Dem vi för vår lag hålla

De kejserliga trumpetarprivilegiernas tillämpning i Sverige under 1600- och 1700-talet

Abstract

The swedish king’s royal court and field trumpeter Conrad Caspar Kuhlau had a son in 1717, shortly after his wedding. The Trumpeters’ Society, in accordance with their royal privileges, wanted to punish Kuhlau by means of a fine and the refusal of the engagement of an apprentice. Kuhlau’s refusal to accept this originated a conflict, which grew acute when it was drawn before the lower court of justice on october 24th., 1726. Through this process, light is shed upon the application of the trumpeters’ privileges
(valid from 1623 and later renewed) in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in Sweden. The trumpeters were in disaccordance about the interpretation of their privileges. The body maintained that the rules were confirmed and had been applied for a good one hundred years, while Kuhlau meant that the practice was wavering within the body. By refering to His Majesty’s decree of October 5th. 1683, by which the application of the privileges was prohibited, he attached to an administrative line, by which these are not confirmed by the swedish rulers. The royal decree of 1683 could have been the answer to a request from the trumpeters’
body in 1672, concerning a renewed confirmation of the privilege’s validity. In this document, earlier publicated and commented by Kjellberg (1979:157f. and 766f.), Queen Kristina is said to have completely abolished the so called ”house pigeons” and straightened
up other abuses and misuse of their privileges. The ”house pigeons”, as Kjellberg literally interpretes it, could be the court and field trumpeters scornful way of referring to the city trumpeters, who often were city musicians as well. At the time for the conflict between Kuhlau and the body, the question of the earlier application of the royal privileges in Sweden appeared to be so unclear that it was taken under consideration and submitted to the Government. A draft for new privileges was, after scrutiny, presented to the Domestic Civil Expedition, who referred the affair to the Law Commission and the War Collegium via the War Expedition for consideration. The Collegium took a positive stand to the idea of furnishing the regiments with privileged kettle-drummers and trumpeters, and hoped that the standards of these could, in due time, be raised – a trumpeter’s apprentice should not be accepted before his ability to read and play by notes could be proved. The Government approved the proposition. Different sets of rules were to be prepared for the court and regiment trumpeters respectively, but no decision seems to have been made the last time the affair was discussed, on March 8th. 1733. The royal trumpeters’ privileges seem to have been officially valid in Sweden at least once during the 17th century, most probably due to the Thirty Years’ War. In practice, they were generally applied within the body of the court and field trumpeters. In consequence, the trumpeters tried at regular intervals to have them confirmed by the Swedish rulers. On the other hand, the authorities’ attitude was shifting. (fig. 2). It is important to clarify the effect this shifting attitude towards the privileges has had on the local musical life. Queen Kristina’s decision to temporarily prohibit the city trumpeters is due to have had a negative effect on the city musician system and to have weakened the professional musicians’ conscience of privileges. It could also be part of the explanation to the early weakening of the city musician system in Stockholm. The 1683 prohibition against the royal privileges may be related to an attempt of reorganization of these (Norlind 1945:58). When the Government did not find reasons to furnish the body of the trumpeters with specific privileges in 1733, this was the beginning of a new era, confirmed by petitions in 1749, 1755 and 1756 concerning the establishing of music corpses at different regiments.