Pseudonymity and Participation

Many of the text items of Tidskrift för hemmet remain un-attributed, while some pieces, especially in the first two years, are not signed. Some signatures often return with regular contributions to the periodical. They are presented either as full names, or initials, or letters which represent, with the help of dashes and full stops, the first and last letter(s) of a first name, surname or both. Some signatures are pictorial, for example several poems are signed with a representation of a music note, an E-flat, otherwise known as Eb, which could be the clue to a first name or a full name. Another contributor signs with the picture of a cross.

“Jonathan,” as I explained in Part 1, is Knut Olivecrona. According to Nordenstam, “Emund Gammal” is the Swedish writer and amateur artist Eva Fryxell.⁷³ An article signed “Yngve,”

published in the fifth issue of 1866, could be a reference to one of the main characters, of the same name, in Bremer’s Hertha, while the “Vår lektyr” column in the first issue of 1860 signed

“Jeremias Munter” is certainly a reference to Bremer’s character from Hemmet.⁷⁴ “O.E.” is possibly Olof Eneroth, choosing to use his initials after having signed his full name in the first issue of 1862. There are other examples of signature mysteries which could become a fascinating speculation game.

Adlersparre and Olivecrona cultivated the mystery that would often surround signatures. Bremer, who remains one of the most recognizable authors in Tidskrift för hemmet, is continuously by-lined in different ways (“Bremer,” “F. B.,” “Fr. Br,” “Fr. B,” etc.) and her contributions are signed “Fr. B.,” “F. B.,” “Fr. Br.,” and “Fredrika Bremer.”⁷⁵ Bremer may not have adopted such a range on purpose; there is a part played by the editors in representing her through different signatures. The signature “S…” in the sixth issue of 1866 (which is different from Adlersparre’s “S.”) is commented upon in a footnote by “Esselde” on the first page: “It is with joy and pride that we promised to add the contribution for our journal of the folk-loving and highly valued author, who hides behind the signature S…”⁷⁶ The use of the verb “hide” or “dölja sig” in Swedish (see footnote), with an emphasis on the verbal action

73 Nordenstam, Begynnelser, 91 – 96.

74 See footnote 40.

75 In graph 2, these various abbreviations are regrouped under the signature “Bremer.”

76 “Det är med glädje och stolthet vi emottagit löftet om bidrag för vår tidskrift af den folkkäre och högt värderade författare, som döljer sig under signaturen S,” “S…,” “Om vårt tjenstefolk,” 305.

with the pronominal form, highlights the significance of the signature policy and gives it an entertaining aspect, as in a game of hide and seek in which anyone may participate.

Ambjörnsson believes that Adlersparre hid herself behind the signatures “Henriette P” and

“a Swede.”⁷⁷ These speculations are not easily verifiable. From the perspective of deliberative politics, the point of the signature game is not to identify authors, but to represent a democratic association of voices. A single author could also hide behind several different signatures, yet each signature adds to the global deliberation process.

In Graph 2, each signature is represented as a voice that contributes to the forum. I do not attribute any new identity to signatures, but only propose a way of visualising them, to illustrate the editors’ will to create a many-voiced quality that takes precedence over physical authorship. The authorial identities are thereby not presented as historical persons but as voices that contribute to a debate. The result is that from the perspective of a democratic association of voices, the creation of the debate is the point of focus, rather than the identity of the contributors. The pseudonym strategy, or the existence of hidden or half hidden identities behind the signatures, is an expression of liberty and equality in the contribution to the debate. Contributors to the periodical were free to choose the signature they desired, which also meant that the editors could easily hide their identity behind a fresh signature.

Female contributors could hide behind male signatures, or vice versa, and pretend to embody a persona whose experience is described; anonymity offered an equal footing.

77 Ambjörnsson, Samhällsmodern, 70.

Graph 2

Distribution of signatures in Tidskrift för hemmet

Graph 2 records the signatures of all articles and columns published between 1859 and 1867, except for occasional advertisements, and the column “Bref låda” (mailbox), which is sometimes added as short communications at the end of some issues. In 404 text items, I have identified 340 signatures (some articles are co-signed), among which are 70 different, or unique signatures in total (as listed according to colour on the right of the graph) and 146 unique signatures per year (see Table 1: several signatures are re-used in different years). The following table breaks down this total amount into categories per year, according to the number of text items, signed text items, and unique signatures.

Table 1

Annual progression of text items, signatures, and unique signatures

1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 1867 total

Text items 38 40 38 35 37 48 60 51 57 404

Signatures 15 32 36 32 33 42 52 48 50 340

Unique signatures

9 19⁷⁸ 14 16 14 18 19 18 19 146

The number of signatures through the years represents as many voices that contribute to the debate. The numbers increase regularly, with a peak in 1865 that plateaus in 1866 and 1867.

The peak of participation corresponds to the first year of the “editorial schism” described by Hammar.⁷⁹ 1865 and the ensuing years are nested between legal reform years (see below in Table 2), as a breathing space during which new changes could be discussed and accepted by the population. Such a societal debate, I argue, in terms of participation only, is mirrored in the periodical through the number of voices that express different opinions during the

“schismatic” years. The observations in Graph 2 and Table 1 thus provide us with a preliminary means to challenge Hammar’s description of the editorial relationship.

Hammar’s “schism” refers to a disagreement between Adlersparre and Olivecrona, yet the editors involve many other voices. The participative peak shows that the editors prioritised the number of contributions from the Swedish people (or a larger number of anonymous voices, including their own) over, or on top of, their private disagreement. In other words, from these graphic representations of the distribution of signatures in Tidskrift för hemmet, I suggest that deliberative democracy and public opinion formation take precedence over the private conflict of the editors.

2.2.2 Voices and Mediation of the Editors: Deliberation in Tidskrift för