Cross and Scepter (21 page)

Despite these trends in a bureaucratic direction, local administration seems to remain closer to the feudal than the bureaucratic model. This applies particularly in Denmark and parts of Sweden, where landowners exercised considerable legal and political control over their tenants, whereas in Norway the entire population was in principle directly subordinated to the king, and landownership was a purely economic relationship. On the other hand, the term
len
used of the districts governed by royal castellans may suggest inaccurate associations. This term is derived from
Lehen
, the German term for “fief.” However, there was a clear distinction between these
len
and the allodial lands owned by the incumbent of the office. The former was an office to which he was appointed for a limited period, whereas the latter was his private property, which his descendants would inherit. The exception to this were
len
granted to members of the dynasty, in practice the king's younger brothers, the most important of which was Southern Jutland, originally granted to Valdemar II's son Abel and held by his descendants until the line became extinct in the late fourteenth century. Another possible exception is the control of the local courts by members of the aristocracy. Admittedly, the lord did not become the judge of the peasants, but as their patron, he had considerable control over them, and he most probably also controlled the local court.

More generally, several aspects of the centralization of society discussed above would seem to have benefited the Church and the aristocracy rather than the king. The existence of castles favored defenders over attackers, which enabled a disloyal castellan to resist the king with some hope of success. Even though castles were an effective means to exploit the population, the profit might not go to the king, but rather to the castellan. The greater gross surplus that resulted from the military transformation was thus not invested only in military efficiency or other services to the king, but also in conspicuous consumption and a higher standard of living for the aristocracy. The king's ability to counterbalance the aristocracy was also limited. In contrast to some other countries—parts of Germany and the Low Countries, for example, and to some extent France and London in England—there was no wealthy town population that might serve the king for this purpose. At least in Norway and Sweden, the king might to some extent use the peasants, but they were too weak to confront a united aristocracy.

Thus, the new military technology might actually weaken the central government and lead to the country's falling apart into smaller principalities, as happened in Germany in the thirteenth century. In the later Middle Ages, Denmark and Sweden and to a lesser extent Norway were mostly ruled by castellans whose districts resembled miniature kingdoms. Above them was the king, the royal court, and the royal chancery and administration, which might issue laws and ordinances for the whole country, serve as an instance of appeal in conflicts between the castellans and possibly their subordinates, and govern the country's relationship to other kingdoms.

In modern Western democracies there is a sharp distinction between bureaucracy and political leadership, such as did not exist in the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, there were some tendencies in this direction. Moore's professional bureaucrats, who were solely
dependent on the king, also made important decisions, but they were not alone in this; the king also had to consult with the “people,” which increasingly came to mean the prelates and the nobles. In the early period, meetings between the king and the people took place at local assemblies, representing smaller or larger parts of the country. Central assemblies for the whole country became more common in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Such gatherings happened at irregular intervals in Norway in the period between 1163 and 1302 and were attended by representatives of the common people as well as the aristocracy, although decisions were in practice mostly taken by the latter. The Danish equivalent to this was the
Danehof
(Danish court), consisting of members of the higher and lower aristocracies. Often, some commoners were also present, but mainly for acclamation. In the 1270s and 80s, this body several times opposed the king and forced him to make various concessions.

At the same time, the king surrounded himself with an informal group of counselors, which eventually developed into the royal council. Until the early fourteenth century, it was mostly an advisory board for the king, and its members were recruited by him. Periods of regencies contributed to this—the regencies for Erik Klipping (1260s) and Erik Menved (1286–1294) in Denmark, for Eirik Magnusson in Norway in the 1280s, for Birger Magnusson in Sweden (1290–1302), and for Magnus Eriksson in Norway and Sweden in the 1320s. In Denmark, the council of the realm gradually grew in importance during the fourteenth century. A formal appointment to the council, accompanied by an oath, is mentioned for the first time in Christoffer II's election charter of 1320. Parallel to this new feature, the character of the council also changed, from a body consisting of the king's trusted friends to one made up of representatives of the aristocracy. The same thing happened in Sweden and, to a lesser extent, in Norway. An important reason for this development is the fact that
monarchy became elective in Denmark and Sweden from the early fourteenth century, and a hundred years later in Norway, and that the council in practice became the elective body. The Swedish Code of the Realm of 1350 decrees that the king should have a council consisting of twelve members of the lay aristocracy plus the archbishop, some of the bishops, and other clerics, but this does not seem to have become a permanent feature. A council of the realm is frequently mentioned in the sources of the following period in all three countries, but it is not clearly distinct from wider aristocratic assemblies.

We are thus dealing with an institutionalization of the aristocracy, the beginnings of which we have traced in the previous pages, but which developed further during the later Middle Ages. Whereas the state in the previous period had largely been identical with the king, and institutional conflicts had been between the king and the Church, the following period saw the increasing institutionalization of collective bodies representing the “people” versus the king, notably the council of the realm, dominated by the aristocracy and the bishops. However, the full development of the council of the realm did not take place until the fifteenth century and will be dealt with later (pp. 272–75).

The emergence of central institutions dominated by the aristocracy also led to a formal division of power between the king and these institutions, parallel to what happened in most countries in the rest of Europe. In Denmark, King Erik V Klipping had to issue the first
håndfæstning
(originally: “written obligation”) in Scandinavian history, in which he promised to respect the rights of the “people,” in practice meaning the aristocracy, on specific points. In the following period, until the king's murder in 1286, the
Danehof
was summoned several times and some of the leading aristocrats served as the king's counselors. The
håndfæstning
(hereafter referred to as the “election charter”) eventually became a permanent feature in Denmark and was issued at
the king's election as a condition for his being accepted as a ruler. This happened for the first time at the election of Christoffer II in 1320. Formal election charters were not introduced in Sweden until 1371, but a parallel development took place there as well. A similar charter was issued in connection with the deposition of King Birger and the election of Magnus Eriksson in 1319. Both kingdoms thus kept step with the main trends in contemporary Europe and were probably influenced by constitutional ideas derived from the renewed influence of Aristotle's political works in the second half of the thirteenth century. These influences were probably also present in Norway, although the official ideology there was more monarchical, in keeping with the fact that the Norwegian monarchy was hereditary, not elective. The first Norwegian election charter dates from 1449.

The general impression that emerges from these considerations is that of a decentralized society headed by a weak king. The previous sketch of the social and economic conditions would seem to suggest that the real beneficiaries of the development of royal power were the lay and clerical aristocracies and that the local administrations, particularly in Denmark and Sweden but also to some extent in Norway, consisted of smaller principalities under relatively limited central control. Nor is there any doubt that royal power in the Scandinavian kingdoms was weaker than it became in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. However, it is also easy to exaggerate its weakness. The gradual solution of the problem of royal succession, the end of regicide, the growth of royal legislation and jurisdiction, and the exalted picture of divine kingship in
The King's Mirror
and other sources may indicate a stronger monarchy than the king's indirect way of ruling and attempts to calculate his resources might suggest. Not least, we have so far discussed the position and role of the king only by looking for equivalents to modern government, the bureaucratic, and the political sphere.

The Court

However, a third sphere is equally or perhaps even more important, namely the court, which to some extent overlaps with the two others. There is of course also a social and ceremonial sphere in modern politics, which is too often overlooked, but whose importance is nevertheless inferior to its medieval equivalent. In
The King's Mirror
, which is our most detailed source for Scandinavian kingship and courtly culture in the thirteenth century, the Son asks the Father whether the king is allowed to entertain himself by hunting. The Father answers that he may do this to relax and to get physical exercise, but not at the cost of more serious duties, which according to the author are sitting in judgment over his subjects and prayer and meditation. We know very little about the daily life of Scandinavian kings in the Middle Ages, whether they were serious, hard-working bureaucrats and politicians or bon-vivants who spent their time hunting, drinking, feasting, and womanizing. Most probably, there was considerable individual variation. The important point, however, is that it is difficult to draw a line between proper royal duties and relaxation and entertainment. The picture of the drinking, hunting, and womanizing king who had no serious business to conduct reflects a modern view of such activities, including the modern distinction between working hours and leisure hours. Hunting and festivities—particularly the prolonged celebration of Christmas in mid-winter—were important means whereby the king could establish a good relationship with the aristocracy, deflate internal conflicts, and create loyalty to himself. The drinking-table and the hunting party were as important to the king's relationship with the aristocracy as formal meetings in the council. Courtly ceremonial seems to have been relatively simple at the time, far more so than in contemporary oriental cultures or in the royal courts of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The
King's Mirror
insists on the obedience retainers owe to the king, but its practical rules of conduct are limited to the need to be polite and well dressed and to respect the normal rules of courtesy. The latter include not standing in the way of those who serve the king food when he is at the table and keeping a sufficient distance from the king when riding with him, so as not to splash mud on him or his horse. Both
The King's Mirror
and other sources indicate that close connections existed between the king and his men and that the court was a meeting-place for the social and political elite. Most importantly, the court was a place of education, comparable to the universities and elite colleges that educate civil servants in our society.

In most of Europe it seems to have been normal practice in the upper circles for nobles to send their sons (and to some extent also their daughters) to their lord's court for fostering, partly for education and to promote their future careers, partly to serve as hostages of a kind. In Scandinavia, fostering seems to have worked in the opposite direction, with those of lower rank fostering the children of their superiors, as in the story of King Harald Finehair sending his son to King Athalstan of England for fostering in order to demonstrate his superiority. Although the story is most probably invented, there is evidence of the custom from other sources. It seems, for instance, that a king's illegitimate children were fostered by his friends or clients. We do not know whether this changed later as a result of European influence. In any case,
The King's Mirror
does not mention fostering at the king's court, but pays great attention to how a young man should dress and behave if he is to be admitted to the king's service. Other sources, from Norway as well as the other countries, refer to the many pages of noble birth who started their careers as the king's servants at court. King HÃ¥kon V of Norway asks his officials to look for promising young men of good family who might join the king's body of retainers as pages, called
kjertisveinar
(candlebearers).
There is a chapter devoted to them in the
Hird Law
, which describes their duties and the ceremonies attendant to their appointment. Pages of aristocratic origin are also mentioned in Danish and Swedish sources, performing a variety of duties at court. In 1541, the Danish nobleman Tyge Krabbe described his service as a page at the court of King Hans (1481–1513) from the age of twelve, when he minded the king's dogs (“having with them many a devil's day in moss and scrubs”) and carried the king's shield and sword during tournaments.