more than common interest. On most points the learned father preaches
the conventional principles of the church with respect to right and
wrong conduct, and as a rule his precepts are such as have stood the
test of ages of experience. He emphasizes honesty, fair dealing, careful
attendance upon worship, and devotion to the church; he warns his son to
shun vice of every sort; he must also avoid gambling and drinking to
excess.[109] In some respects the author’s moral code is Scandinavian
rather than Christian: in the emphasis that he places upon reputation
and the regard in which one is held by one’s neighbors he seems to echo
the sentiment that runs through the earlier Eddic poetry, especially the
“Song of the High One.” “One thing I know that always remains,” says
Woden, “judgment passed on the dead.”[110] And the Christian scribe more
than three centuries later writes thus of one who has departed this
life: “But if he lived uprightly while on earth and made proper
provision for his soul before he died, then you may take comfort in the
good repute that lives after him, and even more in the blissful
happiness which you believe he will enjoy with God in the other
world.”[111] And again he says: “Now you will appreciate what I told you
earlier in our conversation, namely that much depends on the example
that a man leaves after him.”[112]
Footnote 109:
Cc. iii-iv, xxxvii.
Footnote 110:
C. xli.
Footnote 111:
_Hávamál_, 40: _Corpus Poeticum Boreale_, I, 8.
Footnote 112:
C. xlii.
The author is also Norse in his emphasis on moderation in every form of
indulgence, on the control of one’s passion, and in permitting private
revenge. His attitude toward this present world is not medieval: we may
enjoy the good things of creation, though not to excess. On the matter
of revenge, however, his ideas are characteristically medieval. Private
warfare was allowed almost everywhere in the middle ages, and it appears
to have a place in the political system of the _Speculum Regale_. But on
this point too the author urges moderation. “When you hear things in the
speech of other men which offend you much, be sure to investigate with
reasonable care whether the tales be true or false; but if they prove to
be true and it is proper for you to seek revenge, take it with reason
and moderation and never when heated or irritated.”[113]
Footnote 113:
C. xli.
The theology of the _King’s Mirror_, as far as it can be discerned, is
also medieval, though it is remarkable that the Virgin and the saints
find only incidental mention in the work. No doubt if the author had
been able to complete his treatise as outlined in his introduction, he
would have discussed the forms and institutions of the church at greater
length and we should be able to know to what extent his theological
notions were in agreement with the religious thought of the age.
In this connection his theory of penance and punishment for crime is of
peculiar interest. He makes considerable use of Biblical narratives to
illustrate his teachings and refers at length to some of the less worthy
characters of Holy Writ, including certain men who suffered death for
criminal offenses. Almost invariably he justifies the punishment by
arguing that it was better for the criminal to suffer a swift punishment
in death than to suffer eternally in hell. Apparently his theory is that
a criminal can cleanse himself in his own blood, that a temporal death
can save him from eternal punishment. The idolaters who were slain by
Moses and the Levites[114] “were cleansed in their penance and in the
pangs which they suffered when they died; and it was much better for
them to suffer a brief pain in death than a long torture in hell.” The
sacramental efficiency of the death penalty seems also to extend to the
one who executes punishment: for those who assisted Moses in the
slaughter sanctified their hands in the blood of those who were slain.
In the same way “a king cleanses himself in the blood of the unjust, if
he slays them as a rightful punishment to fulfil the sacred laws.”[115]
Footnote 114:
Exodus, xxxii.
Footnote 115:
C. lxi.
There can be little doubt that this doctrine of the death penalty also
shows the influence of the great civil conflict which ended with the
death of Duke Skule in 1240. During a century of factional warfare there
had been much violence, much slaughter, much “swift punishment.” Applied
to Norwegian history the author’s argument amounts to a justification of
the slaughter at Elgesæter; for Skule and his partisans had rebelled
against the Lord’s anointed. The hands of the Birchshanks were cleansed
and sanctified in the blood of the rebels; but the author also has this
comforting assurance for the kinsmen of the fallen, that their souls
were not lost: Skule and his companions were cleansed from their sins in
the last great penance of death.
It may also be that this same long record of violence, treason, and
rebellion was responsible for the prominence that the _King’s Mirror_
gives to the duty of obedience. In the political ethics of the work
obedience is the chief virtue and the central principle. Conversely
disobedience is the greatest of all sins. When Saul spared the
Amalekites, whom the Lord had ordered him to destroy, he sinned far more
grievously than did David when he dishonored Uriah’s wife and afterward
brought about Uriah’s death; for Saul neglected to carry out the
commands of God, and “no offense is graver than to be disobedient toward
one’s superiors.”[116]
Footnote 116:
C. lxiii.
The _King’s Mirror_ is a medieval document; it was in large part
inspired by the course of events in Norway during the century of the
civil wars; it records the scientific and political thought of a certain
definite period in Norwegian history. But even though the author of the
work must be classed among the thinkers of his own time, his place is
far in advance of most of his fellows. His outlook on the world is
broader than that of most medieval writers. In matters of science he is
less credulous and less bound by theological thought than others who
wrote on these subjects in his own century or earlier. On such questions
as the cause of earthquakes and the source of the northern lights he
shows an open-mindedness, which is rarely met with in the middle
ages.[117] For the author’s view of life was not wholly medieval; on
many subjects we find him giving utterance to thoughts which have a
distinctly modern appearance. His theory of the state and its functions
is distinctly unorthodox. But it is probably in the field of education
where the great Northman is farthest in advance of his time. In his day
the work of instruction was still in the hands of the church; and the
churchmen showed no great anxiety to educate men except for the clerical
profession. The _King’s Mirror_, however, teaches that merchants must
also be educated: they must learn the art of reckoning and those facts
of science that are of interest to navigators; they must study
languages, Latin, French, and Norwegian; and they must become thoroughly
acquainted with the laws of the land. But the author does not stop here:
a merchant should also educate his children. “If children be given to
you, let them not grow up without learning a trade; for we may expect a
man to keep closer to knowledge and business when he comes of age, if he
is trained in youth while under control.”[118]
Footnote 117:
See Larson, “Scientific Knowledge in the North in the Thirteenth
Century”: _Publications of the Society for the Advancement of
Scandinavian Study_, I, 141-146.
Footnote 118:
C. iv.
The identity of the author of the _Speculum Regale_ has never been
disclosed. Anonymous authorship was not uncommon in medieval Norse
literature: many of the sagas were written by men whose names are not
known. In the thirteenth century, however, it had become customary for
writers to claim the honors of authorship. Our philosopher of the
_King’s Mirror_ clearly understood that his readers would be curious to
know his name: if the book, he tells us in his introductory chapter, has
any merit, that should satisfy the reader, and there is no reason why
any one should wish to search out the name of the one who wrote it.[119]
Evidently he had a purpose in concealing his identity, and the motive is
not far to seek.
Footnote 119:
C. i.
After the death of King Sverre (1202) the conflict between the king and
the hierarchy ceased for a time. The church made peace with the
monarchy; the exiled bishops returned; and the faction of the Croziermen
disintegrated. After a few years, however, the old quarrels broke out
anew. On the accession of Hakon IV the church yielded once more, though
the prelates did not renounce their earlier claims. In 1245, when plans
were being made for King Hakon’s coronation, the bishops put forth the
suggestion that the king should, on that occasion, renew the agreement
of 1163, which gave the bishops control of the succession. But the great
king refused. “If we swear such an oath as King Magnus swore, then it
seems to us as though our honor would be lessened by it rather than
increased.”[120] He flatly asserted that he would be crowned without any
conditions attached to the act, or the crown “shall never come upon our
head.”
Footnote 120:
_Hákonar Saga_, c. 247.
After the arrival of Cardinal William of Sabina, who had been sent by
the pope to officiate at the coronation, and while preparations for that
joyous event were going forward, the subject was brought up once more.
On the suggestion of the Norwegian bishops the cardinal asked the king
to take Magnus Erlingsson’s oath; but the king again refused, and the
cardinal decided that “there is no need to speak of it oftener.”[121]
The king was crowned and there was peace between the two great forces of
church and monarchy, at least so long as Hakon lived. Sometime not long
before or after the coronation of the great king (1247) the _King’s
Mirror_ seems to have been written. It is clear that such ideas as are
enunciated in this work with respect to the submission of the church to
the authorities of the state can not have been relished by the
hierarchy, and perhaps they were just then somewhat unwelcome to the
secular rulers as well, since a discussion of this sort might tend to
renew ill feeling and stir up strife. Consequently the author may have
thought it wiser to remain anonymous.
Footnote 121:
_Ibid._, c. 251.
Earlier students of the _Speculum Regale_ have believed that the author
was some local chieftain, who had spent his more active days at the
royal court, but who had later retired to his estates and was spending
his declining years in literary pursuits. Various efforts have been made
to find this chieftain,[122] but with no success; there is no evidence
that the lords or crusaders who have been suggested as probable authors
had any literary interests or abilities. There can be no doubt that the
author was at one time a prominent member of the royal retinue; he
asserts in several places that such was the case.[123] He is,
furthermore, too thoroughly familiar with the organization of the royal
household to have been an occasional courtier merely. At the same time
it is not likely that he was a secular lord; it seems impossible that he
could have been anything but a churchman. He knows the Latin language;
he is well acquainted with sacred history; he has read a considerable
number of medieval books. It is quite unlikely that the various types of
learning that are reflected in the chapters of the _King’s Mirror_ could
be found in the thirteenth century in any scholar outside the clerical
profession. He could not have been one of the higher ecclesiastics, as
the prelates belonged to the faction of the Croziermen. The _Speculum
Regale_ was evidently written by a member of the Norwegian priesthood,
though it is possible that he belonged to one of the minor orders. But
at all events he was a professional churchman.[124]
Footnote 122:
See the Sorö edition, xxiii; Munch, _Det norske Folks Historie_, III,
399, note.
Footnote 123:
Cc. ii, iii, xxx.
Footnote 124:
Cf. Daae, “Studier angaaende Kongespeilet”: _Aarböger for nordisk
Oldkyndighed_, 1896, 180-181. Daae holds that the author was a
clergyman.
There was an old belief in Norway that the work was written at King
Sverre’s court, perhaps by the priest-king himself;[125] but this theory
is wholly without foundation. Professor Ludvig Daae, believing that only
a few Northmen possessed the necessary qualifications for the authorship
of such a work as the _King’s Mirror_, concluded that it must have been
written by Master William, one of the chaplains at the court of Hakon
IV.[126] Master William was evidently a man of some erudition; he held a
degree (_magister_) from a European university; he must have traveled
abroad and was no doubt a man of experience; he lived and flourished in
the period when the work must have been composed. But there is no shred
of evidence that Master William actually wrote the _King’s Mirror_ or
that he was interested in the problems that are discussed in this work.
Footnote 125:
_Ibid._, 1896, 178.
Footnote 126:
_Ibid._, 1896, 192-196; see also pp. 179 ff. Daae believes that Master
William must have held a position at court corresponding to the office
of chancellor; he also conjectures that he was the tutor of the king’s
sons. Master William is mentioned in the _Hákonar Saga_, cc. 210, 228.
More recently A. V. Heffermehl has made an attempt to prove that the
author so long sought for was Ivar Bodde, a Norwegian priest, who seems
to have played an important part in the history of Norway in the first
half of the thirteenth century as an influential member of the
anti-clerical party.[127] Much is not known of Ivar Bodde, and nearly
all that we do know comes from a speech which he is reported to have
delivered in his own defence in 1217.[128] He entered King Sverre’s
service “before the fight was at Strindsea,” which was fought in the
summer of 1199. This was also the year in which King Sverre seems to
have issued his famous _Address_. “I had good cheer from the king while
he lived, and I served him so that at last I knew almost all his secret
matters.” In King Inge’s reign (1204-1217) he served in the capacity of
chancellor: “and that besides, which was much against my wish, they
relied on me for writing letters.” During the same reign he also served
as Prince Hakon’s foster father, and was consequently responsible for
the education of the great king.[129] Ivar was also skilled in military
arts: he was a warrior as well as a priest.[130] He was apparently twice
sent to England on diplomatic errands, first to the court of King John,
later to that of Henry III.[131] He withdrew from the court in 1217. In
1223 he reappears as one of the king’s chief counsellors. After this
year nothing is known of Ivar Bodde.
Footnote 127:
_Historiske Skrifter tilegnede Ludvig Daae_, 79-104 (“Presten Ivar
Bodde”). Ivar is one of the characters in Ibsen’s _Pretenders_.
Footnote 128:
_Hákonar Saga_, c. 21.
Footnote 129:
_Historiske Skrifter tilegnede Ludvig Daae_, 88-89 (Heffermehl);
_Hákonar Saga_, c. 20.
Footnote 130:
_Historiske Skrifter tilegnede Ludvig Daae_, 80.
Footnote 131:
_Ibid._, 81, 85.
The author of the _King’s Mirror_ was a professional churchman who
belonged to the anti-clerical faction; he was a master of the literary
art. Ivar Bodde was a man of this type; nothing is known of his literary
abilities, but it is clear that a man who was entrusted with the king’s
correspondence can not have been without literary skill. There seems to
be no reason why Ivar Bodde could not have written the _King’s Mirror_,
and he may also have had a hand in the preparation of Sverre’s
_Address_; but that he actually did write either or both of these
important works has not yet been proved; there may have been other
priests in Norway in the thirteenth century who stood for the divine
right of Norwegian kingship.
From certain geographical allusions it is quite clear that the work was
written in Norway and in some part of the country that would be counted
far to the north. The author mentions two localities in the Lofoten
region and he shows considerable knowledge of conditions elsewhere in
Halogaland;[132] but it is evident that he did not reside in that part
of the kingdom when he was at work on his great treatise. It is
generally agreed that the home of the _Speculum Regale_ is Namdalen, a
region which lies northeast of the city of Trondhjem and which touches
the border of Halogaland on the north.[133] This conclusion is based on
certain astronomical observations on the part of the author, namely the
length of the shortest day, the daily increase in the length of the day,
and the relationship between the length of the sun’s path and the sun’s
altitude at noon of the longest and the shortest day.[134] The Norwegian
astronomer Hans Geelmuyden has determined that if the author’s
statements on these points are to be regarded as scientific
computations, they indicate a latitude of 65°, 64° 42´, and 64° 52´
respectively. All these points lie within the shire of Namdalen.[135] As
the author can scarcely have been much more than a layman in the fields
of mathematics and astronomy, the agreement as to results obtained is
quite remarkable.
Footnote 132:
C. vii.
Footnote 133:
See the Sorö edition, pp. lix-lx; the Christiana edition, p. v.
Footnote 134:
Cc. vi, vii.
Footnote 135:
“Om Stedet for Kongespeilets Forfattelse”: _Arkiv for nordisk
Filologi_, I, 205-208.
The problem of place is relatively unimportant, but the question of the
date of composition has more than mere literary interest. There is
nothing in the work itself which gives any clue to the year when it was
begun or completed. It seems evident, however, that it was written after
the period of the civil wars, though while the terrors of that century
of conflicts were yet fresh in the memories of men. For various other
reasons, too, it is clear that the _King’s Mirror_ was composed in the
thirteenth century and more specifically during the reign of Hakon IV.
The allusion to the Byzantine emperor Manuel Comnenus,[136] whose reign
began in 1143, gives a definite date from which any discussion of this
problem must begin. It is also clear that the work was written after the
church had begun to lay claim to power in the government of the state,
which was in 1163.[137] The author looks back to an evil time when
minorities were frequent and joint kingships were the rule;[138] but the
period of joint rule virtually came to a close in 1184 when Sverre
became sole king; and the last boy king whom the author can have taken
into account was Hakon IV, who was thirteen years old when he was given
the royal title. It therefore seems evident that the _King’s Mirror_ was
written after 1217, the year of Hakon’s accession.
Footnote 136:
C. viii.
Footnote 137:
See above, p. 36.
Footnote 138:
See above, pp. 33–35.
On the other hand, it is also quite evident that the treatise can not
have been written after the great revision of the Norwegian laws which
was carried out during the reign of Magnus Lawmender. The new court-law,
which was promulgated about 1275, is clearly later than the _Speculum
Regale_: the fine exacted for the death of a king’s thegn, which is
given as forty marks in the _King’s Mirror_, is fixed at a little more
than thirteen marks in Magnus’ legislation. In 1273 the law regulating
the succession to the throne made impossible the recurrence of joint
kingships; but the principle of this arrangement appears to have been
accepted as early as 1260, when the king’s son Magnus was given the
royal title. Another decree, apparently also from Hakon’s reign, which
abolished the responsibility of kinsmen in cases of manslaughter and
deprived the relatives of the one who was slain of their share in the
blood fine, also runs counter to methods described in the _King’s
Mirror_, which states distinctly that kinsmen share in the payment.[139]
It is therefore safe to conclude that the work was written some time
between 1217 and 1260.
Footnote 139:
C. xxxvi (p. 201).
The earliest attempt to date the _King’s Mirror_ was made by the learned
Icelander, Hans Finsen. In an essay included in the Sorö edition (1768)
he fixes the time at about 1164.[140] J. Erichsen, who wrote the
introduction to this edition, doubts that it was composed at so early a
date; impressed with the fact that the work reflects the political views
of the Birchshank faction, he is inclined to place the date of
composition some time in Sverre’s reign or in the last decade of the
twelfth century.[141] The striking resemblance between the ideas
expressed in the treatise and the guiding principles of Sverre’s regime
led the editors of the Christiania edition to the same conclusion: 1196
or soon after.[142] And so it was held that the work is a twelfth
century document until a Danish artillery officer, Captain Otto Blom,
began to make a careful study of the various types of weapons, armor,
and siege engines mentioned in the work. His conclusion, published in
1867, was that the _King’s Mirror_ reflects the military art of the
thirteenth century and that the manuscript was composed in the latter
half of the century, at any rate not long before 1260.[143] This
conclusion has been accepted by Gustav Storm,[144] Ludvig Daae,[145] and
virtually all who have written on the subject since Blom’s study
appeared, except Heffermehl, whose belief that Ivar Bodde was the author
could not permit so late a date, as Ivar, who was a man of prominence at
Sverre’s court about 1200, must have been an exceedingly aged man, if he
were still living in 1260. Heffermehl is, therefore, compelled to force
the date of composition back to the decade 1230-1240.
Footnote 140:
See page xx of the Sorö edition.
Footnote 141:
See pages lxv-lxvi of the Sorö edition.
Footnote 142:
Christiania edition, p. viii.
Footnote 143:
_Aarböger for nordisk Oldkyndighed_, 1867, 65-109. See above, p. 32.
Footnote 144:
_Arkiv for nordisk Filologi_, III, 83-88.
Footnote 145:
_Aarböger for nordisk Oldkyndighed_, 1896, 176-177.
The weakness of Captain Blom’s argument is that he supposes the military
art described in the _Speculum Regale_ to be the military art of the
North at the time when the work was written. If all the engines and
accoutrements that the author describes ever came into use in the North,
it was long after 1260. Nearly all the weapons and devices mentioned
were in use in southern Europe and in the Orient in earlier decades of
the thirteenth century; some of them belong to much earlier times. If
certain engines and devices which Captain Blom is disposed to regard as
mythical are left out of account, it will be found that only three items
fail to appear in illustrations from the earlier part of the thirteenth
century; and it would not be safe to assume that these were not in use
because no drawing of them has been found.
Viewed against the background of Norwegian history, those chapters of
the _King’s Mirror_ which deal with the nature and the rights of
monarchy and with the place of the church in the state take on the
appearance of a political pamphlet written to defend and justify the
doings of the Birchshank party. The motives for composing an apology of
this sort may be found at almost any time in the thirteenth century but
especially during the decade that closed with the coronation of Hakon
IV. It will be remembered that the author of the _King’s Mirror_
discusses the calamities that may befall a kingdom as a result of joint
rule.[146] But in 1235, after one of Earl Skule’s periodic attempts at
rebellion, his royal son-in-law granted him the administration of
one-third of the realm. The grant was ratified the next year with
certain changes: instead of a definite, compact fief the earl now
received territories everywhere in the kingdom. In 1237 Skule was given
the ducal title and to many men it seemed as if the curse of joint
kingship was about to afflict the land once more. Two years later the
partisans of the duke proclaimed him king: like Adonijah of old he tried
to displace the Lord’s anointed.[147] But after a few months came the
surprise of Skule’s forces in Trondhjem and the duke’s own tragic end in
Elgesæter convent.[148] It will be recalled that the author defends King
Solomon’s dealings with Joab and lays down the principle that the right
of sanctuary will not hold against a king.[149] The rebellion of the
Norwegian Adonijah was in 1239; he died the death of Joab in 1240. Three
years later the believers in a strong monarchy were disturbed by the
news that the bishops had revived the old claim to supremacy in the
state. Soon after this series of events the political chapters of the
_King’s Mirror_ must have been composed.
Footnote 146:
C. xxxvi.
Footnote 147:
C. lxvi.
Footnote 148:
See above, p. 48.
Footnote 149:
C. lxix.