and for two being perhaps alternative names for the same whale, the
total corresponds to the number of species that are known in northern
waters.”
Footnote 48:
_Ibid._ This “corresponds to the number of species living on the
coasts of Norway and Greenland.”
Footnote 49:
Cc. xii, xvi.
For all but the two chapters on Ireland the sources of the author’s
geographical information are evidently the tales of travelers and his
own personal experiences; of literary sources there is no trace. The
account of the marvels of Ireland, however, gives rise to certain
problems. It may be that the Norwegian geographer based these chapters
on literary sources that are still extant, or he may have had access to
writings which have since disappeared. It is also possible that some of
the information was contributed by travelers who sailed the western seas
and had sojourned on the “western isles;” for it must be remembered that
Norway still had colonies as far south as the Isle of Man, and that
Norsemen were still living in Ireland, though under English rule. When
Hakon IV made his expedition into these regions in 1263, some of these
Norwegian colonists in Ireland sought his aid in the hope that English
rule might be overthrown.[50]
Footnote 50:
_Hákonar Saga_, c. 322.
It has long been known that many of the tales of Irish wonders and
miracles that are recounted in the _Speculum Regale_ are also told in
the _Topographia Hibernica_ by Giraldus Cambrensis. The famous Welshman
wrote his work several decades before the _King’s Mirror_ was composed;
and it is not impossible that the author of the latter had access to the
“Irish Topography.” Moreover, the _Speculum Regale_ and the _Topographia
Hibernica_ have certain common features which correspond so closely that
literary kinship seems quite probable. The resemblances, however, are
not so much in the details as in the plan and the viewpoint. In the
second book of his “Topography,” Giraldus recounts “first those things
that nature has planted in the land itself;” and next “those things that
have been miraculously performed through the merits of the saints.”[51]
The author of the _King’s Mirror_ has adopted a similar grouping. After
having discussed some of the wonders of the island he continues: “There
still remain certain things that may be thought marvelous; these,
however, are not native to the land but have originated in the
miraculous powers of holy men.”[52] This correspondence in the general
plan is too remarkable to be wholly accidental; at least it should lead
us to look for other resemblances elsewhere.
Footnote 51:
Giraldus, Opera, V, 62-64; _King’s Mirror_, c. x.
Footnote 52:
_Topographia Hibernica_, iii, c. 28; _King’s Mirror_, c. x.
In his general description of Ireland the author of the Norwegian work
calls attention to the excellence of the land and its temperate climate:
“for all through the winter the cattle find their feed in the open.”[53]
Giraldus informs us that grass grows in winter as well as in summer, and
he adds: “therefore they are accustomed neither to cut hay for fodder
nor to provide stables for the cattle.”[54] Both writers emphasize the
fact that grapes do not grow on the island. In both writings attention
is called to the sacred character of the Irish soil, which makes it
impossible for reptiles and venomous animals to live on the land, though
Giraldus has his doubts as to the supernatural phase of the matter. Both
writers add that if sand or dust is brought from Ireland to another
country and scattered about a reptile, it will perish.[55] Both
characterize the Irish people as savage and murderous, but they also
call attention to their kind treatment of holy men, of whom the island
has always had many.[56] In fact, every statement in the _King’s Mirror_
as to the nature of the land and the character of the inhabitants can be
duplicated in Giraldus’ description of Ireland, except, perhaps, the
single observation that the Irish people, because of the mildness of the
climate, often wear no clothes.
Footnote 53:
_Topographia Hibernica_, ii, introd.: _Opera_, V, 74.
Footnote 54:
C. xi.
Footnote 55:
C. x.
Footnote 56:
_Topographia Hibernica_, i, c. xxxiii: _Opera_, V, 67.
But even if Giraldus’ work is to be regarded as one of the sources which
the Norwegian author may have used in writing his chapters on the Irish
mirabilia, it cannot have been the only or even the principal source.
The account of these marvels in the _King’s Mirror_ does not wholly
agree with that of the Welshman’s work. In some instances the wonders
are told with details that are wanting in the earlier narrative.
Frequently, too, the Norwegian version is more explicit as to localities
and gives proper names where Giraldus has none. It also records marvels
and miracles which are not found in the _Topographia Hibernica_.
In an edition of the _Irish Nennius_ the editor has added as an appendix
a brief account of the “Wonders of Ireland,” many of the tales of which
have interesting parallels in the _King’s Mirror_. There is also a
medieval poem on the same theme[57] which contains allusions to much
that the Norwegian author has recorded with greater fulness. Neither of
these works, however, can have been the source from which the chapters
on Ireland in the _Speculum Regale_ have been derived.
Footnote 57:
See Wright-Halliwell, _Reliquiae Antiquae_, II, 103-107.
The learned editors of the Christiania edition of the _King’s Mirror_
reached the conclusion that the author did not draw from any literary
source but derived his information from current tales and other oral
accounts.[58] This is also the opinion of Dr. Kuno Meyer, the eminent
student of Celtic philology.[59] Dr. Meyer bases his belief on the form
of the Irish proper names. As written in the _Speculum Regale_ they can
not have been copied, as the spelling is not normally Irish; he
believes, therefore, that they show an effort on the author’s part to
reproduce phonetically these names as he heard them spoken. But this
theory ignores the fact that in writing them the author employs
combinations of consonants which are unusual to say the least.
Combinations of _ch_ and _gh_ are used in writing nearly all the Irish
proper names that occur in the _King’s Mirror_ and the _gh_-combination
is found nowhere else in the work.[60] It was probably coming into the
language in the century to which the work is credited, but the author
uses it only as indicated above. It seems likely, therefore, that he had
access to a written source, though it is also likely that he did not
have this account before him when the writing was actually done. As has
already been stated, the author seems to have written largely from
memory, and his memory is not always accurate.
Footnote 58:
P. x.
Footnote 59:
_Ériu_, IV., 14-16.
Footnote 60:
In a letter to the writer Professor Meyer expresses the belief that
the use of _gh_ in the Irish proper names is an invention by the
author. The combination of _c_ and _h_ is also used in certain other
proper names, the system varying in the different manuscripts. For a
discussion of the writing of proper names in the chief manuscript, see
the American Facsimile Edition of the _Konungs Skuggsjá_ (edited by G.
T. Flom), xxxvii-xxxix.
Having discussed the subjects which he considers of chief importance for
the education of a merchant, the learned father proceeds to describe the
king’s household and its organization, the manners which one should
observe at court, and the business that is likely to come before a king.
For the part which deals with the royal court, it is probable that no
literary sources were used. The author evidently wrote from long
experience in the king’s retinue; he is not discussing an ideal
organization but the king’s household as it was in Bergen and Trondhjem
in his own day. If he drew from any written description of courtly
manners, it may have been from some book like Petrus Alfonsus’
_Disciplina Clericalis_, which has already been mentioned[61] and which
seems to have had a wide circulation throughout western Europe in the
later middle ages.
Footnote 61:
See above, pp. 9–10.
The chapters that are devoted to the discussion of the duties and
activities of the king’s guardsmen, to the manners and customs which
should rule in the king’s garth, and to the ethical ideas on which these
were largely based are of great interest to the student of medieval
culture. They reveal a progress in the direction of refined life and
polished manners, which one should scarcely expect to find in the
Northern lands. The development of courtesy and refined manners may have
been accelerated by the new literature which was coming into Scandinavia
from France and Germany, a literature that dealt so largely with the
doings of knights and kings;[62] but it was probably not so much a
matter of bookish instruction as of direct imitation. The Northmen,
though they lived far from the great centers of culture, were always in
close touch with the rest of the world. In the earlier centuries the
viking sailed his dreaded craft wherever there was wealth and plunder
and civilized life. After him and often as his companion came the
merchant who brought away new ideas along with other desirable wares.
After a time Christianity was introduced from the southlands, and the
pilgrim and the crusader took the place of the heathen pirate. And all
these classes helped to reshape the life of courtesy in the Northern
countries.
Footnote 62:
See above, pp. 2–3.
It is difficult to overestimate the influence of the crusader as a
pioneer of Christian culture in Scandinavia, but it seems possible that
the pilgrim was even more important in this respect. It was no doubt
largely through his journeys that German influences began to be felt in
the Scandinavian lands, though it is possible that the wide activities
of the Hanseatic merchants should also be credited with some importance
for the spread of Teutonic culture. It is told in the _King’s Mirror_
that a new mode of dressing the hair and the beard had been introduced
from Germany since the author had retired from the royal court.[63] It
is significant that the routes usually followed by Norwegian pilgrims
who sought the Eternal City and the holy places in the Orient ran
through German lands. As a rule the pilgrims traveled through Jutland,
Holstein, and the Old Saxon territories and reached the Rhine at Mainz.
It was also possible to take a more easterly route, and sometimes the
travelers would go by sea to the Low Countries and thence southward past
Utrecht and Cologne; but all these three routes converged at Mainz,
whence the journey led up the Rhine and across the Alps. It will be
noted that a long stretch of the journey from Norway to Rome would lead
through the German kingdom. Concerning the people of the Old Saxon or
German lands an Icelandic scribe makes the following significant remark:
“In that country the people are more polished and courteous than in most
places and the Northmen imitate their customs quite generally.”[64]
Footnote 63:
C. xxx.
Footnote 64:
Nikolas Sæmundarson, abbot of Thingeyrar, who made a journey to the
Holy Land about 1151, wrote an itinerary for the use of pilgrims from
which the above quotation is taken. The itinerary is summarized in
Riant, _Expéditions et Pèlerinages des Scandinaves en Terre Sainte_,
80-87.
The cultural influences which followed in the wake of the returning
crusaders were no doubt largely of Frankish origin. As a rule the
crusading expeditions followed the sea route along the coasts of France
and the Spanish peninsula; thus the Northern warriors came in contact
with French ideas and customs in the Frankish homeland as well as in the
Christian armies, which were largely made up of enthusiastic and
venturesome knights from Frankland. The author of the _King’s Mirror_
urges his son to learn Latin and French, “for these idioms are most
widely used.”[65]
Footnote 65:
C. iii. It is likely that English culture found its way into the North
along with the French. When King Sigurd sailed to the Orient in 1107,
he spent the winter of 1107-1108 at the English court.
One of the reasons why the son wishes to master the mercantile
profession is that he desires to travel and learn the customs of other
lands.[66] In the thirteenth century the Norwegian trade still seems to
have been largely with England and the other parts of the British Isles.
It is also important to remember that the Norwegian church was a
daughter of the church of England, and that occasionally English
churchmen were elevated to high office in the Norwegian establishment.
It is likely that Master William, who was Hakon IV’s chaplain, was an
Englishman; at least he bore an English name.[67]
Footnote 66:
C. iii.
Footnote 67:
_Hákonar Saga_, c. 228.
Information as to foreign civilization and the rules of courteous
behavior could also pass from land to land and from court to court with
the diplomatic missions of the time. The wise father states that envoys
who come and go are careful to observe the manners that obtain at the
courts to which they are sent.[68] Frequent embassies must have passed
between the capitals of England and Norway in the thirteenth century. It
is recorded that both King John and his son Henry III received envoys
from the king of Norway, and that they brought very acceptable gifts,
such as hawks and elks,[69] especially the former: in twelve different
years Hakon IV sent hawks to the English king.[70]
Footnote 68:
C. xxix.
Footnote 69:
_Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum_, I, 382, 506, 509.
Footnote 70:
Olafsen, “Falkefangsten i Norge”: _Historisk Tidsskrift_, Femte Række,
III, 351.
Embassies also came quite frequently from the imperial court in Germany.
It was during the reign of Hakon IV that the Hohenstaufens were waging
their last fight with the papacy, and both sides in the conflict seemed
anxious to secure the friendship of the great Norwegian king. The Saga
of Hakon relates that early in the king’s reign “missions began between
the emperor and King Hakon.”[71] In 1241, “when King Hakon came to the
King’s Crag, that man came to him whose name was Matthew, sent from the
emperor Frederick with many noble gifts. Along with him came from abroad
five Bluemen (negroes).”[72] Just how acceptable such a gift would be in
medieval Norway the chronicler does not state. There can be no doubt,
however, that Hakon returned the courtesy. The saga mentions several men
who were sent on diplomatic errands to the imperial court. One of these
emissaries had to go as far as Sicily, “and the emperor received him
well.”[73]
Footnote 71:
_Hákonar Saga_, c. 191.
Footnote 72:
_Ibid._, c. 243.
Footnote 73:
_Ibid._, c. 191.
The relationship with the other Scandinavian kingdoms was more direct.
The _King’s Mirror_ states that occasionally kings find it necessary to
meet in conference for the discussion of common problems; and that on
such occasions the members of the various retinues note carefully the
customs and manners of the other groups.[74] These meetings were usually
held at some point near the mouth of the Göta River, where the
boundaries of the three kingdoms touched a common point. In 1254 such a
meeting was held at which Hakon of Norway, Christopher of Denmark, and
the great Earl Birger of Sweden were in attendance with their respective
retinues.[75]
Footnote 74:
C. xxix.
Footnote 75:
_Hákonar Saga_, c. 281.
The kings of the North were not limited, however, in their diplomatic
intercourse to the neighboring monarchies; their ambassadors went out to
the remotest parts of Europe and even to Africa. Valdemar the
Victorious, in his day one of the greatest rulers in Christendom,
married as his first wife Dragomir, a Bohemian princess who brought the
Dagmar name into Denmark, and took as his second consort Berengaria of
Portugal, Queen Bengjerd, whose lofty pride is enshrined in the Danish
ballads of the age. Hakon IV married the daughter of his restless rival,
Duke Skule; but his daughter Christina was sought in marriage by a
prince in far-away Spain. The luckless princess was sent to Castile and
was married at Valladolid to a son of Alfonso the Wise.[76] Louis IX of
France was anxious to enlist the support of the Norwegian king for his
crusading ventures and sent the noted English historian Matthew Paris to
present the matter to King Hakon.[77] The mission, however, was without
results. Norwegian diplomacy was concerned even with the courts of the
infidel: in 1262 an embassy was sent to the Mohammedan sultan of Tunis
“with many falcons and those other things which were there hard to get.
And when they got out the Soldan received them well, and they stayed
there long that winter.”[78]
Footnote 76:
_Hákonar Saga_, c. 294.
Footnote 77:
Matthew Paris, _Chronica Majora_, IV, 651-652.
Footnote 78:
_Hákonar Saga_, c. 313.
An important event of the diplomatic type was the coming of Cardinal
William of Sabina as papal legate to crown King Hakon. The coronation
ceremony was performed in Bergen, July 29, 1247. At the coronation
banquet the cardinal made a speech in which, as the Saga of Hakon
reports his remarks, he called particular attention to the polished
manners of the Northmen. “It was told me that I would here see few men;
but even though I saw some, they would be liker to beasts in their
behaviour than to men; but now I see here a countless multitude of the
folk of this land, and, as it seems to me, with good behaviour.”[79] If
the _King’s Mirror_ gives a correct statement of what was counted good
manners and proper conduct at the court of Hakon IV, the cardinal’s
praise is none too strong.
Footnote 79:
_Hákonar Saga_, c. 255. (Dasent’s translation.)
As a part of his discussion of the duties and activities of the king’s
henchmen, the author describes the military methods of the age, arms and
armour, military engines and devices used in offensive and defensive
warfare, and other necessary equipment.[80] He also discusses the ethics
of the military profession to some extent. This part of the work has
been made the subject of a detailed study by Captain Otto Blom of the
Danish artillery, who has tried to fix a date for the composition of the
_King’s Mirror_ on the basis of these materials.[81] It is not likely,
however, that the work describes the military art of the North; such an
elaborate system of equipment and such a variety of military engines and
devices the Norwegians probably never knew at any time in the middle
ages. It is the military art of Europe which the author describes,
especially the war machinery of the crusades. One should not be
surprised to find that he had knowledge of the devices which were
employed by the Christian hosts in their warfare against the infidel in
the Orient. The crusades attracted the Norwegian warriors and they took
a part in them almost from the beginning. The fifth crusade began in
1217, the year of Hakon IV’s accession to the kingship. Several
Norwegian chiefs with their followers joined this movement, some
marching by land through Germany and Hungary, while others took the sea
route. One is tempted to believe that the author was himself a crusader,
but it is also possible that he got his information as to the military
art of the south and east from warriors who returned from those lands.
Footnote 80:
Cc. xxxviii-xxxix.
Footnote 81:
See below, pp. 62–63.
From the subject of proper behavior and good breeding the author passes
to a discussion of evil conduct and its effect on the welfare of the
kingdom. Many causes, he tells us, may combine to bring calamities upon
a land, and if the evils continue any length of time, the realm will be
ruined.[82] There may come dearth upon the fields and the fishing
grounds near the shores; plagues may carry away cattle, and the huntsman
may find a scarcity of game; but worst of all is the dearth which
sometimes comes upon the intellects and the moral nature of men. As a
prolific source of calamities of the last sort, the author mentions the
institution of joint kingship, the evils of which he discusses at some
length. His chapter on this subject is an epitome of Norwegian history
in the twelfth century when joint kingship was the rule.
Footnote 82:
C. xxxv.
According to the laws of medieval Norway before the thirteenth century,
the national kingship was the king’s allodial possession and was
inherited by his sons at his death. All his sons were legal heirs, those
of illegitimate birth as well as those who were born in wedlock. When
there was more than one heir, the kingship was held jointly, all the
claimants receiving the royal title and permission to maintain each his
own household. Usually a part of the realm was assigned to each; but it
was the administration, and not the kingdom itself, which was thus
divided. It is readily seen that such a system would offer unusual
opportunities for pretenders; and at least three times in one hundred
years men whose princely rights were at best of a doubtful character
mounted the Norwegian throne. It is an interesting fact that two of
these, the strenuous Sverre and the wise Hakon IV, must be counted among
the strongest, ablest, and most attractive kings in the history of
Norway.
Though there had been instances of joint rule before the twelfth
century, the history of that unfortunate form of administration properly
begins with the death of Magnus Bareleg on an Irish battlefield in 1103.
Three illegitimate sons, the oldest being only fourteen years of age,
succeeded to the royal title. One of these was the famous Sigurd
Jerusalemfarer, who took part in the later stages of the first crusade.
About twenty years after King Magnus’ death, a young Irishman, Harold
Gilchrist by name, appeared at the Norwegian court and claimed royal
rights as a son of the fallen king. King Sigurd forced him to prove his
birthright by an appeal to the ordeal, but the Irishman walked unhurt
over the hot plowshares. Harold became king in 1130 as joint ruler with
Sigurd’s son Magnus, later called “the Blind.”[83] Three of his sons
succeeded to the kingship in 1136. During the next century several
pretenders appeared and civil war became almost the normal state of the
country. Between 1103 and 1217 fifteen princes were honored with the
royal title; eleven of these were minors. The period closed with the
defeat and death of King Hakon’s father-in-law, the pretender Skule, in
1240.
Footnote 83:
The strife that followed the accession of Harold Gille and Magnus the
Blind is the subject of Björnson’s great historical drama, Sigurd
Slembe (English translation by William Morton Payne).
It was the history of these hundred years and more of joint kingship, of
pretenders, of minorities, and of civil war, which the author of the
_King’s Mirror_ had in mind when he wrote his gloomy chapter on the
calamities that may befall a state. Perhaps he was thinking more
especially of the unnatural conflict between King Hakon and Duke
Skule,[84] which was fought out in 1240, and the memory of which was
still fresh at the time when the _King’s Mirror_ was being written.
Footnote 84:
See below, p. 48.
Of the king and his duties as ruler and judge the _Speculum Regale_ has
much to say; but as these matters offer no problems that call for
discussion, it will not be necessary to examine them in detail. Wholly
different is the case of the king’s relation to the church, of the
position of the church in the state, of the divine origin of kingship,
of the fulness of the royal authority. On these questions the author’s
opinions and arguments are of great importance: in the history of the
theory of kingship by the grace of God and divine right and of absolute
monarchy, the _Speculum Regale_ is an important landmark.