The theology of the King’s Mirror, as far as it can be discerned, is also medieval, though it is remarkable that the Virgin and the saints find only incidental mention in the work. No doubt if the author had been able to complete his treatise as outlined in his introduction, he would have discussed the forms and institutions of the church at greater length and we should be able to know to what extent his theological notions were in agreement with the religious thought of the age.
In this connection his theory of penance and punishment for crime is of peculiar interest. He makes considerable use of Biblical narratives to illustrate his teachings and refers at length to some of the less worthy characters of Holy Writ, including certain men who suffered death for criminal offenses. Almost invariably he justifies the punishment by arguing that it was better for the criminal to suffer a swift punishment in death than to suffer eternally in hell. Apparently his theory is that a criminal can cleanse himself in his own blood, that a temporal death can save him from eternal punishment. The idolaters who were slain by Moses and the Levites[[114]] “were cleansed in their penance and in the pangs which they suffered when they died; and it was much better for them to suffer a brief pain in death than a long torture in hell.” The sacramental efficiency of the death penalty seems also to extend to the one who executes punishment: for those who assisted Moses in the slaughter sanctified their hands in the blood of those who were slain. In the same way “a king cleanses himself in the blood of the unjust, if he slays them as a rightful punishment to fulfil the sacred laws.”[[115]]
There can be little doubt that this doctrine of the death penalty also shows the influence of the great civil conflict which ended with the death of Duke Skule in 1240. During a century of factional warfare there had been much violence, much slaughter, much “swift punishment.” Applied to Norwegian history the author’s argument amounts to a justification of the slaughter at Elgesæter; for Skule and his partisans had rebelled against the Lord’s anointed. The hands of the Birchshanks were cleansed and sanctified in the blood of the rebels; but the author also has this comforting assurance for the kinsmen of the fallen, that their souls were not lost: Skule and his companions were cleansed from their sins in the last great penance of death.
It may also be that this same long record of violence, treason, and rebellion was responsible for the prominence that the King’s Mirror gives to the duty of obedience. In the political ethics of the work obedience is the chief virtue and the central principle. Conversely disobedience is the greatest of all sins. When Saul spared the Amalekites, whom the Lord had ordered him to destroy, he sinned far more grievously than did David when he dishonored Uriah’s wife and afterward brought about Uriah’s death; for Saul neglected to carry out the commands of God, and “no offense is graver than to be disobedient toward one’s superiors.”[[116]]
The King’s Mirror is a medieval document; it was in large part inspired by the course of events in Norway during the century of the civil wars; it records the scientific and political thought of a certain definite period in Norwegian history. But even though the author of the work must be classed among the thinkers of his own time, his place is far in advance of most of his fellows. His outlook on the world is broader than that of most medieval writers. In matters of science he is less credulous and less bound by theological thought than others who wrote on these subjects in his own century or earlier. On such questions as the cause of earthquakes and the source of the northern lights he shows an open-mindedness, which is rarely met with in the middle ages.[[117]] For the author’s view of life was not wholly medieval; on many subjects we find him giving utterance to thoughts which have a distinctly modern appearance. His theory of the state and its functions is distinctly unorthodox. But it is probably in the field of education where the great Northman is farthest in advance of his time. In his day the work of instruction was still in the hands of the church; and the churchmen showed no great anxiety to educate men except for the clerical profession. The King’s Mirror, however, teaches that merchants must also be educated: they must learn the art of reckoning and those facts of science that are of interest to navigators; they must study languages, Latin, French, and Norwegian; and they must become thoroughly acquainted with the laws of the land. But the author does not stop here: a merchant should also educate his children. “If children be given to you, let them not grow up without learning a trade; for we may expect a man to keep closer to knowledge and business when he comes of age, if he is trained in youth while under control.”[[118]]
The identity of the author of the Speculum Regale has never been disclosed. Anonymous authorship was not uncommon in medieval Norse literature: many of the sagas were written by men whose names are not known. In the thirteenth century, however, it had become customary for writers to claim the honors of authorship. Our philosopher of the King’s Mirror clearly understood that his readers would be curious to know his name: if the book, he tells us in his introductory chapter, has any merit, that should satisfy the reader, and there is no reason why any one should wish to search out the name of the one who wrote it.[[119]] Evidently he had a purpose in concealing his identity, and the motive is not far to seek.
After the death of King Sverre (1202) the conflict between the king and the hierarchy ceased for a time. The church made peace with the monarchy; the exiled bishops returned; and the faction of the Croziermen disintegrated. After a few years, however, the old quarrels broke out anew. On the accession of Hakon IV the church yielded once more, though the prelates did not renounce their earlier claims. In 1245, when plans were being made for King Hakon’s coronation, the bishops put forth the suggestion that the king should, on that occasion, renew the agreement of 1163, which gave the bishops control of the succession. But the great king refused. “If we swear such an oath as King Magnus swore, then it seems to us as though our honor would be lessened by it rather than increased.”[[120]] He flatly asserted that he would be crowned without any conditions attached to the act, or the crown “shall never come upon our head.”
After the arrival of Cardinal William of Sabina, who had been sent by the pope to officiate at the coronation, and while preparations for that joyous event were going forward, the subject was brought up once more. On the suggestion of the Norwegian bishops the cardinal asked the king to take Magnus Erlingsson’s oath; but the king again refused, and the cardinal decided that “there is no need to speak of it oftener.”[[121]] The king was crowned and there was peace between the two great forces of church and monarchy, at least so long as Hakon lived. Sometime not long before or after the coronation of the great king (1247) the King’s Mirror seems to have been written. It is clear that such ideas as are enunciated in this work with respect to the submission of the church to the authorities of the state can not have been relished by the hierarchy, and perhaps they were just then somewhat unwelcome to the secular rulers as well, since a discussion of this sort might tend to renew ill feeling and stir up strife. Consequently the author may have thought it wiser to remain anonymous.
Earlier students of the Speculum Regale have believed that the author was some local chieftain, who had spent his more active days at the royal court, but who had later retired to his estates and was spending his declining years in literary pursuits. Various efforts have been made to find this chieftain,[[122]] but with no success; there is no evidence that the lords or crusaders who have been suggested as probable authors had any literary interests or abilities. There can be no doubt that the author was at one time a prominent member of the royal retinue; he asserts in several places that such was the case.[[123]] He is, furthermore, too thoroughly familiar with the organization of the royal household to have been an occasional courtier merely. At the same time it is not likely that he was a secular lord; it seems impossible that he could have been anything but a churchman. He knows the Latin language; he is well acquainted with sacred history; he has read a considerable number of medieval books. It is quite unlikely that the various types of learning that are reflected in the chapters of the King’s Mirror could be found in the thirteenth century in any scholar outside the clerical profession. He could not have been one of the higher ecclesiastics, as the prelates belonged to the faction of the Croziermen. The Speculum Regale was evidently written by a member of the Norwegian priesthood, though it is possible that he belonged to one of the minor orders. But at all events he was a professional churchman.[[124]]
There was an old belief in Norway that the work was written at King Sverre’s court, perhaps by the priest-king himself;[[125]] but this theory is wholly without foundation. Professor Ludvig Daae, believing that only a few Northmen possessed the necessary qualifications for the authorship of such a work as the King’s Mirror, concluded that it must have been written by Master William, one of the chaplains at the court of Hakon IV.[[126]] Master William was evidently a man of some erudition; he held a degree (magister) from a European university; he must have traveled abroad and was no doubt a man of experience; he lived and flourished in the period when the work must have been composed. But there is no shred of evidence that Master William actually wrote the King’s Mirror or that he was interested in the problems that are discussed in this work.