Part 4
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.