This thesis examines four Swedish agricultural treatises published in 1727, focusing on the knowledge management of their authors. It provides insights into early modern knowledge appropriation and the development of agricultural discourse in 18th-century Sweden. The study combines points of departure from the history of knowledge and microhistory, thereby creating a microhistory of knowledge. Concepts such as situated knowledge, boundary work, functions of knowledge, scales, normal exceptionality, margins, and clues are used to investigate how the authors presented knowledge to their readers.

While previous research has emphasised the social function of knowledge and its influence on knowledge management, this thesis explores how deference to both epistemological and social functions of knowledge influenced the authors’ strategies. It examines the authors’ motives, as well as their valuation, translation, and views on the ideal movement of agricultural knowledge. Additional sources on the authors' biographies and the informants referenced by the authors are used to further understand their knowledge management.

The thesis contributes a number of important results regarding agricultural knowledge management in the early 18th century. First, it shows that the authors employed strategies to maintain the epistemological function of the knowledge, presenting it in ways that allowed readers to adapt it to their own context. Second, the treatises were part of a broader process of knowledge appropriation, where practical knowledge was appropriated by learned elites. Previous research on British agricultural treatises has argued that such literature helped create a new social structure by legitimising new social groups, such as gentlemen farmers. Conversely, this thesis argues that the Swedish treatises of 1727 did not advocate societal transformation. Instead, they promoted a binary view of social hierarchy, contrasting the ideal reader with the common people (allmogen), thus underscoring boundaries between existing groups. Third, maintaining the social hierarchy required a partial transformation of the agricultural knowledge in terms of content and connotations. In discussing this, the thesis contributes to our understanding of the relationship between knowledge transformation and social change. Fourth, the authors had great leeway in how to valuate knowledge, and their own prior knowledge – theoretical, experiential, or mixed –  influenced which feature they highlighted as important when arguing for the legitimacy of certain knowledge. Their translation strategies also varied, from focusing on adapting knowledge to local conditions, to focusing on bridging local differences. Fifth, previous research describes the 1740s as a turning point for the Swedish upper classes’ interest in agricultural knowledge, seeing the 1727 treatises as part of an archaic genre with no influence on social reform or agricultural practice. This thesis challenges this view, showing that the treatises presented themes that became central to late 18th-century agricultural discourse and likely contributed to the introduction of these themes. Finally, the thesis presents a method based on a microhistory of knowledge, where sources’ lack of originality is seen as an advantage that facilitates comparisons. Small displacements in the sources offer clues to the actors' strategies, which, when investigated, lead to a deeper understanding of their knowledge management.