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
(Lagaboeter), 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 passed 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
assert 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 assertion 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
institutions 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 bloody
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 passion 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 Troendelag, 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
municipal law, and for his vassals 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 vassals, 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
institutions, 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 Norsemen. 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
institutions 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 Norsemen with the titles and the pomp and
circumstance of chivalry. Thus the Royal Council, consisting of the
chancellor, the earls, and the liegemen, was obviously copied after the
English institution of the same name, and, to make the resemblance
complete, the ancient title of liegeman was abolished and that of baron
substituted. The court officials were made knights and squires.[A] A
privileged class was thus raised distinctly above the people; and the
foundation laid for a hereditary nobility. 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 nobility of Norway was in the main a
court nobility, 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 nobles lost. "A compact class 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-assertion almost maintained the rank of
a nobility."[B]
[Footnote A: It is impossible to give an adequate translation of the
word _herra_ in this connection. It is a lower title than baron and
knight.]
[Footnote B: J. Sars: Udsigt over Norge's Historie, ii., 399.]
It is this proud peasant-nobility which until this day have constituted
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, constituted 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 (Roede), 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 Norsemen, 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 sturdy 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.
[Illustration]
[Illustration]