Jump to content
Arkivverket

Confirmation


Richard Olsen

Recommended Posts

I read online that there was a law until 1912 that required Norwegians to be confirmed. Anyone not confirmed by age 19 could be sent to prison.

Is this true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the internet says so, it must be true...  Don't you think so?

 

 

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

When the internet says so, it must be true...  Don't you think so?

 

Confirmation is for members of the Norwegian Church (former State Church), or other christian communities that practice it.

Up to 1845, membership in the State Church was compulsory (albeit participation in the Society of Friends, aka. Quakers, was

more or less unofficially accepted; there were also regulations concerning members of the reformed churches, meaning that at least

these were accepted). From the 1845  "Lov angaaende dem, der bekjende sig til den christelige Religion, uden at være medlemmer af Statskirken"  (for short called "Dissenterlova") http://www.fagsider.org/kirkehistorie/lover/1845_dissenterloven.htm#pp19

people could form and be members of other communities - with or without confirmation.

 

Confirmation was introduced by a law (forordning) 13 Jan 1736 

http://www.fagsider.org/kirkehistorie/lover/1736_konf.htm

This is not mentioned among the laws and regulations dismissed by the 1845 law.

However, the confirmation was the "exam" and conclusion of the public school, and the 1845 law allowed parents not in the State Church

to provide the teaching outside the public schools (e.g. form their own schools).

 

The last (then not practically efficient) traces of compulsory confirmation were removed in 1889

https://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Stortingsforhandlinger/Lesevisning/?p=1889&paid=3&wid=a&psid=DIVL69&pgid=a_0019

https://www.stortinget.no/no/Saker-og-publikasjoner/Stortingsforhandlinger/Saksside/?pid=1871-1891&mtid=20&vt=a&did=DIVL58912

 

Edited by Ivar S. Ertesvåg
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I boken Religionsfrihet og toleranse i norsk samfunn og skole (1982) skriver teologen Peder A. Eidberg bl. a. om at omstreifere og fjellsamer
skal ha blitt satt i fengsel for å bli konfirmert. Og dette skal ha foregått til langt inn på 1800-tallet. Se s. 51 her: 
https://www.nb.no/items/54a2ae5d7b3414be6c7cface520b461b?page=51 Rett nedenfor, på samme side, skriver han videre: 

 

image.thumb.png.0cb3428c6a745fce7666fd3872a16e5f.png

Edited by Ivar Kristensen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 time siden, Ivar Kristensen skrev:

I boken Religionsfrihet og toleranse i norsk samfunn og skole (1982) skriver teologen Peder A. Eidberg bl. a. om at omstreifere og fjellsamer
skal ha blitt satt i fengsel for å bli konfirmert. Og dette skal ha foregått til langt inn på 1800-tallet. Se s. 51 her: 
https://www.nb.no/items/54a2ae5d7b3414be6c7cface520b461b?page=51 Rett nedenfor, på samme side, skriver han videre: 

 

 

Det er vel (som alltid) grunn til å stille kontrollspørsmål ved slike utsegner:

- kva, og kor pålitande/sikker, er kjelda for dette? Eidsberg gjev ingen referanse her. Formuleringa "det berettes endogtil ..." tyder ikkje på at grunnlaget er

fjellstøtt, og ikkje på at det er eit sentralt punkt i framstilling hans.

- omstreifarar vart sette i fengsel. Var det for å verte konfirmerte, eller var det fordi dei var omstreifarar? Omstreifing kunne vel vere grunn nok åleine.  I

samsvar med tenkjemåten i samtida ville det vere nærliggande å syte for opplæring og konfirmasjon, når ein likevel  hadde kontroll på individet. 

Altså... Eidberg, eller informantane hans, kan ha observert kjelder som seier at fengsla omstreifarar vart konfirmerte. Men kanskje

nokon har vore litt rask med slutningar om årsak og verknad?

- Vart fjellsamar fengsla for å verte konfirmerte. Eller var det fordi dei passa inn i definisjonen av omstreifar? (sjå ovanfor).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read very interesting information on laws regarding confirmation in Norway (and religion in general)

 

As to my question:

1. Yes, there was compulsory confirmation

2. No truth or denial yet on possible jail time for unconfirmed adults.

 

Conclusion: When the internet says so, it may be true....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

I have read very interesting information on laws regarding confirmation in Norway (and religion in general)

 

As to my question:

1. Yes, there was compulsory confirmation

2. No truth or denial yet on possible jail time for unconfirmed adults.

 

Conclusion: When the internet says so, it may be true....

 

 

 

In your question, you used the unrestricted formulation

22 timer siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

"a law until 1912 that required Norwegians to be confirmed."

 which normally would be understood as "all Norwegians to be ..."   . The answer is  "no".

 

For the second, the usual methodology is to find cases of (here) imprisonment for this reason. Without any examples, and not even a legal authority for this,

the answer remains as "no".

On the contrary, the proposal to the Storting in 1889 simply observed that there were quite a few un-confirmed adults around, and none of these were in

prison for that reason.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Ivar S. Ertesvåg said:

The last (then not practically efficient) traces of compulsory confirmation were removed in 1889

 

Ivar, this is not meant to be argumentative. I simply seek clarification.

Your own words state there was compulsory confirmation. I presumed that included all (at least all Lutherans)

As to imprisonment: No known (by us) cases does not dictate no occurences. Contacting the authors of such claims and seeking sources would assist.

 

You quoted the Storting of 1889. Perhaps there was imprisonment prior to 1889.

Edited by Richard Olsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2022 at 4:29 PM, Richard Olsen said:

a law until 1912 that required Norwegians to be confirmed

For the sake of clarity and future references

 

"...a law until 1912 that required Norwegians to be confirmed" does not equal ...a law until 1912 that required all Norwegians to be confirmed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

For the sake of clarity and future references

 

"...a law until 1912 that required Norwegians to be confirmed" does not equal ...a law until 1912 that required all Norwegians to be confirmed

 

and if not, what does it express? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"In 1759 it was decreed that everyone should be confirmed by the age of nineteen."

Source: ”Norsk Historisk Leksikon: Kulture og samfunn ca. 1500-ca. 1800”, 2nd ed., by Steinar Imsen and Harald Winge, Cappelen Akademisk Forlag, as, Oslo 1999. FHL Book Nr. Ref 948.1 H26i.

 

This is not proof that imprisonment occured, but it gets closer to a possibility

 

Perhaps it was believed that the decree implied imprisonment for violators.

Edited by Richard Olsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

"In 1759 it was decreed that ..."

 -recall that your statement was about 1912 ... 

 

Nevertheless - historical sources are always interesting:  Looking at the decree ("Forordning") of 25 Maj 1759:

https://www.nb.no/items/1a2857a1686c99a9017b3a2112ac7b38?page=601&searchText=Forordninger

there is indeed, a potential penalty for lack of confirmation (before 19 years of age).

However not for the young person, but for the vicar and the superior (parents for kids at home, master of houshold for servants): A fine

(to the local school funds) could be charged from the vicar for lack of eagernes, and from the superior for neglect of teaching at home

and for impediment of the public teaching (and thus, the confirmation) of the child.

The vicar could, in case of qualified neglect, be accused for the church court ("prosteretten"). As far as I know, the ultimate outcome

here would be that he lost his position.

Prison is not mentioned.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"Dessuten kunne man straffes dersom man ikke hadde blitt konfirmert: Hvis en person ikke hadde møtt til konfirmasjonen innen fylte 19 år, kunne vedkommende settes i tukthus eller gapestokk. Denne bestemmelsen kom i 1762"

Sourced

https://journals.uio.no/prismet/article/download/4766/4195/0

 

"leloven av 1848.12 Selve konfirmasjonstvangen forsvant først ut ved lov i 1912."

Edited by Richard Olsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ivar S. Ertesvåg said:

-recall that your statement was about 1912 ...

No, it was not about 1912. It was stated that the law supposedly ended in 1912.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

"Dessuten kunne man straffes dersom man ikke hadde blitt konfirmert: Hvis en person ikke hadde møtt til konfirmasjonen innen fylte 19 år, kunne vedkommende settes i tukthus eller gapestokk. Denne bestemmelsen kom i 1762"

Sourced

https://journals.uio.no/prismet/article/download/4766/4195/0

The linked document refers to Tveit (1986) p. 57, which is here: https://www.nb.no/items/7fab93eecdd1f065a905a5cd331837f6?page=55

and refers to Reskript 24.nov , which is here1764 https://www.nb.no/items/054a24a2d59ea31d5c07f4bec65d42e8?page=619&searchText=rescripter

 

It is about school attendance and teaching.  Penalties are prescribed for any relevant superior, from parents to the bailiff and the bishop who

might be blamed for neglect or impediment of teaching. (There are similar rules today.)
And - if the kids themselves are to be blamed for the lack of school attendance ("at de ikke flittig søge Skolen") - there is a possibility for punishment.

We (you) were talking about confirmation, not school - right?

Your linked source is at best inaccurate.

 

39 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

No, it was not about 1912. It was stated that the law supposedly ended in 1912.

ok, 1911 then ...

You still have the challenge of documenting any possibility for imprisonment due to lack of confirmation for any year between 1736 and 1912.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ivar S

 

What I quoted above is clearly about confirmation, and that one could face prison time if not confirmed. That law may or may not have been enforced.

 

If you care to conduct an internet search you will find several credible sites stating that the law was in effect until 1912.

 

If you are seeking an argument, please go elsewhere. Thank you. Wait a minute, am I being trolled?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

What I quoted above is clearly about confirmation, and that one could face prison time if not confirmed. That law may or may not have been enforced.

 

If you care to conduct an internet search you will find several credible sites stating that the law was in effect until 1912.

 

If you are seeking an argument, please go elsewhere. Thank you. Wait a minute, am I being trolled?

 

 

What you quoted were tertiary sources, while I found the original regulations ("Reskript", "Forordning") the sources of your sources were said to be based on.

I think you see the methodological difference.

 

I think you agree that if the "rescript" does not mention confirmation, then the secondary or tertiary source is not reliable if it claims

that the "rescript" is about confirmation. 

 

In this case, the  Reskript of 24 Nov 1764 (shown in my link) does not mention confirmation, while your source (Dahl, 2017 - the pfd document linked) had interpreted

the secondary source (Tveit, 1986) in the way you refer. The flaw may be regarded as minor (still a flaw) in the works of Dahl and Tveit. For the questions of your

posting here, however, the flaw gives an answer opposite to the right one.

 

You are not trolled. You are simply learning about research and use of sources - in addition to learning about confirmation. You did ask about this.

 

 

Edited by Ivar S. Ertesvåg
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Ivar S. Ertesvåg said:

The linked document refers to Tveit (1986) p. 57, which is here: https://www.nb.no/items/7fab93eecdd1f065a905a5cd331837f6?page=55

I am not able to see that information, therefore, I do not know if they are valid links. Your first links on this thread are irrelevant.

 

My original questions on this thread:

1. Was there compulsory confirmation until 1912?

Answer: Yes (backed by various sources)

2. Could a person be sent to prison for not being confirmed?

Answer: Yes, but it is unknown, at this time, if anyone was ever sent to prison for violating this law.

 

Obviously, this was a learning experience for you

 

 

Edited by Richard Olsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

I am not able to see that information, therefore, I do not know if they are valid links. Your first links on this thread are irrevelant.

 

That is, essentially, your problem. Aparently, you do not have a Norwegian IP address (including no VPN, which would be your option if you are abroad).

This is a general issue for all discussions based on sources. Not all readers have ready access to literature. Nevertheless, reference to that literature is

still valid. 

It is possible to make a screen-dump and post here.  The first page of the Reskript 1764 is here. However, the size reaches the limit of this forum,

image.thumb.png.96da2254f482c8d201f416e50c9844e1.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

image.thumb.png.9a73529d35f5bed27883e2be5467e121.png

 

This was the 2nd and last page. Now you can read and tell where lack of confirmation can lead to imprisonment.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Ivar S. Ertesvåg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutter siden, Richard Olsen skrev:

Obviously, this was a learning experience for you

Of course, learning history from primary sources is interesting. You should try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.