The Swedish Revolution Under Gustavus Vasa

by Paul Barron Watson

Nature of the Period.—Translation of the Bible.—Quarrel between the King and Brask.—Opposition to the Monasteries.—High-handed Measures of the King.—Second Disputation between Petri and Galle.—Opposition to Luther's Teaching.—Banishment of Magni.—Further Opposition to the Monasteries.—Revolt of the Dalesmen.—Diet of Vesterås.—"Vesterås Recess."—"Vesterås Ordinantia."—Fall of Brask; his Flight; his Character.

IN most instances the stirring periods of a nation's history are not the periods in which the nation grows. Warfare, even though it end in victory, must be accompanied by loss, and the very achievements that arouse our ardor bring with them evils that long years of prosperity cannot efface. Take, as a single example, the dazzling victories of Charles XII. He was, beyond all doubt, the most successful general that Sweden ever had. One after another the provinces around the Baltic yielded to his sway, and at one time the Swedish frontiers had been extended into regions of which no man before his age had dreamt. Yet with what result? Sweden was impoverished, commerce was at a standstill, education had been neglected, and the dominions for which his people had poured out their blood during many years were lost almost in a single day. His career shows, if it shows anything, that prosperity is incompatible with war. No man can serve two masters. So long as nations are in active and continued warfare, they cannot enjoy the blessings or even the comforts that belong to them in time of peace.

A like argument may be drawn from the reign of Gustavus Vasa. The early years of the Swedish Revolution were marked by bloodshed. The country was in a state of famine, superstition was universal, literature was almost without a champion, and art was practically dead. Not till the warfare ceased did people turn their thoughts to matters of education, of religion, or of other things that lend a charm to life; and even then the country was hampered during a considerable period by poverty,—an outcome of the war. It is in this last period of the Revolution—a period of peace—that the chief work of Gustavus Vasa was accomplished. Then occurred the great changes in Church government and doctrine that made Lutherans out of Roman Catholics, and in place of accountability to the pope made every soul accountable to God. In the first few years of his supremacy the monarch's opposition to popery was based almost entirely on politics, but by the middle of 1525 he began openly to oppose the Romish Church on grounds of faith.

The heaviest blow to popery was the order issued by the king in 1525 that the Scriptures be translated into Swedish. This all-important measure resulted doubtless from the general dissension that had arisen about the Word of God. If, as Luther urged, the Scriptures were our sole criterion of faith, it was obviously proper that they should be published in a form which every one could understand. Luther had already three years before translated the Bible into German, but in Swedish the only effort at a translation was in a manuscript of several centuries before, which even Brask knew only by report. Gustavus, therefore, toward the middle of 1525, instructed Archbishop Magni to have a new translation made. His purpose, he affirmed, was not merely to instruct the people but to instruct the priests, for many of them were themselves incompetent to read the Latin version. As shepherds their duty was to feed Christ's flock with the Word of God; and if they failed to do so, they were unworthy of their name. This reasoning the archbishop was unable to refute. He was himself disgusted with the ignorance of his clergy, and promised Gustavus that the translation should be made. Not wishing, however, to undertake too much, he devoted his attention wholly to the New Testament, dividing it into several parts and assigning the translation of different parts to different men. Matthew and the Epistle to the Romans he took himself. Mark and the Epistles to the Corinthians were assigned to Brask, while Luke and the Epistle to the Galatians were given to the Chapter of Skara, and John and the Epistle to the Ephesians to the Chapter of Strengnäs. The announcement of this choice was made to Brask on the 11th of June, and he was asked to forward his translation to Upsala by September 10, when a congress of the translators should be held to arrange the various portions into one harmonious whole. This project was not received with favor by the crafty bishop. He felt it to be the knell of popery, and in writing to Peder Galle he inveighed against it. "We marvel much," he wrote, "that the archbishop should enter this labyrinth without consulting the prelates and chapters of the Church. Every one knows that translations into the vernacular have already given rise to frequent heresy.... It is said the Bible is capable of four different interpretations. Therefore it would imperil many souls were a mere literal translation made. Moreover, laymen cannot read the Bible even if it be translated, and the clergy can understand it quite as well in Latin as in Swedish. We fear that if this translation be published while the Lutheran heresy is raging, the heresy will become more pestilent, and, new error springing up, the Church will be accused of fostering it." This letter was dated on the 9th of August. Clearly Brask's share of the translation would not be ready by September 10. The fact was, Brask had no notion of furthering the scheme. At every opportunity he raised his voice against it, and the weight of his influence was such that finally the whole project was given up. The Lutherans, however, were not disheartened. Finding that nothing could be effected through the Church, they proceeded to make a translation of their own. This was published, though without the translators' names, in 1526. It did not, of course, receive the sanction of the archbishop, but it paved the way for new reforms by checking the Roman Catholics in their scholastic doctrine and by educating the common people in the Word of God.[135]

Brask was now openly beneath the monarch's frown. The rupture between them was becoming every day more wide, and both parties gradually grew conscious it could not be healed. Brask had never forgiven the king for sanctioning the marriage of Olaus Petri. Some six months after the event he alluded to it in a letter to Peder Galle. "I am much troubled," he declared, "that marriage is permitted to the clergy, and that no one cries out against it. I have urged the king that Petri be excommunicated for his act, that evil example may not spread, but have had only a half-hearted answer from his Majesty." While this wrong still rankled in the prelate's breast, his ire was further kindled by the monarch's evident intention to rob the Church of several of her chief estates. As an entering wedge Gustavus had pastured his soldiers' horses on the rich but fallow lands belonging to the monasteries, and in some cases the officers had been billeted in the monasteries themselves. Against this practice Brask protested, and received this soothing answer: "When you say that this mode of billeting cripples the service of God, you are right, provided his service consists in feeding a body of hypocrites sunk, many of them, in licentiousness, rather than in providing protection for the common people. As to your assertion that the monasteries were not founded by the crown, and hence are not subject to our dominion, we will look into the matter, though our humble opinion is that the monasteries were originally bound to pay taxes to the crown." The argument which the monarch strove to make was this: Those monasteries which were founded by individuals comprised estates held by the donors in consideration of military service to be rendered to the crown; and so soon as the military service ended, the tenure by which the lands were held no longer existed, and the crown once more became entitled to the lands. It is difficult to feel that the monarch's view was right. In countries where there is no written law, all controversies must be determined by the law of custom, and it is certain that for centuries Swedish subjects had been allowed to dedicate for religious purposes the property which they held by military tenure of the crown. With Gustavus it appears that custom was of little moment. The monasteries were wealthy, and could be encroached upon without directly injuring the people. He resolved, therefore, as soon as possible to confiscate their property, using a plausible argument if one was ready; otherwise, to close their doors by force.[136]

In May, 1525, the king found pretext for interfering with the Dominican monks of Vesterås. That order numbered among its brothers a very large proportion of Norwegians; and one of them had assumed the generalship of the order in Sweden, contrary to the mandates of the king. This seemed an opportunity to play the patriot and at the same time secure a footing in the monastery. So Gustavus wrote to the Swedish vicar-general and declared: "We understand that the conspiracy in Dalarne and other places is largely due to this man and several of the Norwegian brothers. We have therefore appointed our subject Nils Andreæ to be prior of Vesterås, trusting that he will prove a friend to Sweden, by expelling the foreigners and preventing all such conspiracies in future. We beg you also ... to punish all offenders among your brotherhood, that we be not forced to punish them ourselves."[137]

Later in the same year Gustavus asserted his claim with even more distinctness to the monastery of Gripsholm. That monastery, it will be remembered, was on the estate at one time belonging to the monarch's father. It therefore was a special object of his greed. At a meeting of the Cabinet he laid his case before them, and offered to abide by their decree. There was, of course, no question what their decree would be. The monastery was adjudged the property of the king, and all the inmates were instructed to withdraw. This judgment naturally caused an outcry in certain quarters. So Gustavus addressed the monks of Gripsholm with unctious promises, and under the mask of friendship obtained from them a written statement that they were satisfied of the justice of his claim. This document, a copy of which was filed among the royal papers, bears singular testimony to the meanness of the king. "Our title to Gripsholm Monastery," the wretched victims wrote, "has been disputed, and, the matter being laid before the Cabinet, they have determined that Gustavus, as heir of the founder, is entitled to the premises. He has offered us another monastery in place of this, but we feared lest that too might some day prove to be the property of other heirs, and have requested permission to disband and retire each of us according to his own caprice. It has now been agreed that Gustavus shall provide us with the money and clothing which we need, and in return that he shall be entitled to the monastery together with all the property that we have acquired." At the close of this affecting document the writers expressed their gratitude to the monarch for his generosity. Armed with this evidence of his good intentions, Gustavus addressed the Dalesmen with a view to calm their wrath. "You are aware," he wrote with confidence, "that the elder Sten Sture, who was a brother of our father's mother, founded Gripsholm Monastery with property that would have descended by law to our father, and that Sten Sture induced our father to append his signature to the deed. The signature was obtained, however, only on condition that if the monastery should be unable to keep up its standing, Gripsholm and all its possessions should revert to the heirs. Hence we have good right to protest and to claim the inheritance of which our father was deprived by threats and fraud. Indeed, the good brothers have considered the matter well, and have agreed to withhold no longer property to which they have no right. We have therefore offered them another monastery.... But they have not ventured to accept it, fearing to offend the brothers already occupying it. So they have asked permission to go back to their friends and to the posts which they held before entering the monastery. This, at the desire of our Cabinet, we have granted, since we are ever ready to listen to their counsel, and we have furnished the good brothers with clothing and money to aid them. We trust they will be grateful; and to prove to you that such is the case, we enclose herewith an extract from the letter which they have written." As the deed conveying Gripsholm to the brotherhood is lost, we cannot discuss with thoroughness the merits of the case. It is enough that the monarch's action accorded with the policy which he adopted later toward all the monasteries in the land. The seizure of Gripsholm was justified, at any rate, by a show of right. Of later cases it is difficult to say even this. The Gripsholm Monastery had not been closed six months when Gustavus claimed another monastery, this time in the diocese of Brask. The abbot it appears had died, and Brask was busy making a list of the monastery's property, that nothing should be lost. Gustavus wrote to Brask with orders to leave the place alone. "Your fathers," he added, "did not found the monastery; and even though your predecessors in the bishopric may have founded it, they did so with money belonging to the people.... We intend, therefore, to take charge of it ourselves." To these imperative orders the wearied bishop answered: "I feel a special obligation to this monastery, since it was founded by the yearly incomes of the bishopric." This assertion, however, proved of no avail. Within a year the monastery was yielded to the crown, and one of the monarch's officers took the entire property in fee.[138]

All things apparently conspired to bring the aged bishop to the dust. The seizure of his monastery occurred at a moment when he was in deep distress about the newly levied tax. Early in 1525 Gustavus had written him to surrender all the tithes accruing in his diocese for the year last past; and following close upon this order, the royal stewards had deprived him of a right of fishery which he possessed. The hapless bishop murmured, but did not rebel. In writing to a fellow bishop, he declared: "The king has recently demanded of us all our tithes, and the chief prelates of Upland have yielded their consent. This policy appears to me unwise. I dread an outburst from the people, and scarce have courage to make the announcement to them." A few days later he said: "I have written Gustavus about the tithes, but do not dare to discuss the matter seriously with the people.... Only a year ago the officers seized our tithes without consulting us. You can imagine, therefore, what the people will say to this new levy. However, if his Majesty will not countermand the order, we shall do our duty by writing and speaking to the people. The feeding of the army, which he wishes by consent of his advisers to impose upon the monasteries, we asserted at Vadstena was a foreign practice that ought never to be introduced." Despite these protests, Brask appears to have obeyed the monarch's orders. He wrote to the clergy of his diocese urging them to send their quota, and to send it quickly. "Bis dat qui cito dat," translated for the ignorant among his clergy, "He gives nothing who delays." The result was precisely what the bishop feared. The people fought against the imposition, and Brask, as a reward for his efforts, was accused by Gustavus of being a party to the revolt. The charge was utterly groundless and unfair. From beginning to end the bishop's object had been to avoid friction, and finally he had sacrificed his own interests in order to prevent friction with the king. When in January, 1526, it was once more voted that the tithes be given to the crown, he wrote to all his clergy urging them immediately to obey. Gustavus, however, would not be appeased; and a parishioner claiming that the bishop had withheld some jewels that belonged to her, Gustavus, without examining the matter, wrote to Brask: "The law, as we interpret it, gives you no power to take high-handed measures of this sort." A few days later Brask asserted: "The royal officers are beginning to enter upon the possessions of the Church, much to the displeasure of the people." What he alluded to particularly was the acts of Arvid Vestgöte, who had seized Church tithes and committed every sort of violence to the priests in Öland. Against this Brask protested, and before the year was over Vestgöte was removed. By this time the spirit of the aged bishop was well-nigh broken. In answer to a summons from Gustavus in 1526, he wrote the king: "Though shattered by illness and the infirmities of age, I will obey your orders with all the haste I can, provided the weather or my death does not prevent me."[139]