Hedvig Charlotta Nordenflycht and Harvard College v. Amory

Hedvig Charlotta Nordenflycht (Stockholm, Sweden, 28 November 1718 – Stockholm, Sweden, 29 June 1763) was a Swedish poet, feminist and salon hostess. She has been called the first self-supporting female writer in Sweden.

Contents 1 Biography 2 Selection of work 3 See also 4 References 5 External links


Born in Stockholm, Nordenflycht was the daughter of the official Anders Andersson Nordbohm, who was ennobled as Nordenflycht, and Christina Rosin. She was given a good education where she early read philosophy, theology, Latin and German.

In 1734 she was engaged to Johan Tideman, who was sickly. He had an impact on her and was an inspiration to her as a follower of Christopher Polhem. He died in 1737, before the wedding. She married Jacob Fabricius, military-vicar in Karlskrona, but he died very soon after the wedding. She withdrew to a cottage to mourn, and there, she wrote her first poems to describe her sorrow.

Hedvig Charlotta Nordenflycht began her career by a poem dedicated to the throne accession of the king of Prussia in 1740, and received great encouragement from the court, especially from Queen Louisa Ulrika, which gave her a lot of support and protected her work, a support she repaid with numerous poems of appreciation to the royal house. She could be regarded as somewhat of a court poet. She became fashionable and supported herself by writing poems on commission. In 1752, she received a pension from the state.

In 1753 she was elected into the Tankebyggarorden, a literary academy in Stockholm based on similar French societies, which published several works which are regarded as the breakthrough of literary classicism in Sweden. She became a leading member of the academy, acted as its hostess and made it the centre of a literary salon. Her name in the Academy was Uranie, and she was a close friend to Gustaf Philip Creutz and Gustaf Fredric Gylleborg.

She was a passionate defender of female education. As such, she opposed some of the views of Rousseau. In 1761, she wrote Fruntimrens försvar (English: "To the Defense of Women") on this topic. In Friarekonsten (English: "The art of proposing"), she warns women, that men's assurances of friendship often turned to a demand of obedience after marriage.

Nordenflycht is said to have been a passionate and emotional person. The sorrows of her private life affected her health and made her sick and depressed, some say suicidal, which is said to have been reflected in her works, which was often of the melancholic kind. The most famous poem of Nordenflycht, Öfver en Hyacint, was a love poem which describes Nordenflycht's love for the young Johan Fischerström; the last poems is about the triangle between Nordenflycht, Fischerström and her friend Cathérine Charlotte De la Gardie, which took place during the winter of 1762–63. In 1762, she withdrew to a cottage at the estate of De la Gardie; Johan Fischerström became the inspector of the estate and courted De la Gardie, which made the situation unbearable for Hedvig. Her health was also declining. Legend say she committed suicide, and several versions are given as to how it happened. Other historians, however, find it likely that she suffered from cancer.

In the national Swedish portrait gallery of Gripsholm, which was opened in the 1820s, she was one of the first six women of the Swedish history who was given a portrait in the collection, alongside with Bridget of Sweden, Vendela Skytte, Barbro Stigsdotter (Svinhufvud), Sophia Rosenhane and Sophia Elisabet Brenner. Selection of work 1743 : "Den sörjande Turturduvan" (The Sorrowing Turtledove) 1744 : Qwinligit Tankespel, av en herdinna i Norden (A Woman's Play of Thoughts, by a Shepherdess in the North), in four volumes between 1744 and 1750 1744 : Fruentimbers Plikt att upöfwa deras Wett (Women's duty to train their sense) 1752 : Våra Försök (Our Efforts), together with the other academy members 1761 : Fruntimrens försvar (To the Defense of Women) 1762 : Öfwer en hyacinth (Over a hyacinth) See also Anna Maria Lenngren Sophia Elisabet Brenner Catharina Ahlgren Hedvig Catharina Lilje

Harvard College v. Amory and Hedvig Charlotta Nordenflycht

Harvard College v Amory (1830) 26 Mass (9 Pick) 446 is a US trusts law case, which repeated the famous formulation of the "prudent person rule", that people in charge of other people's money must exercise due care and skill, and look after the money as if it were their own.

Contents 1 Facts 2 Judgment 3 See also 4 References 5 External links


John McLean died on 23 October 1823, and in his will he left $35,000, some personal property and a house to his wife, Ann McLean. He also left $50,000 to Jonathan Amory and Francis Amory in trust to loan or invest "in safe and productive stock, either in the public funds, bank shares, or other stock, according to their best judgment and discretion." The proceeds from the investments were to be paid to his wife, in quarterly or semi annual payments. On her death, half the value of the fund was to go to the President and Fellows of Harvard College, to "be exclusively and forever appropriated to the support of a professor of ancient and modern history, at that college." The other money was to go to the Trustees of the Massachusetts General Hospital.

The trust deed also said "not doubting that they will faithfully and conscientiously discharge and execute the trusts hereby reposed in them, and being desirous of relieving them from the burden of procuring sureties for large sums - I do request and direct that they may not be required to give any other than their own bonds respectively, without sureties, conditioned for the performance and execution of the said trusts; and I do order and direct, that they shall not be held responsible for the acts, doings, and defaults of each other, but shall simply be accountable respectively each for his own acts, doings, and defaults, as such trustees."

Francis Amory, the surviving trustee, tendered his resignation in 1828. Harvard College and the Massachusetts Hospital sued him, because the accounts showed a loss of money on the investments. They had invested the money in incorporated manufacturing and insurance companies, including the Boston Manufacturing Company, and the Merrimack Manufacturing Company. The College and the Hospital alleged that this choice of investments was speculative and negligent. Judgment

On appeal, the court held that Mr Amory was not liable for the losses. Justice Samuel Putnam wrote the opinion, saying, See also US trusts law English trusts law Learoyd v Whiteley Speight v Gaunt (1882) 22 Ch D 727, 739, Sir George Jessel MR, 'It seems to me that on general principles a trustee ought to conduct the business of the trust in the same manner that an ordinary prudent man of business would conduct his own, and that beyond that there is no liability or obligation on the trustee.' Belchier v Parsons (1754) 1 Kenyon 38, (1754) 96 ER 908
164/282 161 162 163 165 166 167 168 r164 slankamen