Cross and Scepter (12 page)

Although the medieval Church was far from a Weberian bureaucracy, its introduction to Scandinavia marked a decisive step in the direction of bureaucratization. The Church, particularly the post-Gregorian Church, introduced the ideas of office and hierarchy. The ecclesiastical organization consisted of officers, from the local priest to the pope at top, who were supposed to act not on their own behalf but on behalf of the organization to which they belonged. Through common rules of behavior and of rights and duties, education, and from the eleventh century, celibacy, the Church tried and at least partly succeeded in introducing an
esprit de corps
among its servants. In its capacity as an organized hierarchy, the Church could insist on obedience from inferiors to superiors in a way that might serve as a model for secular organization as well. Even as late as the mid-thirteenth century, the Norwegian treatise
The King's Mirror
uses the ecclesiastical hierarchy as a model when teaching the king's men the importance of obedience: if the priest disobeys his bishop or the bishop his superior, they are removed from their offices. Comparing Saul's sin, which led to his deposition, to David's sin, for which he was punished but forgiven, the author states that the reason behind their different treatments was not that the act Saul had committed was in itself worse than David's sin. Saul had been ordered by God to kill all the captive Amalekites, whereas David had committed adultery with the wife of one of his officers and then killed the officer in order to cover up the sin. Like most of his readers, the author of the treatise might have found it difficult to deny that David's was actually the worse of the two acts, but he
insists that it was nonetheless outweighed by Saul's sin because Saul had disobeyed a direct order from God.

The twelfth century has often been viewed as the heroic age of the Scandinavian Churches, even by historians with little sympathy for the Catholic Church. It was the age of great, visionary churchmen with international connections and a program for fundamental reform of the Scandinavian kingdoms in accordance with the ideas of ecclesiastical liberty (
libertas ecclesiae
). Their program was the familiar one promoted by the contemporary papacy all over Europe. They wanted ecclesiastical control of the appointment of clerics and of ecclesiastical property; independent ecclesiastical jurisdiction, notably in judgments of clerics; and they wanted to secure the economy of the Church through the introduction of the tithe and by abolishing or reducing restrictions against donations to the Church that had been imposed in order to protect the interests of the donor's heirs.

Evidence from two great reforming archbishops of the twelfth century, Eystein in Norway (1161–88) and Eskil in Denmark (1137–77), both members of aristocratic families, gives some idea of the status of the Scandinavian churches at this time and of the attempts taken to bring their two church provinces into conformity with international standards. Eystein's efforts in this direction are most easily discernible in the collection usually referred to as the
Canones Nidrosienses,
which most scholars nowadays attribute to him. The collection, probably issued in 1163/64, shows the clear influence of Gratian's
Decretum,
which Eystein may have encountered already on his journey to Rome to receive the symbol of his dignity, the
pallium.
The collection shows a good grasp of its source and an ability to apply its regulations to Norwegian conditions. In Canon 1, Eystein applies the essence of Gratian's reasoning and his sources to his ordinance about the rights of the founders of churches (the
ius patronatus
). In the canons dealing with the most sensitive and controversial
issues of the day, ecclesiastical elections and celibacy, Eystein shows an awareness of the limits on what could be achieved under twelfth-century Norwegian conditions. Whereas the contemporary trend was to reserve episcopal elections for the cathedral chapters, Eystein describes an assembly made up of a broader range of clerics, suggesting that the cathedral chapters were probably still weak at the time. He does not exclude some lay influence, although he omits to mention the king. He points to the ideal of purity and sexual abstinence for clerics, but only forbids marriage for canons and for ordinary priests wishing to marry widows or divorced women. Thus, celibacy was not yet the rule in Norway, almost a century after Pope Gregory VII had forbidden priests to marry. As late as 1237, Pope Gregory IX expressed his surprise that Norwegian priests continued to be married and forbade the practice. In the following period, celibacy was introduced in the sense that priests did not contract formal marriages. They continued to live with women, however, as they probably did in most other countries as well. The difference was that it in Norway it was comparatively easier for them to have their children made legitimate and eligible to inherit than in the other countries.

A series of letters from Pope Alexander III (1159–81) to Eystein with answers to questions posed by him show his contacts with the curia and the international Church. In 1169, he asked about the criteria determining the legality of a marriage—a topic hotly discussed by contemporary canonists. He received an answer from Alexander III that settled this issue in canon law: consent was the decisive criterion and not sexual intercourse, which was the alternative point of view. Eystein also asked about concrete issues, such as the proper penance for a man who has committed homicide and the actions that should be taken against a cleric guilty of sexual intercourse with a nun.

The pope's answer to a question about royal influence on episcopal elections shows some pragmatism on the part of both
Eystein and Pope Alexander. The pope states the principle of free ecclesiastical elections, but does not forbid the archbishop to consult the king beforehand. Some questions of this kind may also have their origin in Eystein's work on ecclesiastical legislation and preparing liturgical books. Eystein was thus a conscientious prelate who wanted his church to conform to the international Church. From the point of view of the papacy, the distant north was also of some importance at the time, because of the schism. Eystein was a staunch supporter of Alexander III, whereas King Valdemar I of Denmark in periods belonged in the opposite camp. The foundation of a Norwegian Church province had clearly increased the pope's influence in the north, and Eystein's appointment as papal legate (
apostolice sedis legatus
) may be understood as an appreciation of this fact.

Eystein's greatest political success came in the form of privileges issued in connection with King Magnus Erlingsson's coronation in 1163 or 1164 (the first in Scandinavia): the Law of Succession (1163/64), the coronation oath (1163/64), and Magnus Erlingsson's privilege to the Church (c. 1170). All three documents express the ecclesiastical doctrine of kingship as instituted by God and emphasize the king's duty to rule justly and in accordance with ecclesiastical doctrine and the guidance given by the Church hierarchy, in addition to his responsibility to defend the rights and privileges of the Church. However, when Magnus was deposed and killed, his successor Sverre refused to recognize these privileges, which led to a major conflict between the monarchy and the Church. Both Eystein and his successor Eirik (1188–1205) had to go into exile for a period, but both eventually returned and agreed to some kind of compromise with the king; Eirik admittedly only after Sverre's death.

In Denmark, Archbishop Eskil displayed an attitude similar to Eystein's and, like Eystein, also ran into conflicts with the kings, including Valdemar I (1157–82), particularly when the latter—
under the influence of Frederick Barbarossa—recognized the anti-popes against Alexander III during the 1159–1177 schism. Eskil's relationship to Valdemar may, however, also have been influenced by the fact that he belonged to a kindred in Jutland with ties of loyalty in other directions. By contrast, his successors Absalon (1177–1201) and Anders Sunesen (1201–1222) from the Hvide kindred, whose links to Valdemar and his successors were strong, had an excellent relationship to the king, despite the fact that they belonged to the same highly educated and internationally oriented clerical elite as Eskil.

In hindsight, it is easy to see that the medieval Church was a competitor to the state. This is evident from the great increase in the state's wealth and power that followed on the Reformation, when the king took over most of the lands of the Church and its personnel became directly subordinate to him. In the twelfth century, however, the situation was different. Then the expansion of the Church meant an expansion of public authority that also benefited the monarchy, and although a large part of the lands belonging to the Church were gifts from the king, he would probably have had to give it to secular aristocrats if the Church had not existed. If we consider the conflict in the two countries in a broad perspective, the picture of a head-on clash between the monarchy and the Church is considerably modified. The support Erling and Magnus received from the Church was well worth their concessions, and the conflict in the following period can largely be explained as the result of the change of dynasty. An alliance had been concluded, not primarily between the Church and the monarchy, but between the Church and a particular faction. Eystein as well as his successor Eirik had family and personal links to this faction, which at least to some extent explain their support for Magnus and their sour relations with Sverre.

Thus, the difference between Eskil and Eystein on the one hand and Absalon on the other cannot be explained simply by
different attitudes towards ecclesiastical reform and the relationship between monarchy and Church, but must also be understood in the light of their family and political loyalties. This does not mean that the ecclesiastical loyalties of these prelates and their embrace of the Gregorian reform should not be taken seriously, but it must be kept in mind that they had to maneuver between sometimes conflicting loyalties. Contrary to Melchisedech, who having no father or mother was the ideal priest, medieval prelates did not burn the bridges that linked them to their families and social networks. Wealth, interests, a common culture, and common education linked the clerics to one another, but they still had divided loyalties, which means that the individual prelate's political and ideological choices have to be determined in each separate case, not taken for granted because of his position within the Church.

Despite the fact that the expansion of the Church was no unmixed blessing for the monarchy, it is difficult to imagine a similar bureaucratization of any function other than the religious under contemporary conditions. Thus, the Church contributed greatly to social change and to the formation of a society that was significantly more structured than that of the previous period. The rise of the ecclesiastical organization therefore forms an important part of the explanation for the stability of the three kingdoms. The fact that the borders of three Church provinces corresponded to the national borders (with one exception, namely that a part of Norway, Jämtland, which belonged to the Swedish church province) obviously favored stability. However, this coincidence of state and Church was an exception internationally, and the medieval Church played a similar part in other countries. It is often understood as primarily an international organization under the leadership of the pope, whose ability to interfere in the affairs of the national churches was no doubt impressive. Nevertheless, the Church also held to a doctrine of obedience to
secular authorities derived from the New Testament and transferred from the Roman emperor to national kings. The bishops depended on the king for internal peace and quiet and were normally interested in maintaining a good relationship to him. Many of them held
len
from the king or served as chancellors or members of his council. Other prelates had similar offices in the royal bureaucracy.

The aid the Church could offer a king with whom it had a good relationship can be illustrated by a passage in Archbishop Eystein's
Canones Nidrosienses.
The text notes that clerics are forbidden from taking part in war and exempted from the tax collected for this purpose, but then continues:

But we want the bishops, the abbots and the other clerics … to exhort the people … to fight bravely against excommunicates and disturbers of the peace, reminding them that if they die in the faith for the protection of the peace and the salvation of the fatherland, they shall win the kingdom of heaven.

This is the international crusading ideology transferred to domestic conflicts. We know, too, that the precept was followed; Eystein as well as other bishops preached against Sverre and his men, and Sverre in a speech after a victory parodied their propaganda, urging the audience to rejoice at all his fallen enemies who have now entered heaven. The Church had introduced an ideological element to struggles over power and resources, where loyalties had so far been based on personal connections. In the long run, the new faction that came to power with Sverre would exploit a similar ideology and eventually get the Church to support the ruling dynasty and admonish the people to obey the king as the Lord's Anointed. Both in Scandinavia and in other areas, there are many examples of bishops supporting the king in conflicts with the papacy.

An even stronger link between the monarchy and the Church was established in Denmark under Eskil's successor Absalon (archbishop 1177–1201). Absalon is the great hero in Saxo's chronicle, fighting together with King Valdemar against the pagans. He acts as a general, bringing his own troops into the battle, making tactical and strategic decisions, and even fighting in person and killing several enemies, despite the ban on clerics shedding blood. When Valdemar falters, Absalon urges him to stand firm. Thus, when Valdemar is reluctant to risk the lives of many brave men by engaging in battle, Absalon asks whether he would prefer to lead cowardly ones. Absalon also acts as a diplomat, as bishops often did, in negotiations with pagan enemies as well as with the German emperor. As a cleric in Absalon's service, Saxo no doubt exaggerates the virtues and importance of his master, but the relationship between Absalon and the king, first Valdemar and then his son Knud, nevertheless illustrates the value of the Church and its leaders for the development of the monarchy.