Cross and Scepter (40 page)

Scandinavian State Formation 900–1537: Break and Continuity

A
CCORDING TO SOME SCHOLARS
, notably Charles Tilly, the European state was formed during the Early Modern Period rather than the Middle Ages, not only in the sense that the change from personal to impersonal rule took place in this period, but also because it was then that the territorial divisions themselves were formed. It was therefore still an open question around 1500 whether Europe would be divided into national states or petty principalities or would become one great empire. The preceding examination of the Scandinavian kingdoms has not confirmed this hypothesis. Although the three kingdoms were apparently the products of a series of struggles between individual warlords from the ninth to the mid-eleventh century, the units formed by the end of this period show remarkable stability over the course of the following centuries, and this despite a series of internal and external conflicts. Petty principalities formed within one kingdom as the result of dynastic divisions (or through other causes) did not develop into independent kingdoms, but either returned to their original units or remained in some kind of feudal subordination. Land conquered by one kingdom from another was returned to the original possessor relatively quickly.
Scania remained under the king of Sweden for thirty years in the fourteenth century (1332–1361) and the border regions for around half of this time in the sixteenth century. Only Gotland, conquered by Denmark in 1361, was transferred from one kingdom to another. However, Gotland was only nominally under Swedish suzerainty even before its conquest. It was contested during the struggles over the union in the fifteenth and early sixteenth century and recognized as Danish as part of the settlement between Gustaf Vasa and Christian III. It was ceded to Sweden in 1645, as a result of the major changes in the Scandinavian borders consequent to Sweden's rise to the status of a great power.

This stability is also evidence of internal consolidation, of the formation of political entities held together by something more than a ruler's personal charisma or the decision by a certain number of people to keep together as long as it serves their interests. The dynastic unions from 1319 onwards are a test of the achievements in the previous period. They had their origin in the ambitions of the kings, together with marriage patterns and rules of succession introduced during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, which increased the likelihood that the same person would succeed to the throne in more than one country. The union of the three countries in 1397 might seem to have opened the possibility of obliterating the eleventh-century borders and creating a Nordic super-state. That possibility might, in fact, have been entertained by the king and the circle around him, but there is little evidence that it was ever a realistic alternative. As expressed in its contemporary name, “the three kingdoms,” the union consisted of three realms governed by one king. Moreover, the unions accelerated the movement towards an impersonal government by making an institution, the council of the realm, the bearer of its sovereignty and responsible for appointing its king. When Sweden ceded from the union in the 1520s, the old borders between this country and the two others were quickly reestablished
after a short period of Swedish occupation of Danish and Norwegian territory. By contrast, the extinction of Norway as an independent country was a drastic change from the Middle Ages. However, Norway was never eliminated as a separate entity. Nor was it conquered in the real sense; the king of Denmark could claim a legitimate right as the successor of the ancient line of Norwegian kings. Finally, the Danish takeover in 1536–37 would hardly have assumed such a drastic shape if it had not been for the Reformation, which eliminated the strongest segment of the Norwegian political elite in order to introduce religious reform. Characteristically, the period of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation also saw the most drastic changes that would occur in the relationship between the European states before the French revolution. The state system that had developed during the Middle Ages was not resistant to any change, but quite substantial forces were needed to shake it.

LITERATURE

The Historiography of the Scandinavian Countries

There is a continuous tradition of historical writing from the Middle Ages to the present day in all three of the Scandinavian kingdoms, as well as in Iceland, though admittedly it began later (not until the early fourteenth century) in Sweden than in the other countries. The works dating from the Middle Ages have already been discussed. Those of the Early Modern Period are of interest as evidence of learning and for an understanding of how “history” was viewed at the time, and also because they contain a number of documents from the Middle Ages whose originals have been lost. However, the beginning of modern scholarly historical writing is usually dated to the early nineteenth century, in Scandinavia as in the rest of Europe. The professionalization of history, which started in Germany, quickly spread to Scandinavia. Throughout Europe, this professionalization was related to a national revival that typically placed great emphasis on a nation's medieval past.

In all three Scandinavian kingdoms, this resulted in more university positions devoted to history, particularly national history; in the publication of scholarly editions of the sources; the inauguration of professional historical journals; and the appearance of a considerable volume of books and articles on national history based on the study of original sources. Throughout the nineteenth century, there was some tension between the use of history for national purposes and objective history, based on close examination of the sources. Erik Gustaf Geijer (1783–1847) in Sweden
and J. E. Sars (1835–1917) in Norway are examples of the former, while the Danish historian Kristian Erslev (1852–1930) represents the latter. As in the rest of Europe, this latter approach gained ground towards the end of the century, which in Scandinavia led to important changes in the attitude of historians to the narrative sources.

Throughout the nineteenth century, extensive work was carried out to ensure that all available sources were used when confronting historical problems, in particular the oldest sources. Nevertheless, there were widely differing opinions on how to deal with these sources, notably with the narrative ones. The main sources for the early histories of Denmark and Norway were Latin chronicles, the most important of which was Saxo Grammaticus's
Gesta Danorum
and the Old Norse sagas, which date largely from the late twelfth or thirteenth centuries. In the mid-nineteenth century, these sources were regarded as derived from an oral tradition going back to the events themselves and thus as largely reliable. Consequently, the Norwegian historian P. A. Munch could write several large volumes on the earliest history of the Norwegian kingdom and even discuss in detail the political conditions of the country before the reign of Harald Finehair (c. 900), according to the sagas the first ruler of the whole of Norway. In the following period, a more critical attitude to the sagas gradually gained ground.

Then, in 1911, the Swedish historian Lauritz Weibull published his
Kritiska undersökningar i Nordens historia omkring år 1000
(Critical Examinations of Nordic History around the Year 1000), in which he rejected most of the information in the sagas about this period. The book was regarded as revolutionary and gave rise to a heated debate and much opposition. Theoretically, the novelty of Weibull's approach was his demand for absolute certainty, while his predecessors had been content with probability. However, this hardly explains the importance of his contribution;
few historians will claim certainty for their results. Weibull's main importance therefore lies on the empirical level. His method as such was not new; it can be found in earlier European scholarship, as well as in handbooks of historical method, but up to now it had not been applied to the sagas, either because of their deceptively realistic appearance or because of continued belief in the reliability of the oral tradition.

By systematically examining the literary tradition that formed the basis of the later sagas, notably Snorri's
Heimskringla,
Weibull could show that what in many cases had been believed to be independent oral evidence was actually a transformation of earlier extant written statements. Thus, by examining the sources for the Battle of Svolder, he showed how new elements were gradually added to the original narrative, which in the end gave it an entirely different context and placed its site off Rügen, instead of Øresund, its location in the earlier sources. Later, his younger brother Curt Weibull did the same for Saxo's account of St. Knud of Denmark, showing that Saxo's changes and additions to the previous sources were not based on new evidence, but on a transformation of the previous sources to better fit a new purpose.

The Weibull revolution also had consequences for the link between historiography and the nation. The ideal of absolute certainty and objectivity was, not infrequently, at odds with the role of history in the nation building. Besides, without being political radicals, the Weibulls were not in sympathy with the conservative trend and the cult of the state in Swedish historiography. Their methods were developed further by Curt Weibull's pupil Erik Lönnroth in his rejection of the national interpretation of the Kalmar Union (
Chapter 5
above). Discontent with national interpretations was also expressed in Erik Arup's
History of Denmark
(1925), in which the kings were mostly regarded as insignificant, whereas the important figures in history were the common people, the aristocracy, and the Church.

Norway differed somewhat from its neighbors during the first half of the twentieth century. Although influenced by the Weibulls, Norwegian historians were generally less critical of their narrative sources. They were also politically more radical; the most influential of them were even Marxists. Nevertheless, with one exception, Edvard Bull (1881–1932), they had fewer reservations about nationalism. This applied particularly to Halvdan Koht (1873–1965), a leading Social Democrat, who attempted a synthesis between Marxism and a national interpretation, in many ways continuing in the tradition of Sars. In practice, the Marxist historians paid more attention to social and economic history. In particular, Andreas Holmsen (1906–1989) did ground-breaking work in the areas of settlement, landownership, and demography. He was also one of the founders of the great Nordic project that studied deserted farms (1964–1981).

The period of Norwegian historiography from the end of the Second World War to around 1970 has often been labeled “critical empiricism,” which meant a continuation of trends from the previous period in Denmark and Sweden, to which Norwegian historians had adapted. An important step in this direction was Jens Arup Seip's (1905–1992) article of 1940, which considerably modified the Marxist interpretation. Seip remained true to the basic idea that material conditions and interests explain political conflicts, but he now attributed greater importance to individuals and short-term trends and showed greater interest in institutions, political history, and the history of ideas. In harmony with then-current trends, Seip also underlined the importance of studying local conditions and attributed little importance to influence from abroad.

Finally, the 1970s and the following period brought a Marxist revival as well as—partly combined with the revival and partly in reaction to it—increased emphasis on the influence from international trends such as the history of mentality and social anthropology.
This led to greater interest in the early Middle Ages and its historiography, particularly the sagas. This latter trend can to some extent be regarded as a continuation of the Weibull revolution, leading to the use of the sagas as evidence, not for the period with which they dealt but for their authors' understanding of their own society. However, an important aspect was also the attempt to use the sagas as sources for the history of mentality, norms, and social structure in the early period, based on comparison with stateless societies in other parts of the world, as studied by social anthropologists. This also led to a similar reaction against the focus on state formation, which also made itself felt in the rest of Europe. As the present book belongs to this period, however, and is at least partly influenced by these trends, I shall venture no further here, but instead refer the reader to the preceding chapters.