The Story of Norway Part 22

Snorre's nephew, Sturla Thordsson, who at one time was a great chieftain and a defender of Icelandic independence, continued the Heimskringla in his uncle's spirit, writing the Saga of Haakon Haakonsson. This is a model biography, clearly and vigorously written, and abounding in interesting details. Another remarkable book, which was written in Norway during Haakon's reign, is the so-called King's Mirror (Konungsskuggsja). It contains, in the shape of a dialogue between father and son, moral teachings and rules of life and conduct. Its maxims of worldly wisdom and rules of etiquette give a vivid insight into the modes of life and thought in the thirteenth century.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

CHAPTER XXIX.

MAGNUS LAW-MENDER (1263-1280).

With the death of Haakon Haakonsson, the continuous story of the sagas ceases. A fragment of the life of his son, Magnus Law-Mender (Lagaboter), written by Sturla Thordsson, is preserved, but the greater portion has unhappily been lost. What is known concerning the later kings, during the period of independence, is derived from many scattered and often unreliable sources. A period of decline, at first gradual and imperceptible, set in with the reign of King Magnus, and culminated in the loss of independence.

Magnus had been proclaimed king during his father's lifetime, and as he was of age, the government pa.s.sed into his hands without dispute. Being indisposed to continue the expensive war with Scotland, he sent his chancellor, Askatin, to Alexander III. and obtained peace on the condition of ceding the Island of Man and the Shetland Isles, receiving in return 4,000 marks sterling, besides an annual tribute of 100 marks.

The latter stipulation was intended to save appearances, as an annual tribute might well be interpreted as a continued recognition of the supremacy of the king of Norway.

It has often been questioned whether Magnus acted wisely in refusing to draw the sword to preserve the integrity of his kingdom. That the Scottish isles already had cost Norway more in blood and treasure than they were worth, is generally conceded; and the chances were that, as Scotland increased in power, still greater efforts would be required to a.s.sert the sway of Norway over the remote dependencies. Moreover, as England later rose to become a European power and absorbed Scotland, it was merely a question of time when Norway would be compelled to relax its hold upon the islands. Whether it was a mere native disinclination to fight, or a careful counting of the cost, which induced Magnus to depart from his father's policy, time seems to have justified the wisdom of his course. For all that, it is undeniable that the respect and influence abroad which Norway had gained by Haakon's a.s.sertion of the national dignity, were much diminished by the unwarlike spirit of his son. He had indeed the satisfaction to add Iceland to his possessions.

But even this was in no wise due to his skill or merit. It was apparently the result of King Haakon's interference in the feuds of the Sturlungs, but in a deeper sense it was due to causes which do not lie so near the surface. The descendants of the proud men who, during the reign of Harold the Fairhaired, emigrated from Norway, merely because they would not surrender their allodial rights, would not have surrendered liberty itself without resistance, if they had not sadly degenerated from their ancestors.

Liberty had in Iceland long ago degenerated into license. No law had the power to bind the strong. It is a mistake to suppose that the inst.i.tutions of the country were democratic. Though theoretically the rights of every free man were recognized, in practice they soon came to amount to very little. Icelandic society early separated itself into a yeomanry or peasantry and an aristocracy. The latter, who had the government entirely in their hands, proceeded by a series of b.l.o.o.d.y feuds to exterminate each other, until, of the fifty or more ruling families, scarcely half a dozen were left in possession of their dignity and power. As a matter of course, these half a dozen then endeavored to cut each other's throats, and, as the struggle grew fiercer, welcomed aid from any source and at any price. All public interests were lost sight of in the furious strife for personal ascendency. The proud sense of independence, which had been the glory of the race, developed into a mere ferocious pa.s.sion for power, and a savage determination to crush out rivalry. Civic rights, moral obligations, and the bonds of blood were equally disregarded; brother waged war against brother and father against son. Murder and arson were every-day occurrences. Complete anarchy prevailed. Of this state of things Haakon Haakonsson took advantage, and by aiding one faction against the other secured the allegiance of the conquering party and thereby the submission of the island itself to the crown of Norway. Snorre's son-in-law and slayer, Gissur Thorvaldsson, was the first Earl of Iceland. He received the dignity from King Haakon (1258), before his countrymen had yet recognized the latter's overlordship. If it be true that the happiest nations are those which have no history, it may be safe to conclude that the happiest periods of a nation's life are the most uneventful. If so, the reign of Magnus Haakonsson afforded every chance of happiness to his subjects. The peasant cultivated contentedly his fields, and, undisturbed, the merchant and the artisan pursued their avocations. The development of the resources of the country afforded the king satisfaction, and he did all in his power to further every peaceful industry. To this end he also interested himself in legislation, and spent many years of his life in revising the laws and making them uniform. Formerly the country had been divided into four judicial districts, each with its own _thing_ and its own laws. The Frosta-_thing's_ code was the law of Trondelag, the Gula-_thing's_ code was valid on the western coast, the Eidsivia code in the Oplands, and the Borgar-_thing's_ code in Viken. Out of these four, Magnus now caused a new general code to be elaborated for the whole country, abolishing what was antiquated, removing inconsistencies and adapting the spirit of the legislation to the needs of the age. For four hundred years his laws remained in force, and a few of them have remained until recent times.

All things, great and small, relating to civic life interested him; and a certain over-confidence in the power of law to regulate all human concerns is traceable in his labors. For the cities he elaborated a munic.i.p.al law, and for his va.s.sals and courtiers a court law (_Hirdskraa_), which was, however, an adaptation of a previously existing code, dating from the days of Sverre. The court law dealt with the feudal duties and privileges of va.s.sals, prescribed rules for courtly intercourse, and a fixed ceremonial for the proclamation of a king, the conferring of the feudal dignities, etc. Among other things it ordained that no longer, as of old, should a peasant, as the representative of the people, confer the royal dignity upon the heir to the throne, but the man of highest rank present.

An inclination is visible in King Magnus' legislation to break with the democratic past, and to remodel Norway, as nearly as possible, after foreign patterns. It was particularly England, with its feudal inst.i.tutions, which seemed to him and his surroundings worthy of imitation. Although it was by no means a pure democracy which had prevailed in Norway hitherto, there had yet been a recognition of the people as the source of power, and the old stubborn sense of independence which characterized the peasantry had never been eradicated. Hitherto the laws had been submitted to the people at the _things_, where every free-born man could make himself heard. Now this venerable custom was abolished, and the king and his council reserved for themselves the right to make and repeal laws, without consulting the people. That this decree was accepted without protest, nay appears to have caused no particular excitement, shows plainly the change that had come over the spirit of the Nors.e.m.e.n. If a king had proposed such a law, in the days of Haakon the Good or Olaf Tryggvesson, he would have risked his throne and his life. Whether it was because royalty had risen to such dignity and power that it seemed hopeless to oppose it, or because the tribal aristocracy, instead of making common cause with the people, had attached itself to the crown, certain it is that the supine acceptance of so radical a change argued a degeneracy which explains the subsequent events.

It is scarcely to be wondered at that the rise of feudalism throughout Europe, during the thirteenth century, also had its effect upon the inst.i.tutions of Norway. The ideas which Magnus embodied in his laws were, so to speak, in the air; and the commercial intercourse with England had familiarized the Nors.e.m.e.n with the t.i.tles and the pomp and circ.u.mstance of chivalry. Thus the Royal Council, consisting of the chancellor, the earls, and the liegemen, was obviously copied after the English inst.i.tution of the same name, and, to make the resemblance complete, the ancient t.i.tle of liegeman was abolished and that of baron subst.i.tuted. The court officials were made knights and squires.[A] A privileged cla.s.s was thus raised distinctly above the people; and the foundation laid for a hereditary n.o.bility. A partial immunity from taxes was granted to barons and knights, and the lucrative offices in the gift of the crown were parcelled out among them. Though some elements of the ancient tribal aristocracy were absorbed in the new order, there was also a large element which owed its rise purely to royal favor. It is thus to be noted, that the new n.o.bility of Norway was in the main a court n.o.bility, which depended upon the crown for its dignity, and could not be expected, when occasion demanded, to antagonize the king in the interest of the people. It therefore shared the fate of royalty and lost its power when the royal house became extinct. For the later rulers, the Danish kings, were surrounded by a hungry aristocracy of their own, whose fortunes they were bound to push, and the Norse candidates for their favor had to be neglected. Thus it happened that the Norse aristocracy again returned to the people, from which it had originally risen. It was gradually absorbed by and identified with the peasantry, which thereby gained more than the n.o.bles lost. "A compact cla.s.s of allodial freeholders was formed, which, on account of their numbers and their remoteness from public affairs, may be styled a peasantry, but by reason of their liberty and self-a.s.sertion almost maintained the rank of a n.o.bility."[B]

[Footnote A: It is impossible to give an adequate translation of the word _herra_ in this connection. It is a lower t.i.tle than baron and knight.]

[Footnote B: J. Sars: Udsigt over Norge's Historie, ii., 399.]

It is this proud peasant-n.o.bility which until this day have const.i.tuted the strength of the Norse people and the bulwark of its re-arisen liberty. They have at all times, even during the darkest days of the union with Denmark, const.i.tuted a force with which the government had to reckon.

In spite of his conciliatory disposition, King Magnus' reign had its share of quarrels and disturbances. Chief among these was his controversy with the Church, which ended, on his part, with an abject surrender. The archbishop, at that time, was the haughty and ambitious Jon the Red (Rode), who, before consenting to a change in the law of succession, which the king had much at heart, extorted from him a series of humiliating concessions. At a meeting of notables in Tunsberg (1277), Magnus bound himself to abstain from all interference in the selection of bishops, and to surrender to the latter the right of filling, in accordance with their pleasure, all the clerical offices. He conceded, moreover, to the archbishop the privilege of coining money and to have a hundred men in his personal service, who should be exempt from feudal obligations to the king.

In his relation to foreign powers Magnus was equally unsuccessful in maintaining the dignity of his crown. When his brother-in-law, the Swedish king, Valdemar, begged him for help against his brother Magnus, who had deprived him of the greater part of his kingdom, preparations were indeed made for a grand campaign, but after several futile meetings and much talk, the Norwegian fleet was ordered home again and the Swedish king was left to his fate. To a proud and adventurous people like the Nors.e.m.e.n, jealous of their dignity at home and abroad, this unconquerable reluctance to draw the sword must have appeared humiliating. A high regard for honor and a genius for war had characterized the race up to this time; and however much one may disapprove of war, one cannot deny that peace may be bought at too high a price. The right to hold one's head high; to feel proud of one's history and one's country, is a precious privilege, without which no race ever achieved great things. King Magnus, by lessening the prestige which the country had enjoyed during the reign of his father, therefore contributed much toward the decadence which followed.

Physically as well as mentally, signs of degeneracy are beginning to be perceptible in the royal race of Norway. King Magnus was, indeed, endowed with a good intellect and his morals were blameless. But for all that, he was a far less st.u.r.dy and impressive personality than his father, and a still greater distance separated him from his great-grandfather, the wise, brave, gentle, unconquerable Sverre. Many of his imprudent acts are explained by the fact that his health was never vigorous. While he was yet in the prime of life, he began to suffer from ailments which warned his councillors that his days were numbered. He died in 1280, at the age of forty-one.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

[Ill.u.s.tration]

CHAPTER x.x.x.

ERIK PRIEST-HATER (1280-1299).

The barons, who had acquired extensive privileges during the reign of King Magnus, had a chance to establish their power still more securely during the minority of his son Erik, who, at his father's death, was but twelve years old. A great influence was also wielded by the imperious queen-dowager, Ingeborg, who made common cause with the barons and was the real soul of the regency. Of her two surviving sons, Duke Haakon, the younger, was the more fitted, by strength of body and mind, to occupy the throne. He received great fiefs, and though recognizing Erik's overlordship, conducted himself as an independent sovereign. He issued decrees, coined money, and made independent alliances with foreign princes. His brother was a weak, good-natured man who never knew how to a.s.sert his will against that of his mother and his high-handed councillors. The latter, among whom the barons, Hallkell Agmundsson, Audun Hugleiksson, and Bjarne Erlingsson of Giske and Bjarko, were the most eminent, disapproved highly of the concessions which King Magnus had made to the Church, and were watching for an opportunity to check the power and arrogance of the clergy. They found it necessary, however, to conceal their plans, until the king had been crowned by Archbishop Jon, and they even consented to have him include in the coronation oath the promise "to yield all due honor to the clergy and the bishops, and to repeal all bad laws, especially such as might conflict with the liberty of the Church."

The archbishop interpreted this promise literally, and demanded after the coronation the repeal of the laws in question. The queen and the barons were, however, not disposed to yield a single point, but rather welcomed the opportunity to measure strength with the domineering prelates. It was of no use that the archbishop put Hallkell Agmundsson in the ban; his colleagues only honored him more conspicuously, and when Queen Ingeborg and Bjarne Erlingsson received the same punishment, they, as well as the people, showed an indifference, which left the archbishop powerless. After having vainly appealed to the Pope, and having been foiled at the Roman Curia by amba.s.sadors from the barons, Jon the Red and two other bishops were outlawed and compelled to leave the country.

The archbishop died in exile in Sweden in 1282.

The king, who was yet a mere boy, was neutral in this struggle. If the decision had rested with him, he would probably have continued his father's policy of concession, and the epithet "Priest-Hater," which has been attached to his name, is therefore undeserved.

When Erik was fourteen years old, he was married to Margaret of Scotland, the daughter of his grandfather's enemy, King Alexander III.

The young queen died, however, a year later, after having given birth to a daughter, who, on the death of King Alexander (1284), was acknowledged as the heir to the throne of Scotland. While yet a child (1290), the Maid of Norway, as she was called, embarked for the land which she was to rule, but died before reaching it. Her father then, as his daughter's heir, laid claim to the Scottish crown, but the armed interference of King Edward I. of England compelled him to abandon his candidacy. He had at that time another controversy on his hands, which threatened serious results.

The queen-dowager, Ingeborg, was the daughter of the Danish king, Erik Plowpenny. His nephew, Erik Glipping, who succeeded his father, Christopher I., refused to surrender her inheritance, which consisted in landed estates in different parts of the kingdom. Magnus Law-Mender had vainly insisted upon the surrender of the property, and Erik, at the instigation of his mother, resumed negotiations, and, when these resulted in nothing, made threatening demonstrations. The Norse baron, Sir Alf Erlingsson, a special favorite of the queen, began to prey upon the shipping in the Sound, and by his recklessness and daring, made his name dreaded among seamen and merchants. He did, indeed, inflict much injury upon Danish commerce, and ravaged the coasts of Jutland and Halland; but the princ.i.p.al sufferers were the cities of the Hanseatic League, which, by the concessions of Magnus Law-Mender, had obtained a virtual monopoly of the foreign trade of Norway. Their ships were now seized without mercy by the n.o.ble pirate, who added insult to injury by once appearing incognito among them in an open boat, and bargaining with them about the price which they had set upon his head. It was of no use that the League sent out ships of war to capture him; he out-manoeuvred them, deceived them, sent them on a wild-goose chase, and ended by capturing his would-be captors. Though not officially authorized to carry on war in this fashion, Sir Alf perceived that his performances were winked at by the queen-dowager, who was actually so gratified at his success, that she had him created an earl, and induced the king to use him as his amba.s.sador to England. As allies of the King of Denmark, the Hanseatic cities were, in the queen's opinion, ent.i.tled to no consideration, but she forgot in her blind hostility that they had it in their power to take revenge. Partly on account of the risk, partly as a measure of retaliation, the Hansa forbade the importation of grain and other staples of food to Norway, and the result was famine and misery.

The hostilities with Denmark in the meanwhile continued, but were, after the death of Queen Ingeborg (1287), conducted, not by piracy, but by open warfare. A conspiracy was formed against the life of King Erik Glipping, and he was murdered, while on the chase (1286), by Marshal Stig, Count Jacob of Halland, and others. The murderers, who were outlawed in Denmark, found a refuge in Norway, and accompanied King Erik on his campaign against their native country in 1289. The city of Elsinore was burned, and the Norwegian fleet lay for four weeks near Copenhagen, serving as a basis of operations for the outlawed king-slayers, who satisfied their private vengeance by burning cities and castles. Three similar expeditions, during the following six years, brought Erik neither honor nor profit in proportion to the cost of the enterprise; although, in the end, the Danish king, Erik Menved, was compelled to conclude an armistice for three years at Hinsgavl, in Funen (1295), at which he made a definite promise of the surrender of the disputed property. The king-slayers were permitted to return unmolested to their homes, and their estates were to be restored to them.

The war with the Hanseatic cities had come to an end long before, by the peace of Kalmar, (1285). The formidable weapon which they wielded, in their ability to cut off supplies, gave them so great an advantage that King Erik had no choice but to accept their terms. King Magnus of Sweden, who, according to mutual agreement, had been selected as umpire negotiated peace, on the conditions that King Erik should return to their owners all ships which had been captured, pay an indemnity of six thousand marks and greatly extend the commercial privileges of the Hansa. Thus the lawless valor of "Little Sir Alf," as the pirate earl was called, proved no less disastrous to his country than it did to himself. He did not appreciate the difference which the death of the queen had made in his position; but continued to tread law and honor under foot with defiant heedlessness. The baron, Sir Hallkell Agmundsson the commander of Oslo Castle, had for some reason incurred his hostility; and Earl Alf gathered, in the ancient fashion, a band of adventurers about him and commenced a rebellion, as it appears, against Duke Haakon, who was Sir Hallkell's protector. He even had the audacity to attack Oslo, set fire to the town, capture his foe, and after a brief imprisonment executed him. This daring murder brought upon him a sentence of outlawry; and he was forced to seek refuge in Sweden, where King Magnus took him under his protection. His luck had, however, deserted him, for when again he appeared as a corsair in Danish waters, he was captured and brought in irons into the presence of Queen Agnes.

According to the ballad, she twitted him on the smallness of his stature; to which he replied that she would never live to see the day when she could bear such a son. Another and still more insolent remark made the queen so furious that she struck her fist against the table and declared that Little Sir Alf should be tortured on the rack, and his bones broken on the wheel. The sentence was executed the following day (1290).

After the death of his first queen, King Erik had married Isabella Bruce, the sister of Robert, who later became King of Scotland. He had by this marriage a daughter, Ingeborg, who became the wife of Duke Valdemar, the brother of the Swedish king, Birger Magnusson. King Erik died at the age of thirty-one (1299), after having been king for nineteen years.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

CHAPTER x.x.xI.

HAAKON LONGLEGS (HAALEGG), 1299-1319.

Duke Haakon, the second son of Magnus Law-Mender, succeeded his brother without opposition. He was then twenty-nine years old, tall and of stately appearance. He had not been long upon the throne, before he showed the haughty barons that he meant to have a reckoning with them.

He first summoned Sir Audun Hugleiksson to meet him in Bergen, tried him for treason, and had him executed (1302). A woman from Lubeck had, two years before, appeared in Norway and created much excitement by claiming to be the Princess Margaret, "The Maid of Norway," who had died on the Orkneys. Her trial proved her to be an impostor, and she was burned at the stake. According to one conjecture, Sir Audun was in some way compromised by her trial, and it is not unlikely that he may have encouraged her pretensions. The legend, however, relates that Sir Audun suffered death for having insulted the king's bride, Countess Euphemia of Arnstein, whom, in 1295, he brought over from Germany.

It must have been an unpleasant surprise to the barons, who had had their own way so long, to find a stern and determined master in the new king, and it is the more to his credit that, in spite of their hostility, he induced them to consent to a change in the law of succession in favor of his daughter Ingeborg and her issue. As he was the only male descendant in the direct line of the old royal house, it was a source of uneasiness to him that he had no sons, and he foresaw that the only means of averting civil war, after his death, was to secure the succession to the prospective sons of his daughter, and in case she had none, to herself. Princess Ingeborg was, while a mere child, promised in marriage to the brilliant and ambitious Duke Erik, the second son of King Magnus Birgersson of Sweden. By this betrothal, King Haakon became involved in the quarrels of the dukes Erik and Valdemar with their brother, Birger Magnusson, whom they were endeavoring to dethrone. The dukes hated the king, and the king, who was jealous of Erik's popularity and eminence in chivalrous accomplishments, reciprocated their feelings. The long-smouldering hostility at last blazed forth, in 1306, when the dukes treacherously a.s.saulted their brother and held him captive for about eighteen months. King Haakon was induced to take their part in the struggle, perhaps chiefly because his enemy, the king of Denmark, made common cause with King Birger. The good understanding between them did not, however, last long, for when it began to look as if Duke Erik aimed at the union of the three Scandinavian kingdoms under his own sceptre, Haakon, as an interested party, could scarcely remain inactive. He demanded the restoration of the fiefs which he had granted the duke during his exile. When this was refused, he opened negotiations with the king of Denmark, who was the brother-in-law of King Birger, and concluded a preliminary treaty at Copenhagen (1308) in accordance with which the Princess Ingeborg was to marry Magnus, the son of King Birger. Duke Erik then invaded Norway with an army, took Oslo and vainly besieged the fortress of Akershus. The province of Jemteland was also attacked by the Swedes, and the duke had in 1309 an indecisive fight with a portion of the Norwegian fleet in Kalfsund. Finally, after another fight, in which Erik gained the upper hand, negotiations were resumed, and by mutual concessions peace was reestablished (1310). Duke Erik had a powerful ally at the Norwegian court in Queen Euphemia, whose love for him was not of an entirely maternal character. He had thus little difficulty in conciliating King Haakon and getting again the promise of his daughter's hand. The wedding was finally celebrated with much splendor in Oslo in 1312. Duke Valdemar married the same day the king's niece, Ingeborg, the daughter of King Erik Priest-Hater. About four years later, when the hope had almost been abandoned, each of the d.u.c.h.esses bore a son. King Haakon's joy at this happy event was great, for it relieved him of his anxiety for the succession. But his joy was of short duration. There was one man in Sweden who was not rejoiced at the birth of the young princes, and that was King Birger. He feigned, however, delight, and invited his brothers to a great feast of reconciliation at the castle of Nykoping. When the festivities were at an end, the dukes were thrown into prison and deprived of their lives. As there was no sign of violence on their bodies, the rumor went abroad that they had been starved to death. This was probably true. The tidings of this calamity gave King Haakon such a shock that he never recovered from it. He died, 1319, aged forty-nine years. With him the male line of the race of Harold the Fairhaired became extinct.

The war with Denmark which had lasted twenty-eight years, was continued in a desultory fashion during Haakon's reign, but no important battles were fought. He used his fleet mainly as a threat to enforce his claims.

All that he gained was the temporary possession of the province of Northern Halland, as security for the final surrender of his maternal inheritance.

In internal affairs King Haakon exhibited, according to the ideas of his age, no mean degree of statesmanship. His administration was both prudent and vigorous. He checked the usurpations of the Hanseatic cities, which were driving native merchants out of the foreign trade, and deprived them of some of their privileges. An honest intention to do right, coupled with considerable ability, characterized both his public and private life. For all that, his despotic temper tended to alienate the people from public affairs; and thus prepared the way for the following centuries of humiliation.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

CHAPTER x.x.xII.

MAGNUS SMEK (1319-1374), HAAKON MAGNUSSON (1355-1380), AND OLAF THE YOUNG (1381-1387).

Magnus Eriksson, the son of Duke Erik and Ingeborg, was only three years old when his grandfather died, and the government therefore fell into the hands of a regency, the members of which had already been designated by King Haakon. Shortly before, a rebellion had broken out in Sweden against King Birger, who, on account of the murder of his brothers, was detested by his people. He was deposed and his son Magnus, though he was in no wise responsible for his father's crimes, was executed. At the instance of the regent, Mats Kettilmundsson, Magnus Eriksson was proclaimed king; and Norway and Sweden were thus for the first time united under one ruler. The union was a mere nominal one, the two countries having separate laws and administrations, and nothing in common except the king, who was to divide his time equally between them.