Part 5
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.