Chapter III: Introduction (2)

An important event of the diplomatic type was the coming of Cardinal William of Sabina as papal legate to crown King Hakon. The coronation ceremony was performed in Bergen, July 29, 1247. At the coronation banquet the cardinal made a speech in which, as the Saga of Hakon reports his remarks, he called particular attention to the polished manners of the Northmen. “It was told me that I would here see few men; but even though I saw some, they would be liker to beasts in their behaviour than to men; but now I see here a countless multitude of the folk of this land, and, as it seems to me, with good behaviour.”[79] If the _King’s Mirror_ gives a correct statement of what was counted good manners and proper conduct at the court of Hakon IV, the cardinal’s praise is none too strong.

Footnote 79:

_Hákonar Saga_, c. 255. (Dasent’s translation.)

As a part of his discussion of the duties and activities of the king’s henchmen, the author describes the military methods of the age, arms and armour, military engines and devices used in offensive and defensive warfare, and other necessary equipment.[80] He also discusses the ethics of the military profession to some extent. This part of the work has been made the subject of a detailed study by Captain Otto Blom of the Danish artillery, who has tried to fix a date for the composition of the _King’s Mirror_ on the basis of these materials.[81] It is not likely, however, that the work describes the military art of the North; such an elaborate system of equipment and such a variety of military engines and devices the Norwegians probably never knew at any time in the middle ages. It is the military art of Europe which the author describes, especially the war machinery of the crusades. One should not be surprised to find that he had knowledge of the devices which were employed by the Christian hosts in their warfare against the infidel in the Orient. The crusades attracted the Norwegian warriors and they took a part in them almost from the beginning. The fifth crusade began in 1217, the year of Hakon IV’s accession to the kingship. Several Norwegian chiefs with their followers joined this movement, some marching by land through Germany and Hungary, while others took the sea route. One is tempted to believe that the author was himself a crusader, but it is also possible that he got his information as to the military art of the south and east from warriors who returned from those lands.

Footnote 80:

Cc. xxxviii-xxxix.

Footnote 81:

See below, pp. 62–63.

From the subject of proper behavior and good breeding the author passes to a discussion of evil conduct and its effect on the welfare of the kingdom. Many causes, he tells us, may combine to bring calamities upon a land, and if the evils continue any length of time, the realm will be ruined.[82] There may come dearth upon the fields and the fishing grounds near the shores; plagues may carry away cattle, and the huntsman may find a scarcity of game; but worst of all is the dearth which sometimes comes upon the intellects and the moral nature of men. As a prolific source of calamities of the last sort, the author mentions the institution of joint kingship, the evils of which he discusses at some length. His chapter on this subject is an epitome of Norwegian history in the twelfth century when joint kingship was the rule.

Footnote 82:

C. xxxv.

According to the laws of medieval Norway before the thirteenth century, the national kingship was the king’s allodial possession and was inherited by his sons at his death. All his sons were legal heirs, those of illegitimate birth as well as those who were born in wedlock. When there was more than one heir, the kingship was held jointly, all the claimants receiving the royal title and permission to maintain each his own household. Usually a part of the realm was assigned to each; but it was the administration, and not the kingdom itself, which was thus divided. It is readily seen that such a system would offer unusual opportunities for pretenders; and at least three times in one hundred years men whose princely rights were at best of a doubtful character mounted the Norwegian throne. It is an interesting fact that two of these, the strenuous Sverre and the wise Hakon IV, must be counted among the strongest, ablest, and most attractive kings in the history of Norway.

Though there had been instances of joint rule before the twelfth century, the history of that unfortunate form of administration properly begins with the death of Magnus Bareleg on an Irish battlefield in 1103. Three illegitimate sons, the oldest being only fourteen years of age, succeeded to the royal title. One of these was the famous Sigurd Jerusalemfarer, who took part in the later stages of the first crusade. About twenty years after King Magnus’ death, a young Irishman, Harold Gilchrist by name, appeared at the Norwegian court and claimed royal rights as a son of the fallen king. King Sigurd forced him to prove his birthright by an appeal to the ordeal, but the Irishman walked unhurt over the hot plowshares. Harold became king in 1130 as joint ruler with Sigurd’s son Magnus, later called “the Blind.”[83] Three of his sons succeeded to the kingship in 1136. During the next century several pretenders appeared and civil war became almost the normal state of the country. Between 1103 and 1217 fifteen princes were honored with the royal title; eleven of these were minors. The period closed with the defeat and death of King Hakon’s father-in-law, the pretender Skule, in 1240.

Footnote 83:

The strife that followed the accession of Harold Gille and Magnus the
Blind is the subject of Björnson’s great historical drama, Sigurd
Slembe (English translation by William Morton Payne).

It was the history of these hundred years and more of joint kingship, of pretenders, of minorities, and of civil war, which the author of the _King’s Mirror_ had in mind when he wrote his gloomy chapter on the calamities that may befall a state. Perhaps he was thinking more especially of the unnatural conflict between King Hakon and Duke Skule,[84] which was fought out in 1240, and the memory of which was still fresh at the time when the _King’s Mirror_ was being written.

Footnote 84:

See below, p. 48.

Of the king and his duties as ruler and judge the _Speculum Regale_ has much to say; but as these matters offer no problems that call for discussion, it will not be necessary to examine them in detail. Wholly different is the case of the king’s relation to the church, of the position of the church in the state, of the divine origin of kingship, of the fulness of the royal authority. On these questions the author’s opinions and arguments are of great importance: in the history of the theory of kingship by the grace of God and divine right and of absolute monarchy, the _Speculum Regale_ is an important landmark.

In the discussion of the origin and powers of the royal office, the _King’s Mirror_ again shows unmistakably the influence of events in the preceding century of Norwegian history. So long as the church of Norway was under the supervision of foreign archbishops, first the metropolitan of distant Hamburg and later the archbishop of the Danish (now Swedish) see of Lund, there was little likelihood of any serious clash between the rival powers of church and state. But when, in 1152, an archiepiscopal see was established at Nidaros (Trondhjem) trouble broke out at once. The wave of enthusiasm for a powerful and independent church, which had developed such vigor in the days of Gregory VII, was still rising high. Able men were appointed to the new metropolitan office and the Norwegian church very soon put forth the usual demands of the time: separate ecclesiastical courts and immunity from anything that looked like taxation or forced contribution to the state. At first these claims had no reality in fact, as the kings would not allow them; but in 1163[85] an opportunity came for the church to make its demands effective. In that year a victorious faction asked for the coronation of a new king whose claims to the throne came through his mother only. The pretender was a mere child and the actual power was in the hands of his capable and ambitious father, Erling Skakke. The imperious archbishop Eystein agreed to consecrate the boy king if he would consent to become the vassal of Saint Olaf, or, in other words, of the archbishop of Nidaros. Erling acquiesced and young Magnus was duly crowned. It was further stipulated that in future cases of disputed succession the final decision should rest with the bishops.[86] The state was formally made subject to the church. It must be noted, however, that it was not the head of Catholic Christendom who made these claims, but the chief prelate of the national Norwegian church. The theory was doubtless this, that if the pope is superior to the emperor, the archbishop is superior to the king.

Footnote 85:

The date usually given is 1164; but Ebbe Hertzberg argues quite
conclusively for the earlier year. “Den förste norske Kongekroning”;
_Historisk Tidsskrift_, Fjerde Række, III, 30-37.

Footnote 86:

According to the new rules of succession the oldest legitimate son, if
qualified for the office, should inherit the throne. The oldest might
be passed over, however, in favor of a younger legitimate son, or even
in favor of an illegitimate descendant, if the bishops should find
such a procedure expedient. See Gjerset, _History of the Norwegian
People_, I, 364.

The new arrangement did not long remain unchallenged. In 1177 the opposition to the ecclesiastical faction found a leader in Sverre, called Sigurdsson, an adventurer from the Faroe Islands, who pretended to be a grandson of Harold Gilchrist, though the probabilities are that his father was one Unas, a native of the Faroes.[87] Sverre’s followers were known as Birchshanks, because they had been reduced to such straits that they had to bind birch bark around their legs. The faction in control of the government was called the Croziermen and was composed of the higher clergy with an important following among the aristocracy. Sverre’s fight was, therefore, not against King Magnus alone but against the Guelph party of Norway. For half a century there was intermittent civil warfare between the supporters of an independent and vigorous kingship on the one side and the partisans of clerical control on the other. King Sverre’s great service to Norway was that he broke the chain of ecclesiastical domination. The conflict was long and bitter and the great king died while it was still on; but when it ended the cause of the Croziermen was lost. The church attained to great power in the Norwegian state, but it never gained complete domination.

Footnote 87:

While it seems probable that Sverre was not of royal blood he was not
necessarily an impostor; he may have believed his mother’s assertions.
For a discussion of the problem see _ibid._, 376-377.

Sverre was a man of great intellectual strength; he was a born leader of men, a capable warrior, and a resourceful captain. When it began to look as if victory would crown his efforts, the archbishop fled to England and from his refuge in Saint Edmundsbury excommunicated the king. But exile is irksome to an ambitious man, and after a time the fiery prelate returned to Norway and was reconciled to the strenuous ruler. Eystein’s successor, however, took up the fight once more; and when Sverre made Norway too uncomfortable for him, he fled to Denmark and excommunicated his royal opponent. A few years later, Innocent III, who had just ascended the papal throne, also excommunicated Sverre, and threatened the kingdom with an interdict.[88] But the papal weapons had little effect in the far North; the king forced priests and prelates to remain loyal and to continue in their duties. No doubt they obeyed the excommunicated ruler with great reluctance and much misgiving; but no other course was possible, for the nation was with the king.

Footnote 88:

It is usually stated that Innocent III actually did lay an interdict
on the land, but this appears to be an error. He authorized the
bishops to do so, but they seem not to have made use of the
authorization. See Bull, “Interdiktet mot Sverre”: _Historisk
Tidsskrift_, Femte Række, III, 321-324.

The militant Faroese was a man with strong literary interests; he was educated for the priesthood and it is believed that he had actually taken orders. He was eloquent in speech, but he realized the power of the written as well as of the spoken word. It is a fact worth noting that among the Northmen of the thirteenth century learning was not confined to the clergy. While the author of the _King’s Mirror_ urges the prospective merchant to learn Latin and French, he also warns him not to neglect his mother tongue. King Sverre replied to the ecclesiastical decrees with a manifesto in the Norwegian language in which he stated his position and his claims for the royal office. This pamphlet, which is commonly known as “An Address against the Bishops,” was issued about 1199 and was sent to all the shire courts to be read to the freemen. It was a cleverly written document and seems to have been very effective. In spite of the fact that the king was under the ban, the masses remained loyal.

Between the political theory of the _Address_ and the ideas of kingship expressed in the _King’s Mirror_ there is an agreement which can hardly be accidental. It is more likely that we have in this case literary kinship of the first degree. It has been thought that King Sverre may have prepared his manifesto himself, but this is scarcely probable. Some one of his court, however, must have composed it, perhaps some clerk in the royal scriptorium, for the ideas developed in the document are clearly those of the king. It has also been suggested that the _Address_ and the _Speculum Regale_ may have been written by the same hand;[89] but the only evidence in support of such a conclusion is this agreement of political ideas, which may have originated in a careful study of the earlier document by the author of the later work.

Footnote 89:

This appears to be Heffermehl’s opinion. See _Historiske Skrifter
tilegnede Ludvig Daae_, 87.

King Sverre’s _Address_ begins with a violent attack on the higher clergy: the bishops have brought sorrow upon the land and confusion into holy church. This deplorable condition is ascribed chiefly to a reckless use of the power of excommunication. In this connection the king is careful to absolve the pope from all guilt: his unfortunate deeds were due to ignorance and to false representations on the part of the bishops. It is next argued that excommunication is valid only when the sentence of anathema is just; an unjust sentence is not only invalid but it recoils upon the head of him who is the author of the anathema. In support of this contention the author of the manifesto quotes the opinions of such eminent fathers as Saint Jerome, Saint Augustine, Pope Gregory the Great, and other authorities on canon law. It will be remembered that the king himself was under the ban at the time. The author argues further that his view is supported by reason as well as by the law of the church. Bishops have been appointed shepherds of the flocks of God; they are to watch over them, not drive them away into the jaws of the wolves. But if a bishop excommunicates one who is without guilt, he consigns him to hell; and if his decree is effective, he destroys one of God’s sheep.

From this subject the _Address_ passes to the nature of the royal office. “So great a number of examples show clearly that the salvation of a man’s soul is at stake if he does not observe complete loyalty, kingly worship, and a right obedience; for kingly rule is created by God’s command and not by the ordinance of man, and no man can obtain royal authority except by divine dispensation.” The king is not a secular ruler only, he also has holy church in his power and keeping. It is his right and duty to appoint church officials, and the churchmen owe him absolute loyalty the same as his other subjects. Christ pointed out the duty of church officials quite clearly when he paid tribute to his earthly ruler, one who was, moreover, a heathen.[90]

Footnote 90:

The _Address_ is published as an appendix to the Christiania edition
of the _King’s Mirror_. It has also been issued in separate form under
the title _En Tale mod Biskopperne_; this edition is by Gustav Storm.

It will be seen that the _Address_ puts forth four claims of far-reaching importance: kingship is of divine origin and the king rules by the grace of God; the power of royalty extends to the church as well as to the state and includes the power to appoint the rulers of the church; disloyalty to the king is a mortal sin; an unjust sentence of excommunication is invalid and injures him only who publishes the anathema. On all these points the _King’s Mirror_ is in complete agreement with Sverre’s manifesto.

In the course of the dialog in the _Speculum Regale_ the son requests his father to take up and discuss the office and business of the king; for, says he, “he is so highly honored and exalted upon earth that all must bend and bow before him as before God.”[91] The father accounts for the power and dignity of kingship in this way: men bow before the king as before God, because he represents the exalted authority of God; he bears God’s own name and occupies the highest judgment seat upon earth; consequently, when one honors a king, it is as if he honors God himself, because of the title that he has from God.[92]

Footnote 91:

C. xliii.

Footnote 92:

C. xliii.

The author evidently realizes that statements of this sort will not be accepted without further argument, and he naturally proceeds to give his doctrine a basis in Biblical history. The reverence due kingship is fully illustrated with episodes in the career of David. So long as God permitted King Saul to live, David would do nothing to deprive him of his office; for Saul was also the Lord’s anointed. He took swift revenge upon the man who came to his camp pretending that he had slain Saul; for he had sinned against God in bearing arms against His anointed. He also calls attention to Saint Peter’s injunction: “Fear God and honor your king;” and adds that it is “almost as if he had literally said that he who does not show perfect honor to the king does not fear God.”[93]

Footnote 93:

C. xliv.

To emphasize his contention that kingship is of divine origin, the author cites the example of Christ. The miracle of the fish in whose mouth the tribute money was found is referred to in the _Address_ as well as in the _King’s Mirror_. Peter was to examine the first fish, not the second or the third. In the same way, and here the argument is characteristically medieval, “every man should in all things first honor the king and the royal dignity; for God Himself calls the king His anointed.”[94]

Footnote 94:

_Ibid._

But, objects the son, how could Christ who is himself the lord of heaven and earth be willing to submit to an earthly authority? To this the father replies that Christ came to earth as a guest and did not wish to deprive the divine institution of kingship of any honor or dignity.[95] The author evidently deems it important to establish this contention; for if Christ submitted to Caesar as to a rightful authority, the church in opposing secular rulers could scarcely claim to be following in the footsteps of the Master.

Footnote 95:

C. xliv.

It seems to be a safe conclusion that the doctrine of the divine character of kingship as developed in the _King’s Mirror_ is derived from King Sverre’s _Address_, unless it should be that the two have drawn from a common source. There is nothing novel about Sverre’s ideas except the form in which they are stated; fundamentally they are a return to the original Norwegian theory of kingship. The Norwegian kings of heathen times were descendants of divine ancestors. They recognized the will of the popular assemblies as a real limitation on their own powers, but no religious authority could claim superiority to the ruler. The king was indeed himself a priest, a mediator between the gods and men. The Christian kings for a century and a half had controlled the church in a very real manner; they had appointed bishops and had also on occasion removed them. The claim of the archbishop to overlordship was therefore distinctly an innovation. The king makes use of arguments from the Bible to support his theory, not because it was based on Scriptural truths, but because to a Christian people these would prove the most convincing.

In his statement of the fulness and majesty of the royal power, the author of the _Speculum Regale_ goes, however, far beyond the author of the _Address_. So complete is the king’s power, “that he may dispose as he likes of the lives of all who live in his kingdom.”[96] He “owns the entire kingdom as well as all the people in it, so that all the men who are in his kingdom owe him service whenever his needs demand it.”[97] These sentences would indicate that the author’s position lies close to the verge of absolutism. But Norwegian kingship was anything but absolute; the king had certain well-defined rights, but the people also had some part in the government. Professor Ludvig Daae has put forth the hypothesis that the author of the _King’s Mirror_ was acquainted with the governmental system of Frederick II in his Italian kingdom, which he governed as an absolute monarch.[98] There may be some truth in this for there is no doubt that the character of Frederick’s government was known to the Northmen; but it is also possible that the theory of absolute monarchy had a separate Norse origin, that the insistence on divine right in the long fight with the church had driven the partisans of monarchy far forward along the highway that led to practical absolutism. Less than a generation after the _King’s Mirror_ was composed, the newer ideas of kingship appear in the legislation of Magnus Lawmender. Kings have received their authority from God, for “God Himself deigns to call Himself by their name;” and the preamble continues: “he is, indeed, in great danger before God, who does not with perfect love and reverence uphold them in the authority to which God has appointed them.”[99] This is the doctrine of the _Address_ as well as of the _Speculum_; the significant fact is that the principle has now been introduced into the constitution of the monarchy. It is possible that the author of the _King’s Mirror_ states an alien principle; but it is more probable that he merely gives form to a belief that had been growing among Northmen for some time.

Footnote 96:

C. xliii.

Footnote 97:

C. xxviii.

Footnote 98:

“Studier angaaende Kongespeilet”: _Aarböger for nordisk Oldkyndighed_,
1896, 189.

Footnote 99:

_Norges gamle Love_, II. 23; Gjerset, _History of the Norwegian
People_, I, 463.

On the question of the validity of excommunication the teachings of the _Speculum Regale_ are in perfect accord with those of the _Address_. The uncompromising position and methods of Innocent III had given point to an exceedingly practical question: was a Christian permitted to obey a king who was under the ban of the church? Generally the church held that obedience under the circumstances would be sinful. The author of the _Speculum_ distinguishes closely, however, between just and unjust sentences of excommunication. God has established two houses upon earth, the house of the altar and the house of the judgment seat.[100] There is, therefore, a legitimate sphere of action for the bishop as well as for the king. But an act is not necessarily righteous because it emanates from high authority either in the church or in the state. If the king pronounces an unjust judgment, his act is murder; if a bishop excommunicates a Christian without proper reasons, the ban is of no effect, except that it reacts upon the offending prelate himself.[101]

Footnote 100:

C. lxix.

Footnote 101:

C. lxx.

After the author has thus denied the right of the church to use the sword of excommunication in certain cases, there remains the question: has the king any superior authority over the church? The answer is that the king has such authority; and the author fortifies his position by recalling the story how Solomon punished Abiathar the high priest, or bishop as he is called in the _King’s Mirror_. In reply to the young man’s inquiry whether Solomon did right when he deprived Abiathar of the high-priestly office, the father affirms that the king acted properly and according to law. The king is given a two-edged sword for the reason that he must guard, not only his own house of judgment, but also the house of the altar, which is ordinarily in the bishop’s keeping. Abiathar had sinned in becoming a party to the treasonable intrigues of Adonijah, who was plotting to seize the throne of Israel while his father David was still living. Inasmuch as the high priest had attempted to deprive the Lord’s anointed of his royal rights, Solomon would have been guiltless even if he had taken Abiathar’s life. The author also calls attention to the fact that Abiathar was elevated to the high-priestly office by David himself.[102]

Footnote 102:

C. lxx.

On the question of the king’s right to control episcopal appointments the _King’s Mirror_ is also in agreement with the earlier _Address_. On the death of Archbishop John, the _Address_ tells us, “Inge appointed Eystein, his own chaplain, to the archiepiscopal office[103] ... without consulting any cleric in Trondhjem, either the canons or any one else; and he drove Bishop Paul from the episcopal throne in Bergen and chose Nicholas Petersson to be his successor.” Doubtless the philosopher of the _King’s Mirror_, when he wrote of the fall of Abiathar, was also thinking of the many Abiathars of Norwegian history in the twelfth century, especially, perhaps, of the bishops of Sverre’s reign, who had striven so valiantly to rid the nation of its energetic king. There can be no doubt, however, that he regarded the hierarchy as inferior to the secular government. A bishop, who unrighteously excommunicates a Norwegian king and attempts in this way to render him impossible as a ruler, forfeits not only his office but his life.

Footnote 103:

Archbishop Eystein was consecrated in 1161.

There was another problem in the middle ages which also involved the question of ecclesiastical authority as opposed to secular jurisdiction, the right of sanctuary. There can be no doubt that in the unsettled state of medieval society it was well that there were places where an accused might find security for a time at least; but the right of sanctuary was much abused, too frequently it served to shield the guilty. The _King’s Mirror_ teaches unequivocally that the right of sanctuary cannot be invoked against the orders of the king. As usual the author finds support for his position in the Scriptures. Joab fled to God’s tabernacle and laid hold on the horns of the altar; nevertheless, King Solomon ordered him to be slain, and the command was carried out.[104] Solomon appears to have reasoned in this wise: “It is my duty to carry out the provisions of the sacred law, no matter where the man happens to be whose case is to be determined.” It was not his duty to remove Joab by force, for all just decisions are God’s decisions and not the king’s; and “God’s holy altar will not be defiled or desecrated by Joab’s blood, for it will be shed in righteous punishment.”[105] And the author is careful to emphasize the fact that God’s tabernacle was the only house in all the world that was dedicated to Him, and must consequently have had an even greater claim to sacredness than the churches of the author’s own day, of which there was a vast number.[106]

Footnote 104:

C. lxvi.

Footnote 105:

C. lxix.

Footnote 106:

C. lxvii.

There was a Norwegian Joab in the first half of the thirteenth century, who, like the chieftain of old, plotted against his rightful monarch and was finally slain within the sacred precincts of an Augustinian convent. Skule, King Hakon’s father-in-law, was a man of restless ambition, who could not find complete satisfaction in the titles of earl and duke, but stretched forth his hand to seize the crown itself. In 1239 he assumed the royal title, but a few months later (1240) his forces were surprised in Nidaros by the king’s army, and the rebellion came to a sudden end. Skule’s men fled to the churches; his son Peter found refuge in one of the buildings belonging to the monastery of Elgesæter, but was discovered and slain. After a few days Duke Skule himself sought security in the same monastery; but the angry Birchshanks, in spite of the solemn warnings and threatenings of the offended monks, slew the pretender and burned the monastery.[107] This was an act of violence which must have caused much trouble for the king’s partisans, and it is most likely the act which the author of the _King’s Mirror_ had in his thoughts when he wrote of the fate of Joab.

Footnote 107:

_Hákonar Saga_, cc. 239-241; Munch, _Det norske Folks Historie_, III,
977-978.

Writers on political philosophy usually begin their specific discussion of the theory of divine right of kingship when they come to the great political theorists of the fourteenth century.[108] The most famous of these is Marsiglio of Padua, who wrote his _Defensor Pacis_ in 1324. In this work he asserted that the emperor derived his title and sovereignty from God and that his authority was superior to that of the pope. Some years earlier William Occam, an English scholar and philosopher, made similar claims for the rights of the king of France. Earlier still, perhaps in 1310, Dante had claimed divine right for princes generally in his famous work _De Monarchia_. Somewhat similar, though less precise, ideas had been expressed by John of Paris in 1305. But nearly two generations earlier the doctrine had been stated in all its baldness and with all its implications by the author of the _King’s Mirror_; and more than a century before Dante wrote his work on “Monarchy” Sverre had published his _Address_ to the Norwegian people. So far as the writer has been able to determine there is no treatise on general medieval politics, at least no such treatise written in English, which contains even an allusion to these two significant works.

Footnote 108:

On this subject, see Figgis, _Divine Right of Kings_, c. iii.

The ethical ideas that are outlined in the _Speculum Regale_ are also of more than common interest. On most points the learned father preaches the conventional principles of the church with respect to right and wrong conduct, and as a rule his precepts are such as have stood the test of ages of experience. He emphasizes honesty, fair dealing, careful attendance upon worship, and devotion to the church; he warns his son to shun vice of every sort; he must also avoid gambling and drinking to excess.[109] In some respects the author’s moral code is Scandinavian rather than Christian: in the emphasis that he places upon reputation and the regard in which one is held by one’s neighbors he seems to echo the sentiment that runs through the earlier Eddic poetry, especially the “Song of the High One.” “One thing I know that always remains,” says Woden, “judgment passed on the dead.”[110] And the Christian scribe more than three centuries later writes thus of one who has departed this life: “But if he lived uprightly while on earth and made proper provision for his soul before he died, then you may take comfort in the good repute that lives after him, and even more in the blissful happiness which you believe he will enjoy with God in the other world.”[111] And again he says: “Now you will appreciate what I told you earlier in our conversation, namely that much depends on the example that a man leaves after him.”[112]

Footnote 109:

Cc. iii-iv, xxxvii.

Footnote 110:

C. xli.

Footnote 111:

_Hávamál_, 40: _Corpus Poeticum Boreale_, I, 8.

Footnote 112:

C. xlii.

The author is also Norse in his emphasis on moderation in every form of indulgence, on the control of one’s passion, and in permitting private revenge. His attitude toward this present world is not medieval: we may enjoy the good things of creation, though not to excess. On the matter of revenge, however, his ideas are characteristically medieval. Private warfare was allowed almost everywhere in the middle ages, and it appears to have a place in the political system of the _Speculum Regale_. But on this point too the author urges moderation. “When you hear things in the speech of other men which offend you much, be sure to investigate with reasonable care whether the tales be true or false; but if they prove to be true and it is proper for you to seek revenge, take it with reason and moderation and never when heated or irritated.”[113]

Footnote 113:

C. xli.

The theology of the _King’s Mirror_, as far as it can be discerned, is also medieval, though it is remarkable that the Virgin and the saints find only incidental mention in the work. No doubt if the author had been able to complete his treatise as outlined in his introduction, he would have discussed the forms and institutions of the church at greater length and we should be able to know to what extent his theological notions were in agreement with the religious thought of the age.

In this connection his theory of penance and punishment for crime is of peculiar interest. He makes considerable use of Biblical narratives to illustrate his teachings and refers at length to some of the less worthy characters of Holy Writ, including certain men who suffered death for criminal offenses. Almost invariably he justifies the punishment by arguing that it was better for the criminal to suffer a swift punishment in death than to suffer eternally in hell. Apparently his theory is that a criminal can cleanse himself in his own blood, that a temporal death can save him from eternal punishment. The idolaters who were slain by Moses and the Levites[114] “were cleansed in their penance and in the pangs which they suffered when they died; and it was much better for them to suffer a brief pain in death than a long torture in hell.” The sacramental efficiency of the death penalty seems also to extend to the one who executes punishment: for those who assisted Moses in the slaughter sanctified their hands in the blood of those who were slain. In the same way “a king cleanses himself in the blood of the unjust, if he slays them as a rightful punishment to fulfil the sacred laws.”[115]

Footnote 114:

Exodus, xxxii.

Footnote 115:

C. lxi.

There can be little doubt that this doctrine of the death penalty also shows the influence of the great civil conflict which ended with the death of Duke Skule in 1240. During a century of factional warfare there had been much violence, much slaughter, much “swift punishment.” Applied to Norwegian history the author’s argument amounts to a justification of the slaughter at Elgesæter; for Skule and his partisans had rebelled against the Lord’s anointed. The hands of the Birchshanks were cleansed and sanctified in the blood of the rebels; but the author also has this comforting assurance for the kinsmen of the fallen, that their souls were not lost: Skule and his companions were cleansed from their sins in the last great penance of death.

It may also be that this same long record of violence, treason, and rebellion was responsible for the prominence that the _King’s Mirror_ gives to the duty of obedience. In the political ethics of the work obedience is the chief virtue and the central principle. Conversely disobedience is the greatest of all sins. When Saul spared the Amalekites, whom the Lord had ordered him to destroy, he sinned far more grievously than did David when he dishonored Uriah’s wife and afterward brought about Uriah’s death; for Saul neglected to carry out the commands of God, and “no offense is graver than to be disobedient toward one’s superiors.”[116]

Footnote 116:

C. lxiii.

The _King’s Mirror_ is a medieval document; it was in large part inspired by the course of events in Norway during the century of the civil wars; it records the scientific and political thought of a certain definite period in Norwegian history. But even though the author of the work must be classed among the thinkers of his own time, his place is far in advance of most of his fellows. His outlook on the world is broader than that of most medieval writers. In matters of science he is less credulous and less bound by theological thought than others who wrote on these subjects in his own century or earlier. On such questions as the cause of earthquakes and the source of the northern lights he shows an open-mindedness, which is rarely met with in the middle ages.[117] For the author’s view of life was not wholly medieval; on many subjects we find him giving utterance to thoughts which have a distinctly modern appearance. His theory of the state and its functions is distinctly unorthodox. But it is probably in the field of education where the great Northman is farthest in advance of his time. In his day the work of instruction was still in the hands of the church; and the churchmen showed no great anxiety to educate men except for the clerical profession. The _King’s Mirror_, however, teaches that merchants must also be educated: they must learn the art of reckoning and those facts of science that are of interest to navigators; they must study languages, Latin, French, and Norwegian; and they must become thoroughly acquainted with the laws of the land. But the author does not stop here: a merchant should also educate his children. “If children be given to you, let them not grow up without learning a trade; for we may expect a man to keep closer to knowledge and business when he comes of age, if he is trained in youth while under control.”[118]

Footnote 117:

See Larson, “Scientific Knowledge in the North in the Thirteenth
Century”: _Publications of the Society for the Advancement of
Scandinavian Study_, I, 141-146.

Footnote 118:

C. iv.

The identity of the author of the _Speculum Regale_ has never been disclosed. Anonymous authorship was not uncommon in medieval Norse literature: many of the sagas were written by men whose names are not known. In the thirteenth century, however, it had become customary for writers to claim the honors of authorship. Our philosopher of the _King’s Mirror_ clearly understood that his readers would be curious to know his name: if the book, he tells us in his introductory chapter, has any merit, that should satisfy the reader, and there is no reason why any one should wish to search out the name of the one who wrote it.[119] Evidently he had a purpose in concealing his identity, and the motive is not far to seek.

Footnote 119:

C. i.

After the death of King Sverre (1202) the conflict between the king and the hierarchy ceased for a time. The church made peace with the monarchy; the exiled bishops returned; and the faction of the Croziermen disintegrated. After a few years, however, the old quarrels broke out anew. On the accession of Hakon IV the church yielded once more, though the prelates did not renounce their earlier claims. In 1245, when plans were being made for King Hakon’s coronation, the bishops put forth the suggestion that the king should, on that occasion, renew the agreement of 1163, which gave the bishops control of the succession. But the great king refused. “If we swear such an oath as King Magnus swore, then it seems to us as though our honor would be lessened by it rather than increased.”[120] He flatly asserted that he would be crowned without any conditions attached to the act, or the crown “shall never come upon our head.”

Footnote 120:

_Hákonar Saga_, c. 247.

After the arrival of Cardinal William of Sabina, who had been sent by the pope to officiate at the coronation, and while preparations for that joyous event were going forward, the subject was brought up once more. On the suggestion of the Norwegian bishops the cardinal asked the king to take Magnus Erlingsson’s oath; but the king again refused, and the cardinal decided that “there is no need to speak of it oftener.”[121] The king was crowned and there was peace between the two great forces of church and monarchy, at least so long as Hakon lived. Sometime not long before or after the coronation of the great king (1247) the _King’s Mirror_ seems to have been written. It is clear that such ideas as are enunciated in this work with respect to the submission of the church to the authorities of the state can not have been relished by the hierarchy, and perhaps they were just then somewhat unwelcome to the secular rulers as well, since a discussion of this sort might tend to renew ill feeling and stir up strife. Consequently the author may have thought it wiser to remain anonymous.

Footnote 121:

_Ibid._, c. 251.

Earlier students of the _Speculum Regale_ have believed that the author was some local chieftain, who had spent his more active days at the royal court, but who had later retired to his estates and was spending his declining years in literary pursuits. Various efforts have been made to find this chieftain,[122] but with no success; there is no evidence that the lords or crusaders who have been suggested as probable authors had any literary interests or abilities. There can be no doubt that the author was at one time a prominent member of the royal retinue; he asserts in several places that such was the case.[123] He is, furthermore, too thoroughly familiar with the organization of the royal household to have been an occasional courtier merely. At the same time it is not likely that he was a secular lord; it seems impossible that he could have been anything but a churchman. He knows the Latin language; he is well acquainted with sacred history; he has read a considerable number of medieval books. It is quite unlikely that the various types of learning that are reflected in the chapters of the _King’s Mirror_ could be found in the thirteenth century in any scholar outside the clerical profession. He could not have been one of the higher ecclesiastics, as the prelates belonged to the faction of the Croziermen. The _Speculum Regale_ was evidently written by a member of the Norwegian priesthood, though it is possible that he belonged to one of the minor orders. But at all events he was a professional churchman.[124]

Footnote 122:

See the Sorö edition, xxiii; Munch, _Det norske Folks Historie_, III,
399, note.

Footnote 123:

Cc. ii, iii, xxx.

Footnote 124:

Cf. Daae, “Studier angaaende Kongespeilet”: _Aarböger for nordisk
Oldkyndighed_, 1896, 180-181. Daae holds that the author was a
clergyman.

There was an old belief in Norway that the work was written at King Sverre’s court, perhaps by the priest-king himself;[125] but this theory is wholly without foundation. Professor Ludvig Daae, believing that only a few Northmen possessed the necessary qualifications for the authorship of such a work as the _King’s Mirror_, concluded that it must have been written by Master William, one of the chaplains at the court of Hakon IV.[126] Master William was evidently a man of some erudition; he held a degree (_magister_) from a European university; he must have traveled abroad and was no doubt a man of experience; he lived and flourished in the period when the work must have been composed. But there is no shred of evidence that Master William actually wrote the _King’s Mirror_ or that he was interested in the problems that are discussed in this work.

Footnote 125:

_Ibid._, 1896, 178.

Footnote 126:

_Ibid._, 1896, 192-196; see also pp. 179 ff. Daae believes that Master
William must have held a position at court corresponding to the office
of chancellor; he also conjectures that he was the tutor of the king’s
sons. Master William is mentioned in the _Hákonar Saga_, cc. 210, 228.

More recently A. V. Heffermehl has made an attempt to prove that the author so long sought for was Ivar Bodde, a Norwegian priest, who seems to have played an important part in the history of Norway in the first half of the thirteenth century as an influential member of the anti-clerical party.[127] Much is not known of Ivar Bodde, and nearly all that we do know comes from a speech which he is reported to have delivered in his own defence in 1217.[128] He entered King Sverre’s service “before the fight was at Strindsea,” which was fought in the summer of 1199. This was also the year in which King Sverre seems to have issued his famous _Address_. “I had good cheer from the king while he lived, and I served him so that at last I knew almost all his secret matters.” In King Inge’s reign (1204-1217) he served in the capacity of chancellor: “and that besides, which was much against my wish, they relied on me for writing letters.” During the same reign he also served as Prince Hakon’s foster father, and was consequently responsible for the education of the great king.[129] Ivar was also skilled in military arts: he was a warrior as well as a priest.[130] He was apparently twice sent to England on diplomatic errands, first to the court of King John, later to that of Henry III.[131] He withdrew from the court in 1217. In 1223 he reappears as one of the king’s chief counsellors. After this year nothing is known of Ivar Bodde.

Footnote 127:

_Historiske Skrifter tilegnede Ludvig Daae_, 79-104 (“Presten Ivar
Bodde”). Ivar is one of the characters in Ibsen’s _Pretenders_.

Footnote 128:

_Hákonar Saga_, c. 21.

Footnote 129:

_Historiske Skrifter tilegnede Ludvig Daae_, 88-89 (Heffermehl);
_Hákonar Saga_, c. 20.

Footnote 130:

_Historiske Skrifter tilegnede Ludvig Daae_, 80.

Footnote 131:

_Ibid._, 81, 85.

The author of the _King’s Mirror_ was a professional churchman who belonged to the anti-clerical faction; he was a master of the literary art. Ivar Bodde was a man of this type; nothing is known of his literary abilities, but it is clear that a man who was entrusted with the king’s correspondence can not have been without literary skill. There seems to be no reason why Ivar Bodde could not have written the _King’s Mirror_, and he may also have had a hand in the preparation of Sverre’s _Address_; but that he actually did write either or both of these important works has not yet been proved; there may have been other priests in Norway in the thirteenth century who stood for the divine right of Norwegian kingship.

From certain geographical allusions it is quite clear that the work was written in Norway and in some part of the country that would be counted far to the north. The author mentions two localities in the Lofoten region and he shows considerable knowledge of conditions elsewhere in Halogaland;[132] but it is evident that he did not reside in that part of the kingdom when he was at work on his great treatise. It is generally agreed that the home of the _Speculum Regale_ is Namdalen, a region which lies northeast of the city of Trondhjem and which touches the border of Halogaland on the north.[133] This conclusion is based on certain astronomical observations on the part of the author, namely the length of the shortest day, the daily increase in the length of the day, and the relationship between the length of the sun’s path and the sun’s altitude at noon of the longest and the shortest day.[134] The Norwegian astronomer Hans Geelmuyden has determined that if the author’s statements on these points are to be regarded as scientific computations, they indicate a latitude of 65°, 64° 42´, and 64° 52´ respectively. All these points lie within the shire of Namdalen.[135] As the author can scarcely have been much more than a layman in the fields of mathematics and astronomy, the agreement as to results obtained is quite remarkable.

Footnote 132:

C. vii.

Footnote 133:

See the Sorö edition, pp. lix-lx; the Christiana edition, p. v.

Footnote 134:

Cc. vi, vii.

Footnote 135:

“Om Stedet for Kongespeilets Forfattelse”: _Arkiv for nordisk
Filologi_, I, 205-208.

The problem of place is relatively unimportant, but the question of the date of composition has more than mere literary interest. There is nothing in the work itself which gives any clue to the year when it was begun or completed. It seems evident, however, that it was written after the period of the civil wars, though while the terrors of that century of conflicts were yet fresh in the memories of men. For various other reasons, too, it is clear that the _King’s Mirror_ was composed in the thirteenth century and more specifically during the reign of Hakon IV.

The allusion to the Byzantine emperor Manuel Comnenus,[136] whose reign began in 1143, gives a definite date from which any discussion of this problem must begin. It is also clear that the work was written after the church had begun to lay claim to power in the government of the state, which was in 1163.[137] The author looks back to an evil time when minorities were frequent and joint kingships were the rule;[138] but the period of joint rule virtually came to a close in 1184 when Sverre became sole king; and the last boy king whom the author can have taken into account was Hakon IV, who was thirteen years old when he was given the royal title. It therefore seems evident that the _King’s Mirror_ was written after 1217, the year of Hakon’s accession.

Footnote 136:

C. viii.

Footnote 137:

See above, p. 36.

Footnote 138:

See above, pp. 33–35.

On the other hand, it is also quite evident that the treatise can not have been written after the great revision of the Norwegian laws which was carried out during the reign of Magnus Lawmender. The new court-law, which was promulgated about 1275, is clearly later than the _Speculum Regale_: the fine exacted for the death of a king’s thegn, which is given as forty marks in the _King’s Mirror_, is fixed at a little more than thirteen marks in Magnus’ legislation. In 1273 the law regulating the succession to the throne made impossible the recurrence of joint kingships; but the principle of this arrangement appears to have been accepted as early as 1260, when the king’s son Magnus was given the royal title. Another decree, apparently also from Hakon’s reign, which abolished the responsibility of kinsmen in cases of manslaughter and deprived the relatives of the one who was slain of their share in the blood fine, also runs counter to methods described in the _King’s Mirror_, which states distinctly that kinsmen share in the payment.[139] It is therefore safe to conclude that the work was written some time between 1217 and 1260.

Footnote 139:

C. xxxvi (p. 201).