The Story of Norway Part 23

During Magnus' minority, however, his mother, d.u.c.h.ess Ingeborg, governed in Norway with the utmost recklessness, making great scandal by her love of the Danish n.o.bleman Knut Porse, duke of Halland, whom she later married. To enrich him she squandered the revenues and forfeited her popularity. When the treasury was on the verge of bankruptcy and loud murmurs of discontent were heard from all sides, the d.u.c.h.ess was at last deprived of her power, and Sir Erling Vidkunsson of Bjarko and Giske was made regent in her place.

When King Magnus, surnamed Smek, reached his majority, he a.s.sumed the government in both countries (1332). Being born a Swede, he lacked comprehension of the Nors.e.m.e.n, and showed little interest in their affairs. He was a weak and good-natured man, anxious to please all, and therefore succeeded in pleasing no one. In Sweden he had his hands full, in endeavoring to control the unruly n.o.bility, whose pretensions were supported by his oldest son, Erik. He therefore rarely came to Norway, and made no adequate provision for the government during his absence.

Erling Vidkunsson then made himself the spokesman of the universal discontent, and with other magnates compelled the king, at a meeting in Bergen (1350), to take his second son, Haakon, as co-regent and to abdicate the crown of Norway, in his favor, as soon as he should have reached his majority. It was then understood that Erik would be his father's successor in Sweden. But unforseen events frustrated this expectation. In 1359 Magnus and his queen, the wily and malicious Blanca of Namur, made a visit to King Valdemar Atterdag in Copenhagen. It was there arranged that Haakon should marry Valdemar's eldest daughter and heir, Margaret, and that the Danish king should extend his protection to Queen Blanca's favorite, Bengt Algotsson, whom Erik had declared to be a public enemy and was determined to destroy. At the instigation of King Valdemar, she chose, however, an easier way to accomplish her baneful purposes. She poisoned her son. Haakon was now heir both to Norway and Sweden, and his and Margaret's issue, presumptively, to Denmark. The Swedes were by no means pleased with this arrangement, and the Norwegian magnates would, if they had been consulted, have expressed themselves no less strongly against it. They must have foreseen in this union the inevitable decay of the Norse national spirit and the gradual extinction of their nationality. The Swedes, being a larger people, had less to fear from it, but yet regarded it as prejudicial to their interests. Their feeling toward Denmark was not, just then, of a friendly character, chiefly owing to the pusillanimity of their king, in ceding the provinces Skaane, Halland, and Blekinge to the latter country, without any adequate return, unless it was a pledge of aid from King Valdemar against his own subjects. So secure felt Magnus in his new alliance, that he actually helped the Danish king to conquer the Swedish island Gottland, and permitted him to sack the town of Visby, which was one of the princ.i.p.al depots of the Baltic trade.

Now, the patience of the Swedes was at last exhausted. The Royal Council, supported by the n.o.bility, declared that King Magnus, as well as his son Haakon, had forfeited their rights to the crown (1363), and called Duke Albrecht of Mecklenburg to the succession. Weak as he was, however, Magnus was not minded to give up his kingdom without a struggle. With whatever troops he could sc.r.a.pe together from the provinces which were yet faithful to him, he attacked King Albrecht at Enkoping, but was defeated and taken prisoner. Haakon, dangerously wounded, made his escape into Norway. Though the Norwegians cared little for Magnus, they were too loyal to refuse Haakon their aid in his attempt to liberate him from the horrible prison in which he was languishing. The war was therefore continued with varying success until the Hanseatic League interfered and came near deciding it in Albrecht's favor. The German merchants had, during the feeble government of Magnus, obtained so great a power in Norway that they trod justice under foot, slew their enemies, refused to accept the king's money (which was not good), and leagued together to defy the laws and protect each other from punishment. The king was so incensed at their arrogant conduct, that he issued a decree expelling all Germans from the country. Unhappily he had not the power to enforce obedience to this mandate, and when the Hansa made war upon him, he was obliged to buy peace by further concessions.

This left him comparatively free, however, to prosecute the war with King Albrecht, and when all negotiations had proved futile, he advanced with an army upon Stockholm, laying the country waste as he progressed.

Here, at last, peace was concluded (1371) on the condition that Haakon should pay a ransom of twelve thousand marks for his father and renounce his claim to the throne of Sweden. In return, Magnus was to receive Skara-Stift, Vestergotland, and Vermeland. The old king was, however, not to enjoy long his dearly bought liberty. Three years later he was drowned in the Bommelfjord in Norway (1374), and his son only survived him six years. Like so many of the kings of Norway, he died in his prime (1380).

The reigns of Magnus Eriksson and his son were a period of great disaster to Norway. In 1344 the Gula-Elv suddenly changed its course, owing to the fall of an enormous rock into its bed, and forty-eight farms were destroyed, and two hundred and fifty people and a mult.i.tude of cattle were drowned. In Iceland an earthquake and a great eruption of Hekla spread alarm and desolation. But the worst of all calamities was the Black Death, a terrible pestilence, which, after having ravaged Germany, England, and Southern Europe, reached Norway in 1349. An English merchant vessel first brought the pestilence to Bergen, whence it spread with great rapidity over the entire land. In Drontheim the archbishop and all the canons of the cathedral chapter died, except a single one, who then alone elected the new archbishop. In many districts the entire population was swept away; horses and cattle starved to death, for want of attendance, or perished in the woods. The results of the labor of centuries were destroyed. Where once there had been fertile valleys and animated human intercourse, the forest grew up unheeded. The fox barked in the deserted farm-houses, and the wolf prowled in the empty churches. In many places the dead lay unburied, until, by the slow process of dissolution, the earth reclaimed them. Sloth and indifference took possession of the survivors. The peasant neglected to till his fields, because he could procure neither horses nor laborers to a.s.sist him. Famine and death were the result. All industries stagnated, and what there was left of Norwegian commerce fell completely into the hands of foreigners. As is usually the case in the times of great plagues, when the restraints of social order are relaxed, vice grew riotous, and every extreme of lawless pa.s.sion was wantonly displayed.

Centuries elapsed before the country recovered from the results of this terrible calamity. But there were other causes which combined with the pestilence in producing the political impotence and social barbarism which followed. There is a danger in doing injustice, even to the Black Death, and it has, until recently, been the fashion to make it solely responsible for the eclipse of Norway's glory.

Olaf, the only son of Haakon Magnusson and Margaret, was proclaimed King of Norway at his father's death. Five years earlier he had, after the death of his maternal grandfather, been elected king of Denmark. As he was yet a child, his mother Margaret and the Council of the Regency conducted the government in his name. Thus commenced the union of Norway and Denmark, which lasted without interruption for 434 years, and which proved so disastrous to the former country. Olaf died at the age of seventeen at Falsterbro in Skaane.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

CHAPTER x.x.xIII.

NORWAY DURING THE KALMAR UNION.

Olaf was succeeded both in Denmark and Norway by his mother, Margaret, who became reigning queen. The real heir to the Norwegian throne was, in accordance with the law of succession, the Lord High Steward (Drost) Haakon Jonsson, a grandson of Agnes, an illegitimate daughter of Haakon Longlegs. But he did not possess the power to a.s.sert his claim against Margaret, who, by skilful intriguing, had induced the archbishop, Vinald, and the majority of the clergy to take her side. The Norwegian Council of Regency, in which the partisans of the queen likewise preponderated, seemed ready to do any thing which she demanded, and even yielded to her wish in pledging themselves to choose her grand-nephew, Erik of Pomerania, as her successor (1388). In accordance with this promise they declared Erik, during the following year (1389), king of Norway, under the guardianship of Margaret, until he should reach his majority.

The ambitious queen now turned her attention to Sweden, where she had a bitter and determined foe in Albrecht of Mecklenburg. He was remotely related to the royal house of Norway, and therefore believed himself to be the nearest heir to the throne. He was boiling over with animosity toward Margaret, whom he called "Queen Breechless," and never referred to, except with opprobrious epithets. As this kind of harmless ammunition produced no effect, however, he boldly a.s.sumed the t.i.tle of king of Denmark and Norway, and prepared to enforce his claim. But he had reckoned without his host, when he supposed that the Swedes would support him in this enterprise. The Swedish n.o.bility, which possessed greater power than the king, had long been dissatisfied with Albrecht, because he had surrounded himself with Germans, to whom he had given fiefs and posts of honor. They had long desired to rid themselves of him, and when Margaret made overtures to them, they seized the opportunity to accomplish their purpose. In February, 1389, Albrecht had to confront a united Swedish, Danish, and Norwegian army. The battle, fought at Falkoping, in Vestergotland, was fraught with great results.

Albrecht, who was unacquainted with the region, ventured with his heavy cavalry out upon a frozen marsh, fell through, and was taken prisoner.

Margaret had him now in her power and determined to make him pay the penalty for the liberty he had taken with her name. Instead of the crown of Denmark, which he had meant to wear, she put upon his head a fool's cap with a tail 28 feet long, and mocked him mercilessly. He was then imprisoned in the castle of Lindholm, in Skaane, where he spent six years.

After the battle of Falkoping Margaret's army met with no resistance in the southern provinces; but Stockholm had to be subjected to a long siege, during which it suffered greater depredations from internal than from external foes. b.l.o.o.d.y feuds between two contending parties raged within the city. A brotherhood of pirates, the so-called Vitalie Brethren, furnished the citizens with provisions, thereby delaying their surrender. These pirates had for the nonce entered into an alliance with Rostock and Wismar, two cities of Mecklenburg, which sympathized with the imprisoned Albrecht. In the end Stockholm was forced to open its gates to Queen Margaret, in accordance with a compromise which was concluded in 1395. Albrecht was to pay a ransom of sixty thousand marks, and in case of his failure to provide this sum, within three years, he should either return to his prison or surrender Stockholm. He chose to do the latter.

Margaret had now reached the goal of her desires. She was the ruler of the whole Scandinavian race. She might have placed the triple crown upon her head, but preferred to secure this proud prize to her nephew, Erik of Pomerania, by having him crowned while she was yet alive. To this end she summoned representatives of the three kingdoms to a meeting in Kalmar, where a draft was made for a const.i.tution, upon which the union was to be based. Although the doc.u.ment was signed by the Norwegian, Swedish, and Danish magnates present, it was scarcely legally binding upon their countrymen. It bears the date of July 20, 1397, and contains the following stipulations:

1. The three kingdoms were to be eternally united under one king.

2. If the king died without issue, the magnates of the three kingdoms should come together and peaceably elect a successor.

3. Each kingdom should be governed in accordance with its own laws and customs; but if one of the kingdoms was attacked, the two others should, in good faith, a.s.sist in its defence.

4. The king and his councillors from the three kingdoms should have the right to enter into foreign alliances, and whatever they agreed upon should be binding upon the three countries.

This was the famous Kalmar Union, which might have been a blessing to the brother kingdoms, but which to two of them, at least, became a curse. At first sight, it seemed a rational arrangement which promised success. The three nations were so closely akin, that they understood without effort each other's languages, which were but slight modifications of the same original tongue. If the forces which had been wasted in mutual wars and rivalries could have been combined for mutual help and common purposes, the kingdom of Scandinavia would have risen in prosperity and strength and would have taken a place among the European powers. Under a wise and far-sighted policy, the society of the three kingdoms could have been gradually amalgamated, its similarities and common interests emphasized, its differences slowly obliterated. If the kings of the Union had had the slightest conception of the task that was presented to them, and had been capable of viewing themselves apart from their Danish nationality, such results might have been achieved.

But they were, with a single exception, utterly dest.i.tute of political ability and foresight. They were determined to raise the Danish to the position of a dominant nationality and to reduce Norway and Sweden to a provincial relation. Hereby they aroused again the ancient jealousies.

They sent a troop of Danish and German n.o.bles to prey upon the latter countries, which they seemed to regard as conquered territory. The Swedes complained of their being obliged to pay taxes, in order to defray the expenses of Danish wars, and they were vehement in their denunciation of the extortion of the Danish officials who plundered their provinces like Roman proconsuls.

[Ill.u.s.tration: QUEEN MARGARET.]

The Norwegians were preliminarily disposed to be more patient, chiefly because they lacked spokesmen, the remnants of their old n.o.bility being too powerless to a.s.sert themselves against the Danes. Nor can it be said that, during Queen Margaret's life, the conditions were intolerable. She died, however, in Flensborg (1412) aged 59 years, leaving her wide dominions in the feeble hands of Erik of Pomerania.

Erik had inherited from Margaret a war with the dukes of Sleswick, which lasted for twenty-five years, exhausting the resources of his realm and completely revealing his incapacity for government. The Swedes grumbled at the taxation which the war necessitated, and rebelled under the leadership of Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson. A Danish prefect, Josse Eriksson, had been guilty of great cruelty to the peasants in Dalarne, taking their horses and oxen from the plow, hitching their pregnant wives to hay-loads, and horribly maiming all who dared to complain.

Engelbrekt went twice to Denmark and asked the king to remove this malefactor, but was the first time put off with promises and the second time bluntly rebuffed. He then placed himself at the head of a rebellion, which spread from Dalarne over the whole kingdom. In Norway a similar, though less formidable, revolt broke out under Amund Sigurdsson Bolt (1436), who likewise sought to obtain redress against the Danish magistrates. The king, however, who saw his advantage in allowing considerable lat.i.tude to his creatures, wearied of the eternal complaints, and, carrying with him whatever money was left in the treasury, took up his residence in a fortified castle on the island of Gottland (1438). He was now formally deposed both in Denmark and Sweden, while in Norway the regent, or governor, Sigurd Jonsson, continued for a while to conduct the government in his name. When it became generally known, however, that the king had become a pirate, the Norwegians, too, revoked their allegiance (1442). For ten years Erik lived in his castle in Gottland, supporting himself by piracy, but was finally driven away.

He then returned to Pomerania, where he died in 1459.

During the reign of this unworthy king, the city of Bergen was twice sacked and partly burned by the Vitalie Brethren, who murdered the citizens, plundered the churches and the episcopal residence, and carried away a rich booty.

With the tenacious fidelity peculiar to their race, the Norwegians adhered to the cause of Erik, even after he himself had abandoned it.

They had, however, no choice but to recognize as his successor his nephew, Christopher of Bavaria, who had already been proclaimed king in Denmark and Sweden. In the latter country Charles Knutsson Peasant (Bonde), who, after the murder of Engelbrekt, had become the leader of the rebellion, and later regent, had vainly endeavored to break the Union. The clergy made common cause with Christopher, and were instrumental in securing his election.

Christopher was a jolly and good-natured man, who had no apt.i.tude for affairs of state. When the Swedes complained of the piracy of Erik of Pomerania, he answered merrily: "Our uncle is sitting on a rock; he, too, must earn his living."

He deserves, however, as far as Norway was concerned, the credit of good intentions. He made an effort, though a futile one, to deprive the Hanseatic cities of their monopoly of trade, by giving equal privileges to the citizens of Amsterdam. The League was then less formidable than it had been, owing to the successful rivalry of the Dutch in other markets. It is difficult to say what the issue of the struggle would have been, if Christopher had lived. Death overtook him in 1448, when he was but thirty-two years old.

[Ill.u.s.tration]

[Ill.u.s.tration]

CHAPTER x.x.xIV.

THE UNION WITH DENMARK.

It has been said that, during the union with Denmark, Norway had no history, and this is partly true. The history of the Oldenborg kings, with their wars, and court intrigues and mistresses, is in no sense the history of Norway. Nor was the social development of Norway parallel with that of Denmark, during the reign of these kings. Though oppressed and politically powerless, the remoter kingdom escaped the utter misery and degradation which overtook its oppressor. The Danish n.o.bility, though, like hungry wolves, they consumed the people's substance, did not succeed in reducing the Norse peasantry to serfdom, as they did their own. The so-called _Vornedskab_[A] in Denmark was but another name for serfdom. The n.o.bles, who held the land, in a hundred ways oppressed and maltreated their peasants; they could sell, though they were not at liberty to kill them. Denmark, being an elective and not an hereditary kingdom, afforded the n.o.bility opportunities for continually strengthening their position, by exacting an increase of their privileges of each candidate for the throne, before consenting to elect him. This contract or charter granted by the kings to the n.o.bles (_Haandfestning_) became a terrible instrument for the oppression of those estates which were either unrepresented or without influence in the Royal Council. From having been a body, subordinate to the king, the council gradually became co-ordinate with him, and at last his superior.

From this state of things it followed that the king needed some counterbalancing support against its overweening influence, and this support he sought in Norway. Here the election was a mere form, the succession being based upon hereditary right. The king could, if he was minded to redress the grievances of the people, rely upon their loyalty.

Even if he was deaf to their complaints, they were disposed to excuse him, and hold his councillors responsible for his shortcomings. But, as a rule, the kings of the house of Oldenborg did pay more attention to the complaints of their Norse subjects than to those of their own, and they did this--first, because it was important to them to preserve the loyalty of the Nors.e.m.e.n; secondly, because the Nors.e.m.e.n, if their pet.i.tions were unheeded, stood ready to take up arms. They knew their rights from of old, and a continued infringement of them, on the part of the foreign officials, made sooner or later the war-arrow fly from farm to farm; and the king was confronted with an armed rebellion. Again and again the obnoxious magistrates, who had imagined that these st.u.r.dy mountaineers were as meek and long-suffering as their Danish brethren, were mercilessly beaten, maimed, or killed. Repeatedly the government was forced to concede to rebels what they had not yielded to supplicants. Unpopular laws were revoked, oppressive burdens removed, and promises made of improved administration.

[Footnote A: Prof. J. E. Sars: "Norge under Foreningen med Danmark."

Nordisk Universitets-Tidskrift for 1858 and 1861.]

And yet, in spite of these ameliorating circ.u.mstances, Norway's condition during the Danish rule was miserable. The revenues of the country were spent in Copenhagen, and the people were heavily taxed to support a foreign court and a hungry brood of foreign officials, whose chief interest was to fill their own pockets. Danish n.o.bles married into the great Norwegian families, and secured, by bribery and intrigue in Copenhagen, a virtual franchise for unlimited ill-doing. Great estates were acc.u.mulated in the hands of men like Vincentz Lunge, Hartvig Krummedike, and Hannibal Sehested, and the courts were prost.i.tuted to favor the land-grabbing schemes of n.o.ble adventurers. The public spirit which, in times of old, had jealously watched over the interests of the realm, had already been weakened by the incipient despotism of the last national kings; and what there was left of it now gradually expired. A most striking proof of this is the fact that when, in 1537, Norway lost the last vestige of her independence, being declared to be a province of Denmark, the decree was accepted without protest, and caused no perceptible excitement. So gradually had the change taken place, that no one was surprised. The same peasants who boldly resented any encroachment upon their personal rights and killed the magistrate who overtaxed them, heard without a murmur of the extinction of their nationality. It has been surmised, as a cause of their lethargy, that they did not hear of it--at least, not simultaneously, but gradually and casually, in the course of years; and it is not improbable that the imperfect means of communication was responsible for their apparent acquiescence.

No attempt will be made in the following pages to relate the history of Denmark, except in so far as it directly affected that of Norway, and the plan of the present work excludes any but the most general characterization of the social conditions. The story of the Union will, therefore, be disproportionately short.

The death of Christopher of Bavaria afforded the Swedes an opportunity to a.s.sert again their independence. The common hatred of the Danes enabled the hostile estates to forget their differences and to unite in electing Charles Knutsson Peasant king of Sweden. The Nors.e.m.e.n had a candidate for the throne of Norway in the regent, Sigurd Jonsson, a descendant of Agnes, the daughter of Haakon Longlegs, but they failed to support him. One party desired to make common cause with Sweden and elect Charles Knutsson, while another favored Count Christian of Oldenborg, who had just been elected in Denmark. This latter party, supported by the Danish n.o.bles, who already wielded a great influence, was victorious. King Christian I. (1450-1481) arrived in Norway in the summer of 1450, and was crowned in the cathedral of Drontheim. At a meeting of the Council of Regency in Bergen, it was resolved that Norway was to remain eternally united with Denmark under one king, but that each kingdom should be free and the other's equal, and should be governed in accordance with its own laws and by native-born officials.

[Ill.u.s.tration: Christia.n.u.s. I. _Rex Daniae._]

Christian could not give up the thought of reestablishing the Kalmar Union, and he therefore waged war for several years with King Charles Knutsson. In 1452 the latter invaded Norway and conquered Drontheim, but the commandant in Bergen, Sir Olaf Nilsson, again drove him back across the frontier. Soon internal dissensions in Sweden enabled Christian to defeat Charles and expel him from his country (1457); and, in 1458, the three kingdoms were thus again united. Christian's extortions and shameless breaches of faith made him, however, soon so detested both among peasants and n.o.bles, that a rebellion broke out; Charles was recalled, and, though he did not at once become master of the situation, he succeeded in keeping the Danes at bay. He died as King of Sweden in 1470. When Christian during the following year made an attempt to conquer Sweden, he was overwhelmingly beaten at Brunkeberg near Stockholm by the regent, Steen Sture the Elder.

In Norway Christian broke his promises with the same cynical disregard as he did in Sweden. Instead of appointing native officials, he allowed the Danish n.o.bles to plunder as of old, and made no effort to discipline them. The German merchants in Bergen also became constantly more insolent in their behavior toward the citizens, whom they drove away from the wharves and treated like conquered people; but Christian did not dare to restrain them in their violations of law and order, because he feared that the Hansa might avenge itself by interfering in his war with Sweden. Even when the Germans murdered Sir Olaf Nilsson, his friend, Bishop Thorleif, and sixty other citizens, and burned the cloister of Munkeliv, the king refrained from punishing them.

Highly characteristic of the way the Danish kings regarded Norway was Christian's transaction with James III. of Scotland. A marriage was arranged with the latter and Christian's daughter Margaret, and the dower was fixed at 60,000 gulden. As the Danish king was unable to pay this amount, he remitted the tribute due from Scotland for the Hebrides, p.a.w.ned the Orkneys for 50,000 gulden and the Shetland Isles for an additional amount. Thus Norway lost these ancient dependencies; for it is needless to say that they were never redeemed.

Christian I. was succeeded by his son Hans or Johannes (1483-1513). The Nors.e.m.e.n, who had now had a sufficient taste of Danish rule, were not anxious to be governed by him, and a rebellion broke out, which, however, was short-lived. The Danish n.o.bles, who, by marrying Norwegian women, could obtain citizenship, had by this time secured a preponderating power in the Council of Regency, and had small difficulty in getting their king acknowledged. The Swedes resisted until the year 1497, when Hans defeated Steen Sture's army and was declared king of Sweden. Three years later, however, he suffered a terrible defeat in Ditmarsken (1500), whose inhabitants opened the dikes and called in the ocean as their ally. Four thousand Danes were here slain or drowned, and enormous treasures were lost. This was the signal for renewed risings both in Sweden and in Norway. The Norse knight, Sir Knut Alfsson, of Giske, who derived his descent from the old royal house, united with the Swedes and defeated Duke Christian, the king's son, in Vestergotland.

Then he invaded Norway and captured the fortresses Tunsberghus and Akershus; but was besieged in the latter place by the Danes under Henrik Krummedike. Seeing small chance of taking the fortress, the Danish general invited Sir Knut to a conference, under safe-conduct, but foully slew him and threw his body into the water. The wretched king apparently approved of this treason, for instead of punishing Sir Henrik, he heaped honors upon him, and declared the great possessions of the murdered man to be forfeited to the crown.

Once more the Nors.e.m.e.n attempted to throw off the detested Danish yoke (1508), under the leadership of the peasant Herluf Hyttefad, but the country was already too divided between the foreign and the native interest to afford sufficient support for a successful rising. Duke Christian came with a Danish army and quelled the rebellion, and executed its leaders. He did not, however, satisfy himself with this. He was a believer in radical measures. In order to break the rebellious temper of the Nors.e.m.e.n, once for all, he captured and murdered as many of the representatives of the great Norse families, as he could lay hold of. With atrocious cruelty he raged in Norway until every trace of the rebellion seemed extinct.