Chapter IV: Introduction (3)

The earliest attempt to date the _King’s Mirror_ was made by the learned Icelander, Hans Finsen. In an essay included in the Sorö edition (1768) he fixes the time at about 1164.[140] J. Erichsen, who wrote the introduction to this edition, doubts that it was composed at so early a date; impressed with the fact that the work reflects the political views of the Birchshank faction, he is inclined to place the date of composition some time in Sverre’s reign or in the last decade of the twelfth century.[141] The striking resemblance between the ideas expressed in the treatise and the guiding principles of Sverre’s regime led the editors of the Christiania edition to the same conclusion: 1196 or soon after.[142] And so it was held that the work is a twelfth century document until a Danish artillery officer, Captain Otto Blom, began to make a careful study of the various types of weapons, armor, and siege engines mentioned in the work. His conclusion, published in 1867, was that the _King’s Mirror_ reflects the military art of the thirteenth century and that the manuscript was composed in the latter half of the century, at any rate not long before 1260.[143] This conclusion has been accepted by Gustav Storm,[144] Ludvig Daae,[145] and virtually all who have written on the subject since Blom’s study appeared, except Heffermehl, whose belief that Ivar Bodde was the author could not permit so late a date, as Ivar, who was a man of prominence at Sverre’s court about 1200, must have been an exceedingly aged man, if he were still living in 1260. Heffermehl is, therefore, compelled to force the date of composition back to the decade 1230-1240.

Footnote 140:

See page xx of the Sorö edition.

Footnote 141:

See pages lxv-lxvi of the Sorö edition.

Footnote 142:

Christiania edition, p. viii.

Footnote 143:

_Aarböger for nordisk Oldkyndighed_, 1867, 65-109. See above, p. 32.

Footnote 144:

_Arkiv for nordisk Filologi_, III, 83-88.

Footnote 145:

_Aarböger for nordisk Oldkyndighed_, 1896, 176-177.

The weakness of Captain Blom’s argument is that he supposes the military art described in the _Speculum Regale_ to be the military art of the North at the time when the work was written. If all the engines and accoutrements that the author describes ever came into use in the North, it was long after 1260. Nearly all the weapons and devices mentioned were in use in southern Europe and in the Orient in earlier decades of the thirteenth century; some of them belong to much earlier times. If certain engines and devices which Captain Blom is disposed to regard as mythical are left out of account, it will be found that only three items fail to appear in illustrations from the earlier part of the thirteenth century; and it would not be safe to assume that these were not in use because no drawing of them has been found.

Viewed against the background of Norwegian history, those chapters of the _King’s Mirror_ which deal with the nature and the rights of monarchy and with the place of the church in the state take on the appearance of a political pamphlet written to defend and justify the doings of the Birchshank party. The motives for composing an apology of this sort may be found at almost any time in the thirteenth century but especially during the decade that closed with the coronation of Hakon IV. It will be remembered that the author of the _King’s Mirror_ discusses the calamities that may befall a kingdom as a result of joint rule.[146] But in 1235, after one of Earl Skule’s periodic attempts at rebellion, his royal son-in-law granted him the administration of one-third of the realm. The grant was ratified the next year with certain changes: instead of a definite, compact fief the earl now received territories everywhere in the kingdom. In 1237 Skule was given the ducal title and to many men it seemed as if the curse of joint kingship was about to afflict the land once more. Two years later the partisans of the duke proclaimed him king: like Adonijah of old he tried to displace the Lord’s anointed.[147] But after a few months came the surprise of Skule’s forces in Trondhjem and the duke’s own tragic end in Elgesæter convent.[148] It will be recalled that the author defends King Solomon’s dealings with Joab and lays down the principle that the right of sanctuary will not hold against a king.[149] The rebellion of the Norwegian Adonijah was in 1239; he died the death of Joab in 1240. Three years later the believers in a strong monarchy were disturbed by the news that the bishops had revived the old claim to supremacy in the state. Soon after this series of events the political chapters of the _King’s Mirror_ must have been composed.

Footnote 146:

C. xxxvi.

Footnote 147:

C. lxvi.

Footnote 148:

See above, p. 48.

Footnote 149:

C. lxix.

In 1247, the year of Hakon’s coronation, the hierarchy was once more reconciled to the monarchy, and nothing more is heard of ecclesiastical pretensions during the remainder of the reign. It would seem that after this reconciliation, no churchman, at least not one of the younger generation, would care to send such a challenge as the _King’s Mirror_ out into the world. One of the older men, one who had suffered with Sverre and his impoverished Birchshanks, might have wished to write such a work even after 1247; but after that date the surviving followers of the eloquent king must have been very few indeed, seeing that Sverre had now lain forty-five years in the grave. It is therefore the writer’s opinion, though it cannot be regarded as a demonstrated fact, that the closing chapters of the _King’s Mirror_ were written after 1240, the year when Duke Skule was slain, perhaps after 1243, in which year Norwegian clericalism reasserted itself, but some time before 1247, the year of Hakon’s coronation and final reconciliation with the church.

In the centuries following its composition the _King’s Mirror_ appears to have had wide currency in the North. When the editors of the Sorö edition began to search for manuscripts, they found a considerable number, though chiefly fragments, in Norway and Iceland; and traces of the work were also found in Sweden.[150] Thus far twenty-five manuscripts have come to light; “some of them are extensive, but many are fragments of only a few leaves.”[151] Copies of the work were made as late as the reformation period and even later.

Footnote 150:

See the Sorö edition, pp. xxix-xxxvii.

Footnote 151:

_Konungs Skuggsjá_ (ed. G. T. Flom), p. i. Among the fragments is a
part of a Latin paraphrase made in Sweden in the first half of the
fourteenth century. The translator was a cleric in the service of the
Duchess Ingeborg, a daughter of the Norwegian King Hakon V. Ingeborg
was married to the Swedish Duke Erik. _Arkiv for nordisk Filologi_, I,
110-112.

The first mention of the _Speculum Regale_ in any printed work is in Peder Claussön’s “Description of Norway,”[152] the manuscript of which dates from the earlier years of the seventeenth century. But more than one hundred years were still to pass before this important work was brought to the attention of the literary world. Early in the eighteenth century, however, great interest began to be shown in the records of the Old Northern past. The great Icelandic scholar and antiquarian, Arne Magnussen, had begun to collect manuscripts and was laying the foundation of the Arnamagnean collection, which is one of the treasures of the Danish capital. Among other things he found several copies and fragments of manuscripts of the _Speculum Regale_. No effort was made to publish any of these before the middle of the century was past; but about 1760 three young scholars began to plan editions of this famous work. The first to undertake this task was Professor Gerhard Schöning,[153] a Norwegian by birth, who was at the time rector of the Latin school in Trondhjem but later held a professorship in the Danish academy at Sorö. Schöning began the preparation of a Latin translation of the work, which he planned to publish along with the original version; but his work was never completed. About the same time an Icelandic student at the University of Copenhagen, Hans Finsen,[154] later bishop in his native island, projected an edition, but was unable to carry out his plans for want of a publisher, and turned his materials over to others. The third and only successful attempt at publication was made on the suggestion of a recently organized association of Icelandic scholars known as “the Invisible” society. This association requested Halfdan Einersen,[155] rector of the Latin school at Holar, one of the members and founders of the “invisible” body, to prepare an edition. An Icelandic merchant, Sören Pens, generously offered to bear all the expense of publication.[156]

Footnote 152:

_Norrigis Bescriffuelse_. See _Aarböger for nordisk Oldkyndighed_,
1896, 172 (Daae).

Footnote 153:

Schöning’s dates are 1722-1780. He was professor of Latin literature
and history at Sorö, but his real achievements lie in the field of
Norwegian history.

Footnote 154:

1739-1796.

Footnote 155:

1732-1785.

Footnote 156:

See the introduction to the Sorö edition, xxv-xxviii, from which the
above facts have been culled.

Rector Einersen prepared the text from the best available Icelandic manuscripts. He also made a Danish translation and a Latin paraphrase of the same and forwarded the whole to Denmark to be published. The materials were given into the editorial charge of another learned Icelander, Jon Erichsen, teacher of jurisprudence at Sorö Academy. Although Jon Erichsen’s name does not appear on the title page, it is quite clear that the general excellence of the work is in large measure due to his careful collation of Einersen’s text with manuscripts to which the Icelandic rector had not had access. Professor Erichsen discarded Einersen’s Danish translation and prepared one of his own. He also found place in the volume for a dissertation by Hans Finsen, which was first published in 1766, and in which the learned theologian discusses various literary problems, such as the authorship of the work, the date of composition, and the like. All these materials were brought together and published at Sorö in 1768. On the whole the Sorö edition is an excellent piece of work. The Icelandic text was made with great care and reveals the fact that the editors were possessed of a critical insight which for the time was remarkable. The Danish translation is somewhat stiff and literal and does not always follow the laws of Danish syntax; but it is generally accurate and retains an unmistakable flavor of the Old Norse original.

Except for some assistance rendered by Professor Schöning, the first edition of the _King’s Mirror_ was the work of Icelanders. The Norwegians were also beginning to show some interest in their medieval past; but Norway was still a part of the Danish monarchy, the political and intellectual center of which was Copenhagen, and for half a century longer the Norwegians were unable to do anything to promote the publication of historical materials. However, four years after the Sorö edition had come from the press, a society of Norsemen at the University of Copenhagen was organized, the purpose of which was to further the cause of Norwegian autonomy. After Norway in 1814 resumed her place among the nations of Europe, it was only natural that Norwegian scholars should be attracted to the Old Norse treasures of the middle ages. So far as the means of the impoverished state would allow, publication of the sources of Norwegian history was undertaken. The first Norwegian historian of distinction was Rudolf Keyser, professor in the University of Christiania. In his efforts to draw the attention of his countrymen to the glories of earlier centuries, he was soon reënforced by his younger contemporary, the fiery and industrious scholar and investigator Peter Andreas Munch, who, though his work is somewhat marred by the fervor of his patriotism, has not yet found a superior among the historians of the North. Soon a third was added to these two: Carl R. Unger, a man of remarkable abilities as a linguist. These three now undertook to edit a series of Old Norse texts, among which was the _King’s Mirror_, which was published under the auspices of the University of Christiania in 1848.

The Christiania edition is based on the main manuscript of the _Speculum Regale_, the manuscript 243 B of the Arnamagnean collection. This was produced in Norway some time during the last quarter of the thirteenth century, perhaps not long after 1275.[157] As the manuscript was incomplete in part, the editors also made use of the copies which had been made the basis of the earlier edition. Inasmuch as the materials to be used had been copied at different times and consequently reflected various stages of linguistic development, it was thought desirable to normalize the orthography: and in this part of their task the editors made use of a fragment which was thought to belong to a somewhat earlier date than the main manuscript.[158] If this belief is correct, the Christiania edition must, in respect to orthography, be a comparatively close approximation of the original manuscript.

Footnote 157:

See Flom’s edition of _Konungs Skuggsjá_, introduction.

Footnote 158:

See the Christiania edition, pp. xiii-xvi.

In 1881 a third edition prepared by the German philologist Otto Brenner was published under the title _Speculum Regale, ein altnorwegischer Dialog_. Brenner based his text on the Norwegian manuscript 243 B, but he also made use of the Icelandic copy (243 A) and of some of the older fragments. His edition consequently includes all the materials that had been used in the earlier editions. It was Brenner’s purpose to prepare a text which should give the Norwegian version in its original form, so far as such a restoration is possible. Though scholars are not agreed that Brenner achieved his purpose, all have acknowledged the value of his work, and since its publication his version has been regarded as the standard edition.

Two years ago (1915) the University of Illinois published, under the editorial direction of Professor George T. Flom, a photographic reproduction of this same manuscript, 243 B. This important linguistic monument has thus been made accessible to scholars in its original form. Professor Flom has also prepared the Old Norse text of the manuscript, which makes a part of the publication, and has prefaced the whole with an extended introduction in which he discusses the history of the manuscript, marginal addenda, abbreviations, and other paleographic and linguistic problems.

Until very recently the Danish version prepared by Jon Erichsen for the Sorö edition was the only translation of the _Speculum Regale_ into a modern language.[159] But a few years ago the first part of the work was published under the title _Kongespegelen_ in the form of a translation into New Norse, a language of recent origin based on the spoken dialects of Norway. As these dialects are closely related to the original idiom of the North, such a translation can be made with comparative ease. The work has recently been completed, and in most respects the New Norse version proves to be a very satisfactory translation.

Footnote 159:

In 1892 a small volume of extracts from the _King’s Mirror_ translated
by Chr. Dorph was published in Copenhagen.

Some years ago a number of American scholars who have interests in the fields of Scandinavian history, language, and literature united to form a Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian Study. The founders believed that the purpose of the organization might be in part achieved by encouraging the publication of some of the great Scandinavian classics in English translation. It was on the suggestion of this Society that the writer undertook to prepare the present version of the _King’s Mirror_. The translation is based on the text of the Christiania edition, the readings of which have been consistently followed, except in a few instances where the scribe does not seem to have copied his manuscript correctly; in such cases the most satisfactory variant readings have been followed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

I