at the stepfamily.
When Johanna’s first husband died in 1683, her personal property after the
distribution of the estate was estimated at 118 Swedish daler. Jo¨ns Bengtson was
an ordinary ferryman, whose property after the distribution of the inheritance after
his first wife was estimated at less than 100 Swedish daler. When Jo¨ns died in 1703,
his daughters were given 700 Swedish daler in inheritance from their father, without
an estate inventory. This, according to Helena’s husband, they thought of it as a
most decent term from the widow, seeing that if a division of the inheritance had
been made, the sum would probably be much less. When Johanna died a year later,
however, her four children were given 1,538 Swedish daler each (LLA [RMH4 SB5
1684-07-22; 1687-03-22; 1703-02-27; 1704-09-13]).
As his first official task as his wife’s guardian, Jo¨ns represented Johanna in court
only a week after their wedding in an ongoing judicial process concerning a debt
to her son-in-law, the custom officer Jonas Lo¨fman. This was not the only occasion
Johanna was involved in a conflict that was brought before the court. Among other
things, in 1683, she and her daughter Gunilla were involved in a quarrel in church
about Gunilla’s place in the pew. Quarrels of this type were frequent in early
modern society as a way of confirming social position. In 1695, Johanna and Jonas
Lo¨fman together were brought before court by the magistrate for offenses against
trade regulations, and a year after, Jonas sued Johanna for improper actions in a
mutual transaction (GH6 [SRD7 Helsingborg KR8 1687-10-11; 1683-08-10; 1683-09-
20; 1696-12-08; 1696-12-22]).
Jonas Lo¨fman was not only in conflicts with his mother-in-law. As a customs
officer, he was on several occasions called before the court for his violent behavior
at the customs house. He was dismissed from office in 1693. After that, he continued
to initiate proceedings against his personal enemies, which meant the whole magis-
trature and several merchants, but he also represented other people in court. Thus,
he represented his brother-in-law, Axel Mickelsen Dreyer, when the town deputies
brought him to court for having offended them in their absence. Axel, who had
been drunk, had said that he did not look up to the deputies because he paid more
in tax than they did; except Michel Swertfeger, whom he held in high esteem. He
had torn his vest saying that the deputies despised him because he was not a
merchant, only a baker (GH [SRD Helsingborg KR 1696-07-21]). In 1705, Axel
Dreyer aspired to become a city court judge, but he never succeeded in this endeavor,
because the magistrate neither wished to see him in this position nor found him
worthy of it (LLA [RMH RR9 1705-01-04]). According to the court records, Johan-

352
THE HISTORY OF THE FAMILY Vol. 5/No. 3/2000
na’s family seems to have had high social ambitions that did not correspond with
other people’s opinions about them (Ha¨lsingborgs historia 1979, pp. 163–164).
A closer look at the godparent network of Johanna’s and Jon’s children reveals
¯
a certain hierarchical pattern in the stepfamily. If Johanna’s children regarded
themselves as socially superior to their stepsiblings, and the custom was to chose
godmothers with the same or higher social status than the parents, it is logical that
Helena and Maria only were “maiden witnesses” and never godmothers to their
stepsibling’s children. On the other hand, the declining participation by the step-
siblings at the baptisms of Helena’s and Maria’s children after 1703 can be an
indication that the bonds between the stepsiblings were never close. After their
father’s death, and especially after the inheritance agreement, the sisters probably
found no reasons to strengthen the ritual bonds with Johanna’s children. The only
person from the stepfamily who participated in a baptism of Maria’s Children was
Johanna’s daughter Bengta, who actually belonged to the ten most popular female
godparents.
A Gender-Specific Social Pattern
The social-hierarchical pattern we glimpse in the godparent network of Johanna’s
family becomes clearer when we look at families with fewer kin and in lower social
˚
strata. The godparenthood network of the butcher Pal Jacobsen and his wife Bengta
illustrates this pattern.
˚
As Figure 1 shows, Pal and Bengta did not choose godparents from among the
˚
parents of their own godchildren. The figure also reveals that Pal and Bengta, as
godparents, did not interact with the same people. The male godparents to their
children were butchers or other craftsmen, while 50 percent of the females were
wives and daughters of city court judges or high customs officials and 50 percent
˚
wives and daughters from the crafts. Although Pal was godparent among the craft
families, Bengta participated mostly at baptisms of workmen’s and soldier’s children.
˚
Pal had a sister in Helsingborg. She and her daughter participated at only one
˚
baptism. Apart from another daughter of Pal’s sister no other relatives in Helsing-
borg could be located. Among the lower social strata, the low number of kin,
especially female kin, sometimes left openings for more prominent people. The
˚
godparent networks of Pal Jacobsen and Bengta were extensive both horizontally
and vertically, using Paul’s definition. The female godparents represented the verti-
cal bonds and the male the horizontal. Although these were not reciprocal, they
do reveals a certain hierarchy even within the group. But what did the different
kinds of relations mean to the parents and the godparents, respectively?
A FAIRY GODMOTHER?
Local anchorage appears to have been an important criterion for godparents. This
means that the popularity of some elite men and women depended on the political
situation in Helsingborg during the period of investigation. Helsingborg, a former
Danish town, was incorporated into Sweden by the peace treaty of Roskilde in 1658.
After the war between 1676 and 1679, when the town was taken back by the Danish

Godparents in an Early Modern Swedish Town
353
FIGURE 1
˚
The Godparentage Network of Pal Jacobson the Butcher and His Wife Bengta. The nu-
merals in brackets between the boxes show how many individuals that occur in more
than one type of relation. The numerals in brackets in the boxes show how many individ-
uals that were godparents in more than one baptism. (Source: LLA [HSK Book of Birth
˚
1688–1709). (a) Godparents to Pal’s and Bengta’s children; (b) Bengta’s cogodparents;
˚
c) Pal’s co-godparents; (d) parents to Bengta’s godchildren; (e) Parents to
˚
Pal’s godchildren.
for a period, the Swedish authorities appointed persons loyal to the Swedish crown
as magistrates. These purposes did not always correspond with wishes of the local
people (Ha¨lsingborgs historia 1969, pp. 325–350). There were three Swedish-born
mayors during the period of investigation. None of them or their wives were among
the most popular godparents. Margreta Pihl, on the other hand, having been born
in Helsingborg and having a father who was a well-known burgher, attended four
times as many baptisms as her husband, who had only lived in the town since 1683.
Vertical relations could have different meanings to different parents. It was a
custom that godparents give money as a christening present (Bringe´us 1971, p. 68;
Bossy 1985, p. 16). In view of this, broad representation of the elite at the baptisms
of children from the lower classes can be seen as an attempt by the parents to gain
as much immediate economic advantage from the baptism as possible. But it could
also have been an attempt to create or maintain mutual though unequal bonds of

354
THE HISTORY OF THE FAMILY Vol. 5/No. 3/2000
help and loyalty by creating a patron–client relationships (Wrigthson and Levine
1979 p. 93; Sabean 1990, pp. 380–385, 404–410). By inviting members from more
than one family from the elite they could ensure more than one patron. This was
probably the case when Nils Henrikson, a small shopkeeper, invited both his former
employers wives to be godmothers to his children.
A third meaning, symbolic but not less important, was the status the rich and
powerful godparents gave to the family that was less well off, and not only during
the baptismal ceremony. According to traditional thinking, godparents, especially
the godmother’s, physical and mental qualities was transferred to the child (Bringe´us
1971, p. 68; Fine 1994, pp. 68–73). With that in mind, it is interesting to notice that
among the most popular godparents we do not find the most quarrelsome people
that appear in the court records. Michel Swertfeger and Andreas Lohman, the two
city court judges that attended most baptisms, were also involved in fewer conflicts
than their colleagues. Margreta Pihl is not even mentioned in the court records
between 1681 and 1696. Could this mean that the power that was reflected in the
female godparenthood was of more symbolic than economic, and that the rich and
wealthy and good godmother, while presenting the child at the font, was thought
to give the child not only her good qualities but, like the fairy godmother, the
prospect of riches and power?10 This could be true, but it does not explain the
relative absence of elite men from the baptisms in lower class families.
So far, I have discussed the proportion between male and female godparents as
if it was only a matter of the parents’ choice. Looking at it from the godparents’
perspective, another explanation is possible. According to the Swedish ethnologist
Nils Arvid Bringe´us, it was almost impossible to reject an invitation to be godparent.
But it is possible that an invitation to attend a baptism could have been addressed
to the household and not an individual. If so, what we see here could be the male
part of the town elite withdrawing from participation in the baptismal feasts of the
lower classes, letting the wives and daughters represent the family at this special
form of public events. This do not necessarily mean that the women on these
occasions only were passive links, nor does it contradict the notion that godmothers
really were the parents’ choice. On the contrary, considering the importance of
local anchorage and personal qualities, I suggest that the wives of city court judges
in Helsingborg, while participating at baptisms, demonstrated and reinforced their
own female power of being good mothers.
THE HORIZONTAL RELATIONS
Scholars have stressed the importance of the male horizontal bonds that were
created at baptisms (Bossy 1984, p. 197; Hardwick 1998, pp. 169–171) The gender-
specific hierarchical social pattern we have noted so far suggests that such bonds
were not created between women at baptisms unless they were kin. Looking for
such bonds, it is important to take notice of the horizontal godparent relations that
actually existed.
Before 1658, Helsingborg had a joint market trade with Elsenore in Denmark,
the town on the other side of the Sound, giving the burgers from Helsingborg the
right to sell farm products there. After 1658, the trade between the towns was

Godparents in an Early Modern Swedish Town
355
restricted. This led to many conflicts between the local population and customs
officials. Johanna Axelsdotter’s son-in-law, Jonas Lo¨fman, as mentioned before,
came into conflict as a customs officer with both men and women. Boel, the wife
of Joris Johansson, once accused Jonas, in public, of letting some women carry out
butter, lard, and poultry to Elsenore without paying a duty, while he did not allow
her to do it. When he had commanded her to leave the bridge, she told him to “go
home and command your cunt.” Joris had to pay for his wife’s insults, although
she took back the accusation that he let some women avoid custom duty. In the
court record, it is obvious that in this case it was not sexual defamation that
understood to be the worst offense, but the accusation of bribery (GH [SRD
Helsingborg KR 1693-09-22]).
Boel’s public sexual defamation of Jonas Lo¨fman did not hinder her becoming
godmother to eight children after this incident. One of them was the son of Nils
Henrikson and his wife Sidsela. The two families became neighbors in 1695, and
afterward seem to have been friends. Nils was a small shopkeeper, and Joris, the
former corporal who obtained burghership in 1691, is mentioned as butcher in the
census register of 1709. Sidsela, as well as Boel, were carrying lard to Elsenore,
and were on one occasion in conflict with Jesper Helt, Jonas Lo¨fman’s son-in-law,
at the bridge, when he had refused her passage to Elsenore (GH [SRD Helsingborg
KR 1696-11-10]). Judging from the families’ positions in their godparent networks,
they seem to have had the same social status among the crafts, although Sidsela
attended more baptisms than Boel. At one baptism, Boel was godmother and
Sidsela walked beside her, and at another baptism their roles were reversed. Nils and
Joris also attended two baptisms together. Sidsela, however, was never godmother to
Boel and Joris’ children. In 1720, when Boel and Nils had died, Sidsela and Joris
married each other (LLA [M SB 1720-06-22]).
The last example suggests that in godparent networks, there were bonds between
families that violated the hierarchical model. The custom of inviting women from
higher social strata to be godparents also suggests that female godparents from the
same social strata as the parents, if not related to them, were also held in high
esteem. In this respect, acting as godmother or “maiden witness” would give women
from middling or lower classes the possibility both to confirm and improve their
social standing as well as to build ties with other witnesses.
The uneven distribution between unmarried women and men still remains a
question, however, but can be explained by practical reasoning. If the godmother
was of higher social status than the parents, she would probably carry the baby
only inside the church, while the carrying and care of the baby between the home
and the church rested with the “maiden witnesses.” To them, the baptism was an
event at which they represented their family or the household in which they served,
and which gave them opportunities to confirm and improve their social status and
build ties with other witnesses.
CONCLUSIONS
In Helsingborg, 1688–1709, godparent relations formed a gender-specific hierarchi-
cal network pattern in which women played a prominent part. People chose godpar-

356
THE HISTORY OF THE FAMILY Vol. 5/No. 3/2000
ents either from their own or from above their social class, not from below. The
higher up in the social strata, the denser the godparent network of one family was;
the lower the family, the more widely spread the network, involving people from
all classes. Married women, when not kin, were chosen as godparents primarily
from higher social strata than the biological parents, thus representing the vertical
relations. Married men were chosen primarily from the same social groups as the
parents, representing the horizontal social relations. But even in seemingly hori-
zontal relations there existed a hierarchy. Gender relations can take different kinds
of expressions. When women in Helsingborg dominated the official celebration of
a child’s birth, this did not mean that gender relations were entirely different from
those in Nantes, where men dominated the scene. Men and women played different
roles at baptisms, and the power demonstrated in Helsingborg at baptisms was a
female power, the power of being a good mother. Social network analysts have
demonstrated that social networks consist of a wide range of specialized supporting
ties or other kinds of relations (Wellman and Wetherell 1996). This study has shown
the importance of distinguishing men’s, women’s, and joint networks. To obtain a
more complete picture of the deeper significance of the godparenthood network for
parents, godparents, and children, further analysis will continue to be carried out.
NOTES
1. The Regional Archives in Lund.
2. The City Parish Church in Helsingborg.
3. Fo¨delsebok (Book of birth).
4. The city court and the magistrate in Helsingborg.
5. Skiftesbok (Record of distribution of inheritance).
6. Go¨ta hovra¨tt (Court of Appeal).
7. Sta¨dernas Renoverade dombo¨cker (Court record renovations).
8. Ka¨mna¨rsra¨tten (Court of first instance).
˚
9. Radhusra¨tten (Magistrates court).
10. For a discussion of the the significance of references to the fairy godmother, see
Fine 1994, pp. 57–65.
REFERENCES
Bossy, John. 1984. “Godparenthood: The Fortunes of a Social Institution in Early Modern
Christianity.” pp. 194–201 in Religion and Society in Early Modern Europe 1500–1800,
edited by Kaspar von Greyerz. London: German Historical Institute.
__________. 1985. Christianity in the West 1400–1700. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bringe´us, Nils-Arvid. 1971. “Svenska Dopseder.” Fataburen. Nordiska museets och Skansens
˚
arsbok.
Ericsson, Tom. 1989. “Kinship and Sociability: Urban Shopkeepers in Nineteenth Century
Sweden.” Journal of Family History 14 (3):229–239.
Fine, Agnes. 1994. Parrains. Marraines. La Parante´ Spirituelle en Europe´. Paris: Librairie
Arthe`me Fayard.
Ha¨lsingborgs historia. 1969. Part IV:1. Edited by Go¨sta Johannesson. Almqvist & Wiksell
Fo´rlag AB, Stockholm.

Godparents in an Early Modern Swedish Town
357
Ha¨lsingborgs historia. 1979. Part VI:1. Edited by Margit Roth. Almqvist & Wiksell Fo´rlag
AB, Stockholm.
Hardwick, Julie. 1998. The Practice of Patriarchy. Gender and the Politics of Household in
Early Modern France. State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Jagger, Peter. 1970. Christian Initiations 1552–1969. Rites of Baptism and Confirmation since
the Reformation Period. London: Academic Press.
Paul, B. D. 1942. Ritual Kinship, with Special References to Godparenthood in Middle America.
Unpublished thesis. University of Chicago.
Sabean , D. W. 1990. Property, Production, and Family in Neckerhausen 1700–1870. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wellman, Barry, and Charles Wetherell. 1996. “Social Network Analysis of Historical Com-
munities: Some Questions from the Present for the Past.” The History of Family: An
International Quarterly 1 (1)97–121.
Wrightson, Keith, and David Levine. 1979. Poverty and Piety in an English Village. Terling,
1525–1700. London: SPCK.