| dc.description.abstract | The mercantilist policy of the grain monopoly (1735-1788) was a fundamental part of the Danish-Norwegian composite state, as it thoroughly regulated the extent of grain transfers between Norway and Denmark whilst excluding the importation of foreign grains. While this system functioned well in normal years, it was challenged by harvest failures, so common during the Little Ice Age (LIA). One such case occurred in the early 1770s, as the subsistence crisis in the Eastern part of Norway testifies (1771-1773). This period came just after Struensee’s implementation of full press freedoms in 1770, which gave commoners the opportunity to debate the ecological disaster and propose potential adaptions more freely. One such proposal was the abolition of the inflexible grain monopoly. Nothing epitomizes this discussion more than the “Philopatreias” debate, which is archived in the Luxdorph collection. The participants include significant Danish-Norwegian figures such as Christian Martfelt, Ove Høegh-Guldberg, and Ole Christian Bie, who debated whether the grain monopoly worsened the ongoing crisis. The purpose of this thesis will be to examine how the famine of Eastern Norway (1771-1773) affected public debates during the “Trykkefrihetstiden” (1770-1772), and how this laid the basis for later schemes to alter the rigid grain policy during the late 1780s. In what manner did people argue for and against the abolition of the current grain monopoly? To what degree was the existent grain regime believed to exacerbate the Eastern Norwegian famine? And ultimately, how did the debates of the 1770s initiate socioecological changes that seem too complicated to achieve today? | eng |