Cross and Scepter (22 page)

The extant sources mostly deal with men at court and have little to say about women. Clearly, however, the queen had her own entourage of ladies-in-waiting who were probably recruited from the aristocracy in the same way as their male counterparts. Despite its detailed account of life at court,
The King's Mirror
is surprisingly silent on the subject of women at court, the author confining himself to pointing out that courtesy includes the ability to talk to women of various age and status. There is somewhat more in the
Erikskrönikan
, which elaborates on how Duke Erik charmed his future mother-in-law. Most important, the romantic literature that flourished from the thirteenth century onwards is likely to have had some connection with the presence of women at court and their influence. From a social point of view, noble daughters at court may have had the same function as noble sons, to link their parents more closely to the king. How close such links might be, is open to speculation. In their accounts of the earlier period in Norway, the sagas frequently refer to the king's affairs with women of both high and low status, which served to link their families more closely to him. After legitimate birth became a prerequisite for succession to the throne, the importance of such relationships diminished, but they may well have continued. The sources have little to say about the matter. We know that King HÃ¥kon V of Norway had an illegitimate daughter, but not whether her mother belonged to the aristocracy. This daughter,
Agnes, was married to a prominent nobleman, whose status increased as a result of the marriage.

The queen herself is less prominent in the sources than her husband, but, formally, her status increased with the introduction of legitimate succession. From the thirteenth century on, she was usually crowned. Whatever the relationship between her and her husband, there can be no doubt at this period of her formal rank, whereas there had earlier been only a vague distinction between her and the other women in the king's life. Most Scandinavian queens who played an important political role were widows, the most prominent of whom was Queen Margrete, the founder of the Kalmar Union. As long as their husbands lived, queens normally acted behind the scenes, for good or for bad. As they were always foreigners, they were often blamed for their husbands' bad acts. For example, King Birger's wife Margareta was accused in the
Erikskrönikan
of urging her husband to murder his brothers and luring them to the fateful banquet in Nyköping by faking her longing for them. As in the rest of Europe, however, approaching the queen was also a means to obtain a favor from the king, as in the story from the
Sturlunga Saga
about how the Icelander Sturla Tordsson became reconciled with King Magnus. Sturla had been summoned to Norway by King Håkon, who accused him of working against his interests in Iceland. Sturla reached Norway in 1263, after king Håkon had left for Scotland, and got a cool reception from King Magnus. He was nevertheless allowed to travel on the king's ship, where he began to tell stories to the king's retainers. Eventually, Queen Ingeborg (recently married to King Magnus [pp. 236–38]) began to listen, received him in a friendly manner, served him wine, and finally reconciled him with her husband.

The recruitment of the king's servants from the aristocracy is a characteristic feature of Western courts in contrast to those of the Middle East, where most of the king's servants were slaves or
eunuchs and other people dependent on him. We can thus imagine a normal career for a noble in Scandinavia as starting with a period as page at court and a warrior in the king's entourage, after which he would fill some position in the local administration, its exact nature dependent on his rank and the king's impression of him. Having finished his permanent residence at court, such a man would probably make a regular appearance at royal Christmas parties and meet the king on various occasions during his travels around in the country.

Evidently, such lengthy familiarity with the king did not prevent nobles from opposing him, nor was it without some risk for the king. He could only to a limited extent “hide behind his office,” for although his position accorded him respect and deference, his frequent interaction with his subordinates made it difficult for him to hide any personal weaknesses. A heroic or charismatic king could win much support under this system, but one who was clumsy, stupid, or cowardly ran a considerable risk. The kings' sagas give ample evidence of this, celebrating the wit, charm, eloquence, and heroism of great kings, while hinting at myriad flaws in their less successful counterparts. The king had to develop a good relationship with his subordinates, settle conflicts between them, and strike just the right balance between generosity and friendliness on the one hand, and strictness and authority on the other. No small amount of diplomatic skill was called for. In 1256, the Icelanders Tord Kakali, Snorre's nephew, and Gissur Torvaldson, who were bitter enemies, stayed at HÃ¥kon's court. Tord urged the king to send Gissur away, declaring that it was likely that conflicts would arise if they both were in the same city. The king answered, “How can you expect me to send away my friend Gissur based on what you have said; would you rather not be in Heaven if Gissur was there?” “I would gladly be there, my Lord!” replied Tord, “but we would have to be far apart.”

The personal links established between the king and members of the aristocracy at court may to some extent modify the image
we have of aristocratic dominance and opposition to the king. Nevertheless, these ties did not eliminate conflicts, of which there were several in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.

The Division of Power: Monarchy, Aristocracy, and the Church

Conflicts between the monarchy on the one hand and the Church and aristocracy on the other have played a prominent part in Scandinavian historiography. The most obvious rival of the monarchy was the Church, which in the Middle Ages largely resembled a state, for its hierarchical organization and its involvement in jurisdiction, legislation, and taxation resembled the king's administration.

Whereas at least some scholars have depicted prelates like Eskil and Eystein as charismatic figures promoting high ideals, their successors in the late thirteenth century have met with less approval. By now the Church had become a wealthy and influential institution, and its struggles seem to have had more to do with financial privileges and legal detail than with fundamental issues of
libertas ecclesiae.
An example of this is the jurisdictional conflict that broke out in Norway in the 1270s. A series of negotiations led to an agreement in 1277 in which the king went far in the direction of recognizing ecclesiastical jurisdiction in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical law, although with some reservations in reference to royal rights. After King Magnus' death three years later, the regency for his son refused to recognize some of his privileges, notably real or alleged tax privileges, and tried to restrict ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The conflict took several dramatic turns. The archbishop excommunicated the regents, whereupon they outlawed the archbishop and the clerics, who refused to obey their decrees. The archbishop and two of the bishops went into exile; the regents took over the archbishop's palace and one
of them slept with his wife in the archbishop's bed. When one of the regents died excommunicate, the others broke into the tower of the cathedral in Bergen to sound the bells at his funeral.

The conflict grew into a major confrontation between the two powers, in which the regents used their legal learning to argue for the king's sovereign power. They used the reservation clause in the settlement of 1277 (“with the king's rights reserved in all cases where fines should be paid according to established custom and the law of the country”) to claim that the jurisdictional rights granted to the Church were concessions from the sovereign king and remained subject to his interpretation. The background and reason for the conflict are unclear because the lack of sources from the previous period makes it difficult to know how many of the concessions granted by the monarchy in 1277 were actually new. Nevertheless, we can at least see that there were significant differences from previous conflicts between the Church and the monarchy. First, this was strictly a conflict between two organizations; there was no doubt that Magnus and his sons were the lawful rulers of Norway. Second, the expansion of both in the previous period had made the rivalry into something like a zero-sum game: there was little room for one organization to expand without harming the other. This is particularly evident in the case of conflicts over jurisdiction, for both organizations received a large part of their revenues and authority from fines and the settlement of conflicts, so that a gain for one party would immediately translate into a loss for the other. The same principle applies to disputes over taxation, for the Church was now demanding exemption from taxation for all its tenants, not only for the estates run by the ecclesiastical institutions themselves, as had been the case previously.

The conflict ended in 1290 in a relatively vague compromise that largely favored the monarchy. The Church lost several of the privileges it had gained in 1277, and its demand for extended
tax exemption was rejected, whereas the question of jurisdiction remained unsolved. Nor were the royal counselors punished for their attacks on the clergy. Competition between royal and ecclesiastical courts of law continued, with the king and the Church unable to reach an agreement about a new Christian law. In their day-to-day dealings, however, the two organizations managed to cooperate reasonably well. There were no serious conflicts in the following period.

Tension between the monarchy and the Church was most prolonged and dramatic in Denmark, where the archbishops Jacob Erlandsen (1252–1274), Jens Grand (1289–1302) and Esger Juul (1310–1325) all came into conflict with the king. Danish historians have held widely different opinions on how to weight the impact of legal and ideological issues versus political interests in these struggles. Jurisdictional and legal arguments played an important role, and the legal positions of both parties can be examined in the detailed petitions that they brought before the papal court. Nor was the question of jurisdiction confined to a dispute over the respective competences of the two powers. The conflict between the king and Archbishop Jacob Erlandsen started as a disagreement between the archbishop and the inhabitants of his diocese, in which the archbishop demanded new legal procedures and more severe punishments for violence, murder, and homicide, whereas the people resisted any change in the law, demanding a return to the old law of the late twelfth century. There was also a conflict over appointments to clerical offices, as in Norway. The most important difference, however, was the feudal aspect of the conflict, which concerned the position of the archbishop as one of the king's main vassals with extensive secular power within his diocese, above all in connection with the
leding.
The king complained that the archbishop did not perform his duties in this regard, while the archbishop demanded greater independence than the king was willing to allow him. To complicate matters,
the struggle between the two tended to merge with the other conflicts at the time, whereas in Norway, the secular aristocracy was the main enemy of the Church, as is well illustrated by the aggressive policy of the regency government.

The connection to other conflicts was particularly strong under Jens Grand, who was related to some of the magnates convicted of the murder of Erik Klipping. The conflict between the archbishop and the king was brought before the pope, who, after a long process (the acts of which have been preserved), decided in favor of the king and moved Jens Grand to Riga in 1302. According to the acts, Jens refused to believe that those accused of King Erik's murder were guilty. He is also alleged to have said that it was a pity that Erik was not murdered earlier, as that would have prevented him from having offspring, and further that he would rather have the devil himself than the present Erik on the throne. Admittedly, the archbishop's lawyer denied that Jens had said this, but he did not present any information to the effect that Jens was of a different opinion. It would therefore seem that there was a close connection between this conflict pitting the king against the archbishop and the struggles following on the murder of Erik Klipping. The series of conflicts resulted in a victory for the king, which turned out to be final; after Esger Juul, no archbishop again challenged a king. One reason for this was that the Church was never united behind the archbishop; usually, the majority of the bishops supported the king. Rather than opposing the king as representatives of the universal Church, late-medieval bishops became part of the aristocracy and individually participated in the various alliances and confederations for or against the king.

The Swedish Church had received tax privileges and independent jurisdiction in the early thirteenth century, but there is little indication that these privileges were respected in the following period. The real breakthrough came in 1276, after King Magnus Birgersson (1275–1290) had received aid from the Church to
replace his brother on the throne. The Church was now exempted from all taxes on the property that it possessed at the time and had as well the right to receive legal fines from its tenants. However, the regency for Magnus' son Birger, led by the magnate Tyrgils Knutsson, reversed this policy, thus sparking conflict between the two powers. The conflict ended in 1305, when King Birger had reached majority and his relationship to his brothers had deteriorated. King Birger seems, at least initially, to have returned to his father's policy, whereas his brothers continued that of Tyrgils Knutsson, but the lines of division are not consistent, nor was the Church united during the struggles. Whereas the archbishop supported the king, the bishops of Linköping and Skara—the two richest sees in the country—were on the side of the dukes. After 1319, the Church seems to have improved its position, both during the regency and after King Magnus reached majority. Thus, we find the same tendency as in Norway towards rivalry between the Church and the lay aristocracy, while the king might use the Church to counterbalance the latter, which was stronger in Sweden than in Norway. The relative wealth and power of the two churches is more difficult to assess. Ecclesiastical organization was slow to develop in Sweden but had reached an advanced stage around 1300, and the Swedish Church played an important political role during the later Middle Ages.