give, when he is asked to do so. Any request may be granted which will
bring honor and help to him who asks and will bring no damage to the
lord who gives or to any one else. Thus if a lord is asked to give
assistance or money, he may well give it, unless his honor should be
discredited by the gift; and he may properly give both the labor and the
money so long as he gives them to such as are worthy of great honors.
But when one is asked to grant a request that would debase or dishonor
him, he must refuse it; and even though he should make a promise
thoughtlessly, it is to be wisely withdrawn. And if a man bestows a
generous gift on one who shows little appreciation of it and is in no
wise worthy to have a long and continued possession of an important
gift, inasmuch as he does not show proper appreciation, this gift, too,
should be withdrawn; for in this case the man’s own thoughtlessness and
lack of discernment take the gift from him and not the fickleness of him
who gave. And if one who desired a gift has obtained it through
falsehood and deceitful pretence, that gift is also to be withdrawn,
even though it has been granted; and in this case the man’s own fraud
and deceit take the gift from him and not the fickleness of him who
promised and gave it. But a prince who means to be cautious in making
gifts must consider carefully what is requested, and what sort of man
has made the request. And since all do not deserve equally great gifts,
one must consider how great a gift each one deserves and on what
occasion a gift may be given. Then it shall be said but very seldom that
he who gave has withdrawn his gift or that he has been found to be
fickle-minded.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LXIX
CONCERNING THE KINGSHIP AND THE CHURCH AND
THE KING’S RESPONSIBILITY TO GOD
_Son._ Now I wish to ask what good reasons there are which would justify
King Solomon’s act in causing Joab to be slain in God’s holy tabernacle
while he was clinging to God’s sacred altar. Why did he not order him to
be brought away first and slain afterwards?
_Father._ The matter about which you have now inquired cannot be made
clear without a lengthy explanation, which will seem more like a comment
than a proper continuation of the conversation in which we are now
engaged. When Solomon concluded that it was better to slay Joab where he
then was than to bring him away, he was not without good grounds for his
decision; for he did not wish to fall into such a sin as King Saul fell
into when he brought sacrifices to God’s holy altar. Now Solomon did not
wish to make this a pretext that he intended to bring gifts or
sacrifices to God’s holy altar, as if he were carrying out episcopal
functions; nor did he wish to take away by force or violence anything
that had come so near God’s holy altar as Joab then was, inasmuch as he
was clinging to the sacred altar. But Solomon pondered the whole matter
in his own mind: “It is my duty to carry out the provisions of the
sacred law, no matter where the man happens to be whose case is to be
determined; but it is not my duty to remove a man by force or violence
who has fled to the holy place; for all just decisions are in truth
God’s decisions and not mine. And I know of a surety that God’s holy
altar will not be defiled or desecrated by Joab’s blood, for it will be
shed in righteous punishment and as a penance for him, but not in hatred
as in the case of an unjust verdict.” In this decision King Solomon
illustrated the division of duties that God made between Moses and
Aaron; and he did not wish to disturb this arrangement, lest he should
fall into disfavor with God. For God had marked out their duties in such
a way that Moses was to watch over the rules of the holy law, while
Aaron was to care for the sacrifices that might come to the sacred
altar.[345] And you shall know of a truth that this arrangement ought by
right to stand even at this day; and you may be able to see this more
clearly, if I add a few words in explanation. For the reason is this,
that God has established two houses upon earth, each chosen for a
definite service. The one is the church; in fact we may give this name
to both, if we like, for the word church means the same as judgment
hall, because there the people meet and assemble. These two houses are
the halls of God, and He has appointed two men to keep watch over them.
In one of these halls He has placed His table, and this is called the
house of bread; for there God’s people gather to receive spiritual food.
But in the other hall He has placed His holy judgment seat; and there
the people assemble to hear the interpretation of God’s holy verdicts.
And God has appointed two keepers to guard these houses: the one is the
king, the other the bishop.
Footnote 345:
See _Exodus_, xxviii.
Now the king is appointed to keep watch over the sacred house in which
the holy seat is placed and to keep the holy verdicts of God. In
temporal matters he is to judge between men and in such a way that the
reward of eternal salvation may be given to him and to all others who
after his day uphold the decisions that have been justly rendered. Into
his hands God has also committed the sword of punishment with which to
strike when the need arises, just as King Solomon did when he laid Joab
under the sword of chastisement, with many others whom he subjected to
righteous penalties, as we have already told. The king, then, must
always strike, not in hatred but for righteous punishment. But if he
slay any one out of hatred, it is murder, and he will have to answer for
it as murder before God. You shall also know of a truth that no one is
allowed to pluck away any of those things that God from the beginning
has assigned to His hall and high-seat; for that would be to rob God
Himself and His holy judgment seat and to disturb arrogantly the
arrangement which God has made. And every one who is assigned to this
seat should ponder in deep thought what plea he shall have to present
when he comes before his own Judge; for every man who comes in his turn
before the Highest Judge, having been steward in His hall, may
confidently expect Him to employ some mode of address like the
following: “Thou bearest Mine own name, for thou art both king and judge
as I am; therefore I demand that thou render account for thy
stewardship, inasmuch as thou art the appointed judge and leader of My
people.” Wherefore each one will need to prepare after long reflection
and with great care what he is to reply when he comes before the Judge.
If the archangel, in whom there is no sign of weakness, gives his answer
with fear and trembling, when he is called upon to render account for
his services to our Lord and King, one can imagine what fear and
trembling will come upon a frail and sinful man, when he is asked to
render account for his stewardship in the presence of God. But he who
has had this hall in his keeping will first of all be asked how he has
dealt out justice among men; and if he is unable to give a satisfactory
account, he may expect to hear this sentence: “Thou wicked thrall, since
thou hast not observed justice in thy verdicts, thou shalt fare thither
where all verdicts are evil; for thine own mouth has assigned thee to
this place, inasmuch as it was not ashamed to deliver dishonest
judgments.” But if he can defend the justice of his decisions with good
reasons, he shall find joy in his stewardship and hear these words:
“Inasmuch as thou hast always observed equity as a judge, it is fitting
that thou shouldst enjoy a righteous verdict on every count.” He will
then be asked further on what some of his actions were based; and after
that he will have to show how discreetly and carefully he has kept all
those things which God in the beginning committed to this judgment seat.
But if he has not kept all those things which God in the beginning
assigned to the holy seat of judgment, he will be brought face to face
with those who have done their duty well, such as Melchisedek or Moses
or David or others who have observed these things as faithfully as those
named. Then he will hear these words spoken: “If thou hadst been as
thoughtful and solicitous as these were in maintaining the honors which
I joined in the beginning to My holy judgment seat, thou wouldst have
received the same rewards as these enjoy. But now thou shalt be deprived
of an honor here as great as the honor which thou didst take without
right from My judgment seat; and to that degree shalt thou be regarded
less in worth and merit than those who have kept these honors unimpaired
which I entrusted to them. When thou wert given charge of My judgment
seat, it was not intended that thou shouldst have power to dispose of
services, honors, and holy dignities in a manner different from the one
that I established in the beginning. For this office was not given thee
as an everlasting inheritance, but it was committed to thee for a time
only, that thou mightest obtain an eternal reward, if thou didst guard
it faithfully. Thou wert given power to distribute worldly riches, gold
and silver, though with discretion, but not to dispose of the honors and
glories of My holy judgment seat.”
But if it is found that he has been discreet in his charge, he shall
have cause to rejoice in his stewardship; he will, however, be examined
in various lines. He will be asked how he has used the rod of punishment
which was given into his hands; and it is very important that justice
shall have been strictly observed in penalties, lest it go so ill with
him as with King Saul, who failed to inflict a just penalty which God
had commanded him to execute on the people who dwelt in Amalek, but slew
unjustly the bishop Ahimelech and all the priests in Nob. But if it
should go so ill with him who is thus called to account for penalties
inflicted, that he is found to have stumbled in matters like those just
mentioned and in which King Saul fell, he will soon hear these words:
“Lead him yonder where King Saul and Herod and Nero and others like them
abide, and let him dwell there with them, seeing that he wished to be
like them in cruelty.” Still, if in some cases he has been merciful in
sentence and punishment and if there is good reason why he should escape
the reproaches that we have just mentioned, those facts will not be
forgotten. For then he shall find happiness in all his stewardship and
very soon shall hear this greeting: “Thou art welcome, thou faithful
servant and good friend, for thou hast loyally kept a slight temporal
dignity; now thou shalt come into joyful possession of a great honor,
constant and everlasting, wholly free from sorrow and danger.” Happy is
he who is permitted to hear these words; but wretched is he who shall
hear those words of wrath which we quoted earlier. But no one needs to
doubt that everyone who shall be called to account for his office and
stewardship will be addressed in one of these two ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LXX
THE AUTHORITY OF KINGS AND BISHOPS.
END OF THE SECOND PART
_Son._ I see clearly that one who is to watch over the rules of the
sacred law and deal out justice in all cases is surely assigned a very
difficult task. It is also evident that King Solomon could not be called
to account for having Joab slain in God’s tabernacle, inasmuch as he
slew him for a just punishment, not out of enmity or in hatred, as Cain
slew his brother Abel. God’s tabernacle was not defiled by Joab’s blood,
seeing that it was not shed in hatred; but the earth was defiled by
Abel’s blood, because it was shed in hatred. And I understand fully that
the sin and the desecration are caused by the hatred and not by the
punishment. But now you have spoken of two halls which God has dedicated
to His service upon earth, and there are certain things that concern
these about which I wish to inquire. You have stated that in one of them
God has placed His judgment seat; you have discussed that and also the
office of him who is in charge of it. You have also said that in the
other hall is God’s table, from which all God’s people shall take
spiritual food; and you added that the bishop has been appointed keeper
of this hall. Now I wish to ask you why King Solomon removed Abiathar
the bishop from the office that had been assigned to him, namely that of
keeper of the hall to which I have just referred, and removed him so
completely that he was never afterwards allowed to put forth his hand to
the episcopal office, but was to live from that time on as a churl or a
plowboy. But I have thought that neither of these two keepers can have
authority to remove the other from the office which has been committed
to him. Therefore I should like to have you point out a few
considerations which will make clear how King Solomon could remove the
bishop Abiathar from his office without incurring reproof from God.
_Father._ I called your attention to these facts to remind you that both
these halls are God’s houses and both king and bishop the servants of
God and keepers of these houses; but they do not own them in the sense
that they can take anything away from them that was assigned to them in
the beginning. Therefore the king must not pluck anything away from the
house which the bishop has in his keeping, for neither should rob the
other. And there should be no plundering of one by the other, but each
ought to support the other for the same One owns both houses, namely
God. I have also told you that God has given the rod of punishment into
the hands of both the king and the bishop. The rod of punishment that
has been committed to the king is a two-edged sword: with this sword it
is his duty to smite to the death everyone who tries to take anything
away from the sacred hall of which he is the guardian. But the king’s
sword is two-edged for the reason that it is also his duty to guard the
house which is in the bishop’s keeping, if the bishop is unable to
defend it with his own rod of punishment. The bishop shall have his rod
of punishment in his mouth, and he shall smite with words but not with
hands like the king. And the bishop shall strike his blow in the
following manner: if any one attempt to dishonor the sacred hall that is
in his care, he shall refuse him the table which is placed in this holy
house and the holy sustenance which is taken from this table. But when
King Solomon deprived Abiathar the bishop of the episcopal office and
dignity, he said that Abiathar’s own guilt deprived him and not he.
Since he had decreed that David should forfeit his throne before God had
ordered it, and had chosen another king to replace David, while he was
still living, it was right to deprive him of the episcopal office,
seeing that he wanted to rob David of the royal office. Saul’s guilt, on
the other hand, when he had slain the bishop Ahimelech and all the
priests in the city of Nob, was a grievous burden, because he had done
this without just cause. But even if King Solomon should have killed the
bishop Abiathar, he would have been without guilt; for the bishop had
deprived the house of God of the lord whom God Himself had appointed
keeper of the holy judgment seat. The bishop Abiathar had no right
either to appoint or to remove any one, as was later made evident; for
David chose the one whom he wished to be king in his stead, and the
choice which Abiathar had made was of no effect. Abiathar the bishop
obtained the episcopal office through the will of David who appointed
him to it. Now you are to understand that there is this difference
between the business of a king and the duties of a bishop: the bishop is
appointed to be the king’s teacher, counsellor, and guide, while the
king is appointed to be a judge and a man of severity in matters of
punishment, to the great terror of all who are subject to him.
Nevertheless, the bishop wields a rod of punishment as well as the king.
There is this difference, however, between the king’s sword and that of
the bishop, that the king’s sword always bites when one strikes with it,
and bites to great injury when it is used without right, while it serves
him well whom it may strike when it is rightfully used. But the bishop’s
sword bites only when it is used rightfully; when it is wrongfully used,
it injures him who smites with it, not him who is stricken. When the
bishop strikes rightfully, however, his sword wounds even more deeply
than the king’s. But this subject we shall discuss more fully at some
other time, if it is thought advisable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAM OF BREMEN: _Gesta Hammenburgensis Ecclesias Pontificum_, ed. J. M.
Lappenberg (Mon. Ger. Hist. Scriptures, VII), Hanover, 1846.
_Adventures of Suibhne Geilt_, translated by J. G. O’Keefe (Irish Text
Society, XII), London, 1913.
ALEXANDER NECKAM: _De Naturis Rerum Libri Duo_, ed. Thomas Wright (Rolls
Series, No. 34), London, 1863.
ASHER, G. M.: _Henry Hudson the Navigator_ (Hakluyt Society), London,
1860.
BEDE: _Opera Omnia_ (Migne, Patrologia Latina, XC-XCV), Paris, 1850-51.
BERNARD (Saint): _Opera Omnia_ (Migne, Patrologia Latina,
CLXXXII-CLXXXV), Paris, 1854.
BLOM, OTTO: _Bemærkninger om Kongespeilets Affattelsestid_ (Aarböger for
Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie), Copenhagen, 1867.
BLOM, OTTO: _Lodbössen fra Vedelspang_ (Aarböger for Nordisk
Oldkyndighed og Historie), Copenhagen, 1872.
BULL, EDVARD: _Interdiktet mot Sverre_ (Historisk Tidsskrift, Femte
Række, III), Christiania, 1915.
CAPELLA, see Martianus Capella.
CLAUSSÖN, PEDER: _Norrigis Bescriffuelse_, Copenhagen, 1633.
_Corpus Poeticum Boreale_, ed. Gudbrand Vigfusson and F. York Powell,
Oxford, 1883, 2 vols.
COSMAS: _The Christian Topography of Cosmas, an Egyptian Monk_,
translated by J. W. McCrindle, London, 1897.
DAAE, LUDVIG: _Studier angaaende Kongespeilet_ (Aarböger for Nordisk
Oldkyndighed og Historie), Copenhagen, 1896.
_Elucidarium_, see Honorius of Autun.
_Elucidarius_ (Annaler for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie),
Copenhagen, 1852 (Danish translation), 1853 (Icelandic text).
FALK, HJALMAR: _Altnordische Waffenkunde_ (Skrifter utgit af
Videnskapsselskapet, II, Historisk-filosofisk Klasse), Christiania,
1915.
FIGGIS, JOHN NEVILLE: _The Theory of the Divine Right of Kings_,
Cambridge, 1896.
GIRALDUS CAMBRENSIS: _Opera_, ed. J. S. Brewer, James F. Dimock, and G.
F. Warner (Rolls Series, No. 21), London, 1861-91, 8 vols.
GEELMUYDEN, HANS: _Om Stedet for Kongespeilets Forfattelse_ (Arkiv for
Nordisk Filologi, I), Christiania, 1883.
GIBBON, EDWARD: _The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, ed. J. B.
Bury, London, 1912.
GJERSET, KNUT: _History of the Norwegian People_, New York, 1915, 2
vols.
_Hákonar Saga_, ed. Gudbrand Vigfusson and G. W. Dasent, Icelandic
Sagas, II, IV (Rolls Series, No. 88), London, 1887-94, 2 vols.
HEFFERMEHL, A. V.: _Presten Ivar Bodde_ (Historiske Skrifter Tilegnede
og Overleverede Professor Dr. Ludvig Daae), Christiania, 1904.
_Heilagra Manna Sögur_, ed. C. R. Unger, Christiania, 1877, 2 vols.
HEINZEL, RICHARD: _Excurs über den Mythus von den vier Töchtern Gottes_
(Zeitschrift für deutsches Alterthum, Neue Folge, V), Berlin, 1874.
HERRMANN, PAUL: _Island in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart_, Leipzig, 1907,
2 vols.
HERTZBERG, EBBE: _Den förste norske Kongekroning_ (Historisk Tidsskrift,
Fjerde Række, III), Christiania, 1905.
HONORIUS OF AUTUN: _Opera Omnia_ (Migne, Patrologia Latina, CLXXII),
Paris, 1854.
HOVGAARD, WILLIAM: _The Voyages of the Norsemen to America_, New York,
1914.
HUDSON, HENRY, see ASHER.
HUGH OF SAINT VICTOR: _Opera Omnia_ (Migne, Patrologia Latina,
CLXXV-CLXXVII), Paris, 1854.
ISIDORE (Saint) of Seville: _Opera Omnia_ (Migne, Patrologia Latina,
LXXXI-LXXXIV), Paris, 1850.
JACOBUS DE VORAGINE: _The Golden Legend_, ed. George V. O’Neill,
Cambridge, 1914.
_Kongespegelen_, translated by K. Audne, Oslo [Christiania], 1909-13.
_Kongespeilet i Uddrag_, translated by Chr. Dorph, Copenhagen, 1892.
_Kongespeilet_, ed. R. Keyser, P. A. Munch, and C. R. Unger,
Christiania, 1848.
_Kongs-skuggsio_, _Det Kongelige Speil_, _Speculum Regale_, ed. Halfdan
Einersen, Soröe, 1768.
_Konungs Skuggsjá_, ed. George T. Flom (Published by the University of
Illinois), Urbana, 1915.
LARSON, LAURENCE M.: _The Household of the Norwegian Kings in the
Thirteenth Century_ (American Historical Review, XIII), 1908.
LARSON, LAURENCE M.: _Scientific Knowledge in the North in the
Thirteenth Century_ (Publications of the Society for the Advancement
of Scandinavian Study, I, No. 4), 1913.
_Macrobius_, ed. F. Eyssenhardt, Leipzig, 1893.
_Martianus Capella_, ed. F. Eyssenhardt, Leipzig, 1866.
_Meregarto_, Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und Prosa, ed. K. Müllenhoff and
W. Scherer, Berlin, 1892.
METER, KUNO: _Irish Memorabilia in the Speculum Regale_ (Ériu, IV),
1910.
MUNCH, PETER ANDREAS: _Det norske Folks Historie_, Christiania, 1852-63,
8 vols.
NANSEN, FRIDTJOF: _In Northern Mists_, London, 1911, 2 vols.
NENNIUS: _The Irish Version of the Historia Britonum of Nennius_, ed.
James Henthorn Todd and Algernon Herbert (Irish Archeological
Society), Dublin, 1848.
_Norges gamle Love indtil 1387_, ed. R. Keyser, P. A. Munch, Gustav
Storm, and Ebbe Hertzberg, Christiania, 1846-95, 5 parts.
OLAFSEN, O.: _Falkefangsten i Norge_ (Historisk Tidsskrift, Femte Række,
III), Christiania, 1915.
OLSON, JULIUS E. and E. G. BOURNE (editors): _The Northmen, Columbus,
and Cabot_ (Original Narratives of Early American History), New York,
1906.
OMAN, CHARLES: _A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages_, London,
1905.
PARIS, MATTHEW: _Chronica Majora_, ed. H. R. Luard (Rolls Series, No.
57), London, 1872-84, 7 vols.
PETIT DE JULEVILLE, L.: _Les Mystères_, Paris, 1880, 2 vols.
PETRUS ALFONSUS: _Discipline Clericalis_ (Migne, Patrologia Latina,
CLCVII), Paris, 1854.
PETRUS COMESTOR: _Historia Scholastica_ (Migne, Patrologia Latina,
CXCVIII), Paris, 1855.
PLINY, C.: _Plinii Secundi Naturalis Historiae Libri XXXVII_, ed. Julius
Sillig, Hamburg, 1851-58.
RABANUS MAURUS: _Opera Omnia_, (Migne, Patrologia Latina, CVII-CXII),
Paris, 1851-52.
_Reliquiae Antiquae_, ed. Thomas Wright and James Orchard Halliwell,
1841-43, 2 vols.
RIANT, PAUL: _Expéditions et Pèlerinages des Scandinaves en Terre
Sainte_, Paris, 1865.
_Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum_, ed. T. Hardy (Record Commission
Publications), London, 1833, 2 vols.
RUGE, SOPHUS: _Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_, Berlin,
1881.
SCHERER, W.: _Die vier Töchter Gottes_ (Zeitschrift für deutsches
Alterthum, Neue Folge, IX), Berlin, 1877.
SOLINUS: _Collectanea Rerum Memorabilium_, ed. Th. Mommsen, Berlin,
1895.
_Speculum Regale_, ed. Oscar Brenner, Munich, 1888.
STEENSTRUP, I. JAPETUS S.: _Hvad er Kongespeilets_ “_Havgjerdinger?_”
(Aarböger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie), Copenhagen, 1871.
_Stjórn, Gammelnorsk Bibelhistorie_, ed. C. R. Unger, Christiania, 1862.
STORM, GUSTAV: _Brudstykke af en latinsk Oversættelse af Kongespeilet
fra det 14de Aarhundrede_ (Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi, I),
Christiania, 1883.
STORM, GUSTAV (editor): _En Tale mod Biskopperne_, Christiania, 1885.
STORM, GUSTAV: _Om Tidsforholdet mellem Kongespeilet og Stjórn samt
Barlaams Saga_ (Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi, III), Christiania, 1886.
_Theodosiani Libri xvi_..., ed. Th. Mommsen et Paulus M. Meyer, Berlin,
1905, 3 parts.
_Vulgate: Biblia Sacra_..., ed. P. Michael Hetzenauer, Oeniponte
[Innsbruck], 1906.
WEISS, H. J. K.: _Kostümekunde_, Stuttgart, 1860-72, 5 vols.
ZARNCKE, FRIEDRICH: _Der Priester Johannes_, Leipzig, 1879.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDEX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDEX
Aaron, high priest in Israel, 280, 284, 358.
Abbot, 294, 325.
Abel, 330, 363.
Abiathar, Hebrew priest, 46, 47, 333, 344, 347, 351–353, 363–365.
Abiram, Hebrew rebel, 279, 283.
Abishag, David’s wife, 344, 348–351.
Abishai, David’s companion, 335.
Abner, Hebrew captain, 346, 351.
Absalom, David’s son, 325, 338, 346, 347.
_Acrifolium_ (_aquifolium_), 107.
Adam, 252–257, 261, 266–273.
Adam von Bremen, 19 note.
“Address to the Norwegian People,” King Sverre’s, 39–46, 49, 58, 59.
Adonijah, David’s son, 46, 64, 341, 344, 345, 347–351.
Agag, king of Amalek, 326.
Ahasuerus, Persian king, 237–240, 244.
Ahimelech, Hebrew priest, 331–333, 362, 365.
Albertus Magnus, medieval schoolman, 2.
Ale-springs, 134.
Alexander Neckam, medieval scientist, 12, 18.
Alfonso the Wise, Spanish king, 31.
Amalek, Amalekites, 52, 279, 283, 319, 325, 326, 362.
Amasa, Hebrew captain, 346, 351.
Amorites, 319, 326.
Andenes, headland in Lofoten, 98.
Angels, 261–263, 309, 338, 360.
Ant, Habits of the, 92.