The next was a more formidable rival, in the person of Eystein, a prince of the same family. Placing himself at the head of the discontented, the banished, the proscribed, this prince became a bandit chief, and laid waste the provinces on the borders of Sweden. As the number of his followers increased, so did his boldness, until with a small fleet he sailed for Nidaros, which he subdued. Here he persuaded or forced the people to elect him king (1176). The following year he penetrated into the central provinces, which had the option of either doing homage, or of experiencing all the evils of desolation. In 1177, four years after the commencement of his adventurous career, he met Magnus in the field, and was defeated. His followers hastened into Sweden, the eastern provinces of which were still pagan, and but loosely connected with the crown. He was less fortunate: he was slain in his flight.

|1174 to 1178.|

Of a different character from either of the preceding, and more successful in his object, was the next adventurer, Swerro, whose career is one of romance. His mother, Alfhilda, had been the concubine of Sigurd II.; and he was the issue of the connection. After Sigurd’s death, she became the wife of a smith—a business of high repute in the North—and removed, with her husband and son, to the Faroe isles. Young Swerro was designed for the church, and on reaching the age of twenty-five, he entered into holy orders. Now, for the first time, his mother acquainted him with the secret of his birth. Far more wisely would she have acted by keeping it in her own bosom; for no sooner did the young priest know it, than he indulged in dreams of ambition. As our sleeping are but the images of our waking thoughts, he had a dream which seemed to prognosticate his future greatness. He mentioned it to a friend, who promised him the archbishopric of Drontheim. But he had no relish for the ecclesiastical state; and he mentally interpreted it in a different way. Urged by ambition, he left the obscure isles in which he had been so long imprisoned, and repaired to the court of Magnus. His learning and his martial appearance made a favourable impression on the regent Erling; and he too so admired the vigorous administration of that chief, that in despair of effecting a revolution, he withdrew into the Swedish province of Wermeland. Probably his design was to subsist by plunder, in the service of one of those predatory bands, so frequent on the confines of the two kingdoms. At first, however, his prospects were gloomy; and in his restlessness, he had resolved to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, when the band which Eystein had commanded solicited him to become their chief. After some hesitation he consented, was invested with the royal title, and enabled to take the field.

|1178 to 1186.|

The early efforts of this adventurer were bold but unsuccessful. In an expedition through the southern provinces he was indeed joined by some hundred of followers, mostly bandits; but when he proceeded towards the north, where Magnus and Erling had their seat of government, he was abandoned by most of his adherents: the enterprise was too desperate even for them. With great difficulty did he save himself by penetrating through the mountain passes into Wermeland. To escape the pursuits of his enemies, no less than to recruit his numbers, the following spring he plunged into the vast forests of the modern Delecarlia, then called Jarnberaland, or the Iron-being land. The inhabitants knew little of Swedish kings, or of the rest of the world, or of Christianity; but they knew the value of freedom; and in the apprehension that he came to deprive them of it, they prepared a stout resistance. He had no difficulty, however, in persuading those sons of the forest, the mountain, and the river, that he had no design against them—that he wanted hospitality, guides, and troops. Of the last he seems to have obtained none; but he was well entertained, and conducted into Jamtland, where his little band was recruited. The hardships which he underwent in this expedition,—cold, hunger, fatigue—made him resolve to attempt some enterprise, the success of which would rescue him from this wretched mode of life. Appearing suddenly before Drontheim, he hoped to surprise the place; but he was repulsed, and again forced to seek a refuge in the mountains. His next object was to increase the number of his followers; and as he, or some about him, were well acquainted with the haunts of the banditti in the trackless forest, and the inaccessible cavern, he obtained a considerable accession. But a hardy band of peasant archers from Tellmark was his most valuable acquisition. Reappearing before the gates of the capital, he defeated the little army of Magnus, and captured the banner of St. Olaf. As both king and regent were at Bergen, their usual place of residence, he pushed his way into the city, assembled the inhabitants of the province, and was proclaimed king! His task, however, was not half accomplished. A numerous party, including all the churchmen, adhered to Magnus; and he was soon expelled from Drontheim, to seek a shelter in his mountain fastnesses. But with these revolutions he was now familiar: he knew how to recruit his forces—to advance when there was a prospect of victory—retreat when the danger was evident. During two years the civil war raged with violence, and the alternations of triumph and defeat succeeded each other with rapidity. At length Swerro suddenly descended from the mountains, and defeated the regent and his son, leaving the former dead on the field. Magnus fled, but only to return with another army. The second battle, however, was not more fortunate than the first; his army was annihilated or dispersed; and he was glad to seek a refuge in Denmark, while the archbishop fled to England. By the Danish monarch Magnus was supplied with an armament, with which he again contended for the throne, but with no better success. A second time he repaired to that country for aid, and again he fought with the usurper. As on the two former occasions, victory declared for Swerro: his rival fled, and perished in the waves. He was not one of those savage chieftains in whom ancient Norway rejoiced, and whom some of her modern sons would have us mention with respect. If his soul had not been much improved by religion, it had been humanised by education. To the followers of Magnus he exhibited great clemency. He caused the fallen monarch to be magnificently interred in the cathedral of Drontheim; and he himself, in conformity with ancient custom, pronounced the funeral oration of the deceased, to whose virtues, now that he had no reason to fear them, he paid the sincere homage of praise.

|1186 to 1194.|

Swerro (1186–1202) thus obtained the object of his ambition; but he could not expect to hold it in peace. In fact, the whole of his reign was a struggle to preserve what he had so painfully gained. From England archbishop Eystein hurled the thunders of the church at the head of the apostate priest; but the promise of the king, that he would lay his case before the pope, and submit to such penance as his holiness might impose, induced the primate to return and resume his metropolitan functions. Much of his attention was employed on the enlargement and improvement of his cathedral, which he wished to vie with the most splendid Gothic edifices in Europe. From the king he derived considerable aid towards this end; but he lived only to finish the choir. The rest was completed by archbishop Sigurd, in 1248. It was then a very respectable structure. The high altar, which was adorned with a costly silver shrine containing the relics of St. Olaf, and which was visited by pilgrims from all parts of the North, had a splendid appearance. Swerro no doubt expected that by his liberality on this occasion he should win over to his government the great body of the clergy; but he refused to hold the crown as a feudatory of St. Olaf, that is, of the primate; and this rebellion cancelled all his other merits. Aware of the influence which the primate exercised over the people, he endeavoured, on the death of Eystein, to obtain the election of a successor favourable to his views; but in defiance of his influence, that successor was one of his enemies, Eric bishop of Stavenger, who had been the warm friend of Erling and Magnus. From the hands of the new primate he solicited the ceremony of the coronation; but Eric refused, and for so doing he has been severely censured. It should, however, be remembered, that he could not crown an excommunicated prince. That penalty Swerro had incurred by various crimes—by forsaking the altar without the leave of his diocesan, by the shedding of blood at the head of banditti, by assuming the crown without secularisation, and by taking a wife. No bishop, no metropolitan could absolve him: the pope only was competent to dispense with the authority of the canons. In revenge for this refusal, Swerro, a man of vigorous mind, and without a particle of superstition, endeavoured to curtail the revenues and patronage of the church. He insisted that its claim to the pecuniary fine in case of homicide should be abolished, and that the fine should revert to the crown. For this act he must command our praise; but we cannot praise him for attempting to usurp the patronage of the church. We have scarcely an instance in all history of a king exercising the trust in an enlightened and a conscientious manner. Eric supported with firmness the rights of the church, and by so doing incurred the royal displeasure to such a degree that he was compelled to flee into Denmark. From thence he appealed to the pope, who threatened to place the kingdom under an interdict, unless satisfaction were made to the church. In vain did Swerro endeavour to prove that the pope had no right to interfere in such cases: the canons, he well knew, taught a different doctrine. In vain did he attempt to make the multitude believe that the blindness with which the archbishop was visited during the dispute was owing to the wrath of heaven. The people had more confidence in the primate and in the pope, than they had in a monarch whose early career had not been the most edifying.

|1194 to 1200.|

Convinced by experience how little was to be gained by struggling with the formidable power which humbled the greatest monarchs, Swerro now applied to the pope for absolution and pardon. He was directed, in the first instance, to make his peace with the archbishop, who alone could intercede for him. Incensed at the reply, and fearful lest the people should desert him because he had not been crowned, he convoked his bishops, and prevailed on one of them—a mere court tool—to perform the ceremony. To anoint an apostate priest would not have been within the bounds even of papal authority: penance and absolution were previously indispensable; but neither were exacted, and if they had been, the censure could only have been removed by the supreme pontiff. The bishop who performed a ceremony in its very nature null was excommunicated; and the king’s own excommunication was confirmed. In this emergency, Swerro convoked an Al-Thing at Bergen, where a resolution was passed to send deputies to Rome to procure his absolution. On their return they all died in Denmark—no doubt through poison. They brought no absolution; but a confirmation of the former sentence. For this instrument the king, who was capable of any act, substituted another, which contained a plenary remission, and which he declared was the one brought from the head of the church. To account for the death of his messengers, he asserted that they had been poisoned by his enemies lest the papal absolution should reach him. The benefits of this deception he could not long hope to enjoy. Alexander III. charged him with both the forgery and the murder, and placed the whole kingdom under an interdict. Even the bishop, Nicholas, who had crowned him now escaped into Denmark, to join the metropolitan; and both were nobly entertained by archbishop Absalom, primate and minister of that kingdom.

|1194 to 1202.|

During these transactions with the church, Swerro was twice compelled to enter the field against claimants for the crown. The first was Sigurd, son of Magnus V., who had taken refuge in the Orkneys. Accompanied by a band of adventurers, Sigurd landed in Norway, and was joined by many of the peasantry. But Swerro had a body of men whose valour was unequalled, and whose fidelity was above all suspicion—men whom he had commanded before his accession, to whom he was indebted for the throne, and whom he had transferred from robbers into good soldiers. With them he triumphed over Sigurd, whose corpse rested on the field. The next adventurer was supported by bishop Nicholas, who was anxious to ingratiate himself with his metropolitan and the pope, by exhibiting uncommon zeal in the destruction of the king. His name was Inge, and he was represented by his patron as a son of that same Magnus. When he and the bishop landed, they were joined by a considerable number of the discontented; but the king, who had obtained archers from England, was better prepared than even on the former occasion to defend his authority. Still the struggle was a desperate one; several battles were fought, and two or three victories were necessary to humble the hopes of the assailants.

|1202.|

In the midst of these struggles, after a whole life past in fomenting rebellion or crushing it, Swerro breathed his last at the age of fifty-one. That he was a man of great genius and of commanding character is evident from his unparalleled success. Whether he was really the son of a Norwegian king is extremely doubtful; but even if he were, he had none of the advantages which the relationship generally ensures. His fortune was the result of his own enterprising powers. Few indeed are the characters in history who have risen from so obscure to so high a station against obstacles so great; fewer still who, in the midst of perpetual dangers, have been able to maintain themselves in that station. In both respects he is almost unequalled. On the whole, he may safely be pronounced one of the most extraordinary men of the middle ages.

|1202 to 1204.|

Before the death of his father, Hako III. (1202–1204) had been saluted as heir of the monarchy; and he ascended the throne without opposition. One of his first acts was to recal the primate, the rest of the bishops, and all whom his father had exiled. In return the interdict was removed from the realm; and prosperity was returning to a country so long harassed by civil wars when the young king died—not without suspicion of poison from the hands of his stepmother, Margaret, a daughter of St. Eric, king of Sweden. There seems, however, to be no foundation for the suspicion; and indeed what could she gain by the crime?

|1204 to 1207.|

Guthrum (1204–1205), a grandson of Swerro, was next raised to the throne; but his reign was only a year, and there seems to be little doubt that he was removed by poison, through the contrivance of a faction which hoped to restore the ancient line of kings. In consequence of this event, Inge II. (1205–1207), a grandson on the female side of Sigurd II., acceded; but in two years he too descended to the tomb—whether violently or in the order of nature is unknown. The death of four princes in five years is a melancholy illustration of the times.

|1207.|

There now remained only one male descendant of this dynasty—Hako, a natural son of Swerro. After his father’s death, and during the struggles between the old and the new dynasty for the supreme power, this prince was secreted in the mountains. Fortunately for him, the companions of his father, the devoted Birkibeinar, the bandit soldiers, still remained: they espoused his cause, and procured his election to the throne. Before the church, however, would ratify the election, the mother, Inga, was required to undergo the ordeal of hot-iron, in proof of her having truly sworn to the paternity of her son. She consented; was shut up in a church to prepare by fasting and prayer for the trial; was guarded night and day by twelve armed men; and the burning-iron left no wound on her fair hand. Whoever doubted that the ordeal was a fair one, that Hako was the offspring of Swerro, was menaced with excommunication.

|1208 to 1241.|

Hako IV. was thus the recognised monarch of the country; but he had still to sustain the hostility of the faction which adhered to the former dynasty. The most inveterate as well as the most powerful of his enemies was Skule the jarl, half-brother of Inge II. To pacify this ambitious noble, he was admitted to a share in the government; and his daughter became a wife of Hako. This union, in effecting which the church had a great share, was expected to combine the hearts of both factions. But the hope was vain: other pretenders to the legitimate or illegitimate honour of royal descent appeared in succession to claim a portion of their birthright. So distracted was the country by these conflicting claims, that a great council of the nation was convoked at Bergen. The decision was, that Hako was the only lawful king. Yet through the advice of the primate, whose object was evidently to avert a civil war, the northern provinces were confided to Skule; and by the king he was soon adorned with the ducal title—a title which had been in disuse ever since the ninth century. But this ambitious noble was not to be silenced by benefits. On a memorable day (1240) he convoked the states of his own government to assemble in the cathedral: his descent from the martyr Olaf was then attested by oath on the relics of that saint; and by his party, amidst the silence of the spectators, he was declared the lawful heir to the crown, as the successor of Inge II. Constrained by the example, the rest did homage to him after he had sworn to administer the laws in righteousness, as his holy predecessor had administered them. Thus the northern provinces were again dissevered from the monarchy. But Hako was true to his own rights and the interests of his people. Assembling his faithful Birkibeinar, and all who valued the interests of his order, he marched towards Drontheim. At his approach, the usurper fled into the interior, but only to collect new forces, with which he obtained some advantages over those of Hako. When spring returned, however, and the latter marched against the rebels, fortune declared for him. Skule was signally defeated, compelled to flee, overtaken, and killed.

|1242 to 1260.|

Released from the scourge of civil war, Hako now applied his attention to the internal government of his kingdom. He made new treaties of commerce with the neighbouring powers: he fortified his sea-ports; he improved the laws; he made salutary changes in the local administration. But he was not yet fully at peace with the church; and he requested Innocent IV. to mediate between him and them, and to cause the crown to be placed on his brow. Innocent dispatched a legate, the cardinal bishop of Sabina, for this purpose. At first the king was desired to comply with the law of his predecessor Magnus V.—that Norway should hereafter be regarded as a fief of St. Olaf: but he had the patriotism to refuse: he would protect, he observed, the just rights of the church, but he would never sanction this usurpation of the ecclesiastical over the secular state. His firmness was respected, and at the cardinal’s instance he was crowned without subscribing to the obnoxious compact. He had gratified that churchman by promising to go on the crusade; but though he made preparations circumstances prevented his departure. His kingdom indeed could not safely be left at such a crisis. His frontiers were still subject to ravage from the licentious bands who infested the western provinces of Sweden, and who took refuge in either territory when pursued by the injured inhabitants of the other. Without a cordial union between the two governments, there could be no hope of extirpating these predatory bands. Fortunately Birger, the regent of Sweden, concurred with him in his object. To create a good understanding between the two countries, a marriage was negotiated between the daughter of Birger, whose son was on the throne of Sweden, and Magnus, the eldest son of Hako. But this union was never effected: the subsequent conduct of Birger was not agreeable to the monarch; and Magnus married the daughter of Christopher, king of Denmark. The clemency of Hako led to this connection. He had many causes of complaint against Denmark; and he did not recur to hostilities until he had long and vainly sued for redress. He soon reduced Christopher to long for peace; but with a generosity of which there are few records among kings, he forgot his wrongs in sympathy for his brother monarch, and became the friend of the man whom he had left Norway to chastise.

|1263.|

The last and by far the most memorable expedition of Hako was against the Scots. The chief incentive to this war was the attempt of Alexander III. to recover the Hebrides, which, as we have before observed^[165], had been subdued by Magnus Barefoot. Not that they were then subdued for the first time. The truth is, that they had frequently been reduced to the Norwegian yoke as far back as the ninth century, and from that time had, at intervals, paid tribute to that power. More frequently, however, they had asserted their independence. Colonies, too, from the mother-countries, had assisted to people those islands, which Harald Harfagre and his successors had regarded as no less a dependency than the Shetlands or the Orkneys. In the time of Magnus the number of those colonists increased; and there were not a few nobles of the isles who could trace their pedigree to the royal line of Norway. But their position drew them into the sphere of Scottish influence: to Scotland, and not to the distant North, they must look for allies in their frequent wars with one another; and the eagerness of the Scottish monarchs to establish their feudal superiority over them brought the two parties into continual communication. In 1244, two bishops arrived in Norway to induce Hako to renounce all claim to the Hebrides. They told him that he could have no just right to them, since Magnus Barefoot had only gained possession of them by violence—by forcibly wresting them from Malcolm Canmore. The king replied with more truth that Magnus had not wrested them from the Scottish king, but from the Norwegian Gudred, who had thrown off the allegiance due to the mother-country. Defeated in their historical arguments, they had recourse to one which with a poor monarch they hoped would be more convincing—the pecuniary argument. They besought him to say what sum he would demand for their entire cession. “I am not so poor that I will sell my birthright!” was the reply, and the prelates returned. Alexander III., however, would not abandon the hope of annexing these islands to his crown; and he commenced a series of intrigues among the Highland chieftains. The vassals of Hako began to complain of the vexatious hostilities to which they were subject, especially from the thane of Ross, and to beg immediate aid. The atrocities which they detailed, we should scarcely expect to find in a Christian people, and in the thirteenth century: we should rather assign them to the period when the pagan Northmen ravaged the coasts of these islands. In great anger Hako convened a diet at Bergen, and it resolved that the aid required should be immediately furnished.

|1263.|

Leaving his son, prince Magnus, regent of the kingdom, Hako sailed for the Hebrides. In the Orkneys he was joined by the jarls and by the king of Man. On the western coast of Scotland, many of the Highland chieftains submitted to his arms. But though he took Arran and Bute, and laid waste many of the western districts of the continent with fire and sword, his expedition was a disastrous one. At the mouth of the Clyde, while landing his troops, a tempest arose and forced him from the shore; and those who were landed were overpowered by the superior number of the enemy. In vain did Hako endeavour to lead the rest of his forces with the view of saving the brave men who were thus overwhelmed: the storm was too powerful for him; some of his ships were lost; more were dispersed; and in great anguish of mind he repaired to the Orkneys where he intended to winter, and invade Scotland the ensuing spring. That spring he was never to see. A fever, the result of anxiety no less than of fatigue, laid him on the bed from which he was no more to rise. The activity of his mind, however, was not arrested even by fatal disease: he caused the Bible and the old Sagas to be read to him night and day. When convinced that there was no hope of his recovery, he dictated his last instructions to his son; made liberal presents to his followers; confessed and received the sacrament; and “at midnight Almighty God called him from this world, to the exceeding grief of all present and of all who heard of his death.” His body was first interred in the cathedral of St. Magnus, Kirkwall, but subsequently removed to Bergen, and laid with those of his royal ancestors.

|1263 to 1266.|

Magnus VI. (1263–1280), who had been crowned during his father’s life, now ascended the throne. He had the wisdom to make peace with the Scots, by ceding to them all the islands off their coast except the Orkneys, but not in full sovereignty. For these he was to receive 4000 marks, and an annual tribute of 100 marks. At the same time Margaret, the daughter of Alexander, was betrothed to the son of Magnus. These islands had never produced any benefit to the crown: to maintain them would have entailed a ruinous expenditure of money and blood. But the Orkneys, though frequently independent, had been so long connected with the mother-country, and lay so much nearer, that though their preservation might bring no great advantage, they were useful as nurseries for seamen. In the reign of Magnus, too, Iceland became thoroughly dependent on the Norwegian crown.

|1263 to 1280.|

Internally, the reign of this prince exhibits considerable improvement. One of his most serious objects, (which had also been his father’s) was to establish, on fixed principles, the succession to the throne. As in other European countries, that succession was now made to depend on the law of primogeniture, in the male line only. To this regulation the bishops gave their assent; and, in accordance with it, they not merely recognised Eric as the successor of Magnus, but crowned that prince. Hence they no longer insisted on the obnoxious compact between Magnus V. and the primate of that day^[166]—a proof that they do not merit all the abuse which modern history has poured upon them. It is indeed true that in return for their sanction of this new and fundamental law of succession, they obtained some favours; but most of them related to their own matters. They were excepted, for instance, from the secular tribunals; but so they were in every other country in communion with Rome. They refused laymen to exercise any influence over the election of dignitaries, and they did right. But when each prelate claimed the right of coining money, and of maintaining a body-guard of forty men-at-arms, he surely forgot his spiritual character, and remembered only that he was a temporal baron. This reign too witnessed some other changes. The allodial proprietors became vassals: the old jarls and hersers were replaced by dukes and barons and knights; feudal usages were introduced in lieu of the ancient national customs. As a necessary consequence, the small landed proprietors, equivalent to the English yeomen, began to disappear, and to be replaced by farmers. Still in the national character there was that which prevented the worse evils of feudality. If the peasant had no longer a voice, or we should rather say a vote, in the assembly of the states, except by representation, he yet continued to be free, and to bear arms. In the cities and towns of the kingdom there was also a modification of the old system. In proportion to the increase of commerce, and to the prosperity of the great depôts, was that of municipal rights. These rights were, as much as possible, assimilated to those of the German towns. For the two important cities of Bergen and Drontheim, Magnus himself drew up a code of regulations, to define the rights of the guilds and of the different classes of burghers. And for the defence of the coasts he revived the ancient act of division of the maritime districts, each of which was to furnish a certain number of ships, and to maintain its beacon fire, so that intelligence of an invasion might speedily fly throughout the country.

But the fame of this monarch chiefly rests on his legislative talents: hence his surname of Lagabeter, or law-mender. To the code which he compiled from the centenary observances of the four Norwegian provinces, and which he designed for general use throughout his dominions, we shall allude in the proper place.

|1280 to 1289.|

Eric II., while yet a minor, succeeded his father without opposition; but his reign was not one of peace. His first disputes were with the church. At his coronation, he promised rather to amplify than to curtail its privileges. In virtue of this promise, the archbishop of Drontheim drew up a list of offences against the canon laws, and claimed for the clerical tribunals the pecuniary mulcts demanded on such occasions. These mulcts were considered the right of the crown, and as such were claimed by royal councillors, on behalf of the king. So far the conciliations were justifiable; but when they persuaded him to revoke all the privileges which his father had conceded, they wantonly perilled the tranquillity of the kingdom. They were excommunicated by the primate, who in his turn was banished. Both parties appealed to Rome; but the pope seems to have been a moderate man; and, though not disposed to surrender any right which the church universal possessed, he doubtless saw that the Norwegian branch of it had usurped some that were inconsistent with civil government. The successor of the primate consented to abandon one or two of the more obnoxious claims, and to become the liege vassal of Eric. The king too was embroiled with Denmark, through the protection which he afforded to the assassins of Eric Glipping.^[167] Long and disastrous was the war which raged between the two countries. At length, both opened negotiations for peace; but it was not signed during the life of Eric.

|1289 to 1299.|

These disputes with the church and his royal neighbour prevented Eric from engaging in another war, for which he might have urged a better reason. In conformity with the treaty between his father and Alexander III., he married Margaret of Scotland. The issue was a female, who, on the death of her grandfather in 1289 (her mother was no more), was undoubted heiress to the throne of that kingdom. The claims of the “Maid of Norway” were urged by her father; but she had a rival in our Edward I., who had determined to render the northern ruler his vassal. To unite the two crowns on the same brow was an object still more desirable; and in this view the English king proposed a marriage between his son and the Maid of Norway. The proposal was readily accepted by Eric; but before it could be carried into effect, the princess died in the Orkneys. If Eric exposed himself to ridicule in claiming the Scottish crown in her right, he had an indisputable claim to his queen’s dowry, most of which had never been paid. For this cause he might have troubled the kingdom; and he had another reason for interference. His second wife was Isabel, daughter or sister of Robert Bruce, whose pretensions he might have supported against those of Baliol. But he declared for neither party—a degree of moderation, as we have intimated, attributable rather to his disputes with the church and with Denmark, than to any other cause.

|1299 to 1319.|

As Eric the Priest-hater left no heirs male, he was succeeded by his brother Hako V. (1299–1319), whom he had created duke of Norway, and who had been admitted to some share in the government. One of his first objects was to resume the negotiations with Denmark; but through the intrigues of the men who were implicated in the murder of Eric Glipping, the signature of the treaty was delayed until 1308. His transactions with Sweden are more important, since they led to a temporary union between the two crowns. His daughter Ingeburga became the wife of Eric, brother of Birger, king of Sweden. When Eric was barbarously murdered by his own brother, Hako armed to revenge the death of his son-in-law. After a war of some duration, Birger was compelled to abdicate, and Magnus, the son of Ingeburga, was elected in his place. As Hako had no heirs male, and females could not inherit, Magnus became the heir of the Norwegian throne, to which he succeeded on the death of Hako.

|1319.|

Under this prince, who died in 1319, Norway was not so powerful as it had been under his father: just as in his father’s time it was not to be compared with what it had been under the domination of Hako IV. With this monarch indeed ended the greatness of the kingdom: from his time to the union of the crown with that of Denmark, there was a continued decline in the national prosperity. This decline cannot, as some historians have asserted, be attributed to the cessation of piratical expeditions; for in truth they had ceased long before the reign of Hako IV., or even of Swerro. A better reason is to be found in the wars between the kingdom and Denmark—wars which thinned the population, diminished the national revenues, and aimed a fatal blow at the national industry. A second is the monopoly of trade by the Hanseatic Towns. The vessels of that league had long frequented the coasts of Norway; Swerro had favoured them; Hako IV. in 1250 had conferred upon them exclusive privileges; Magnus VI. had established the foreign merchants in his dominions, especially at Bergen. Hako also exempted them from many of the imposts to which they were subject in other countries. These avaricious strangers did not benefit the country. Where two people trade, both cannot be gainers. The advantage was entirely in favour of these foreigners, who absorbed a traffic which ought to have been divided into many channels, and by their monopoly excluded the natives from other markets. In this respect, we must condemn the short-sighted policy of Hako, or rather perhaps the engrossing disposition of the league. But another reason may also be assigned for the decline of the national prosperity—the increase of luxury—the creation of artificial wants. The cardinal bishop of Sabina^[168] had expressed surprise at the condition of the people: he had found, not merely the comforts, but the luxuries of life. After the visit of that dignitary, the evil was not mended. The monarchs were fond of displaying a splendour which richer and more extensive kingdoms could not well support; and as the example of the court is sure to be followed by all who visit it, we may form some notion of the progress which luxury made amongst the people.

|1319 to 1387.|

On the death of Hako, as we have already intimated, the throne of Norway fell to his grandson Magnus VII. (1319–1343), king of Sweden. In 1343 Magnus resigned the Norwegian sceptre to his son Hako VI. (1343–1380). This prince, as we have before observed, married the daughter of Valdemar IV., king of Denmark, and died in 1380. He was succeeded in both thrones by his infant son Olaf (the fifth of Norway, the third of Denmark), on whose death both Denmark and Norway were ruled by queen Margaret.

At this period the close connection between the three northern kingdoms can be explained only by reverting to the history of Sweden.

OLAF.—EMUND I.—EMUND II.—STENKILL.—INGE I.—PHILIP.—INGE II.—SWERKER I.—CHARLES.—ST. ERIC.—INTERNAL TROUBLES.—BIRGER JARL.—VALDEMAR I.—MAGNUS I.—BIRGER.—MAGNUS II.—ERIC IV.—ALBERT OF MECKLENBURG.—UNION OF SWEDEN WITH DENMARK.

In Swedish history the chronological difficulties of which we had so much reason to complain in the former volume, are scarcely fewer even now that we are advanced into the eleventh century. Most writers give different lists of kings down to the twelfth century. The reason of this difference is two-fold: there were sometimes two kings reigning at the same time, the one over the Goths, the other over the Swedes; and sometimes each of these people had two, who divided the homage of the people.

|1001 to 1026.|

All writers agree that at the opening of the eleventh century Olaf, surnamed Skotkonung, or the Tribute-king, reigned over Sweden. He was the ally of Denmark in the destruction of Olaf Trygvasen, king of Norway^[170]; and with Denmark he shared the possession of that kingdom.^[171] The enemy of St. Olaf, he would not, though commanded by the states of his kingdom, give his daughter Ingigerda to that king.^[172] Contrary to his wish, however, his second daughter Astrida was married to his royal neighbor.^[173] Probably this was the first of the Swedish princes that felt himself strong enough to contend with his pagan subjects, who prior to his time had held the ascendancy. His ardour, however, is said to have been mitigated by his diet, which at length decided for liberty of conscience.

|1026 to 1051.|

Emund I. (or Omund), surnamed Colbrenner, succeeded to his father. Towards his unfortunate brother-in-law, St. Olaf of Norway, he acted with severity^[174]; and by all writers testimony is borne to his virtues. Thus Adam of Bremen informs us that he excelled all his predecessors in wisdom and piety, and was more beloved by his people. Of his actions, except his hostilities in alliance with St. Olaf against Canute the Great, we are ignorant. Shrouded in equal obscurity are the actions of his immediate successors.

|1051 to 1148.|

Emund II. (1051–1056) was unpopular; first, because he had no zeal for religion; and, secondly, because in a treaty of limits between Sweden and the Danish province of Scania, he did not uphold the national interests, but abandoned a considerable territory to that rival people. To repair this disaster, and to prove that he was not afraid of the enemy, he raised an army and invaded that province; but he was vanquished and slain. On his death the Swedes and the Goths, who were often hostile to each other, disagreed about the succession—the former raising Stenkill (1056–1066), the latter Hako the Red, to the throne. Thus there were two kingdoms, two courts—the one reigning over the eastern, the other over the western and southern provinces. Similar partitions, as we frequently observed in the former volume, had taken place, so as to confound the chronological succession of the kings. The Goths and the Swiar had never perfectly amalgamated, from the period when Odin had led the latter into Sweden, and expelled the former from the coast to the interior of the country. But, on the other hand, experience had taught both of them the destructive effects of disunion; and on the present occasion, now that Christianity had made so considerable a progress among them (more however in Sweden than in Gothland), they felt more sensibly the impolicy of their conduct. The heads of the two people met together, and agreed that Hako should continue to rule over the Goths, but that on his death his kingdom should cease to have a separate existence, and be re-merged into that of Sweden. We shall, however, see that the same moderation did not always govern the two parties; and that double elections continued to agitate the commonweal long after this period. But this circumstance does not detract from the merit of the men who sanctioned the present agreement. In thirteen years Hako paid the debt of nature, and in conformity with the agreement his crown reverted to the prince of the Swedes. Of Stenkill the national historians speak with praise. Of gigantic size, unrivalled strength, and indomitable courage, he was yet one of the mildest princes of his age. Over Sweyn II., king of Denmark, he is said by the Swedish historians to have frequently triumphed; but of such triumphs we have no record in the historians of the rival nation. Equal honour is accorded to his successor Inge I., surnamed the Good. In his wars this prince is said to have exhibited great valour; but he was more distinguished for his attachment to Christianity, and for the zeal with which he extirpated paganism. In this great work he probably evinced more ardour than discretion, if it be true that he was murdered in bed by his idolatrous subjects. Halstan, the brother and successor of Inge, if indeed they did not reign conjointly over different parts of the kingdom, had the same mild virtues. Philip and Inge II. were equally worthy of the diadem. Distinguished alike for his piety and for the rigour with which he punished the banditti who infested his western provinces, and the pirates who ravaged his coasts, Inge, in particular, reigned in the hearts of his people, except those whose ill deeds he punished. To the hatred of a faction he became a victim. That faction raised to the throne Rognerald, a chief of gigantic dimensions and of fiercer qualities. His yoke was soon felt to be intolerable: he was removed by violence; and a double election followed,—the Swedes choosing a chieftain named Kol; the Goths Magnus, son of Nicholas king of Denmark. The former soon perished in battle; the latter, a great tyrant, reigned seven years only (1148), when the suffrages of the people fell on one who had neither birth nor connections to recommend him, but who had the great qualities becoming the dignity. This was Swerker I. It is worthy of remark that Hako the Red and Rognerald, and Kol and Magnus, are not usually classed amongst the Swedish kings—at least by modern historians.

|1148 to 1154.|

The reign of Swerker was pacific and admirably adapted to the interests of the kingdom. He was a wise and patriotic monarch. But he had one grievous fault—blindness to the vices of his son. Never, if contemporary chroniclers are to be credited, did a youth so richly merit the curses of the people. At the head of a licentious gang, he violated the persons of the noblest virgins and matrons; he was addicted to every species of riot; and the insolence of his manners gave a more odious shade to his vices. In vain were remonstrances made to the father, whose first duty, as the people thought, was to insist that his own family set the first example of obedience to the laws. Indignant at this guilty toleration, the people arose and murdered the prince. Swerker’s own end was tragical; but whether he died through the influence of the same conspirators, or through the avarice of a domestic, is doubtful. On his death, the same ruinous division took place as in the preceding century: the Goths elected Charles, another son of Swerker; the Swedes made choice of St. Eric, who had married the daughter of Inge the Good—a name dear to the people. As civil war was so much to be deprecated, the heads of both parties met and agreed to this compromise—that Eric I. should retain both crowns during his life, and on his death both should be inherited by Charles. But what was to become of the rights of their children? To prevent future disputes, the descendants of each were to rule alternately, without prejudice, however, to the elective suffrage of the people. It would have been impossible to devise any expedient better adapted to produce the contrary of what was intended.

|1155 to 1167.|

The reign of Eric was one of vigour. The Finns, who had declared themselves independent, he reduced to subjection; and he also forced them, we are told, to forsake idolatry for Christianity. We may, however, doubt whether his efforts in this respect were so general as the chroniclers would have us believe: certainly, they were not very permanent; for there are pagans amongst them at this very day, and those who pass for Christians worship other gods. Probably they did as most barbarians do in similar circumstances—they submitted while the victor was near them, but reverted to their ancient superstitions when he had left. That he had idolaters nearer to him than Finland, and more immediately subject to his sway, is evident from the distinction he was accused of making between the worshippers of Odin and those of Christ. The former he deprived of the rights which the law conferred upon them. For this conduct he naturally incurred their indignation, and he also made enemies of another party—the licentious, the disturbers of the public tranquillity, who were scarcely less numerous. Both conspired against him; and as their own strength was inadequate to the object, they invoked the aid of the Danish king, offering, as it appears, the crown of Sweden to the son of that monarch. A Danish army arrived, and being joined by the malcontents, marched towards Upsal. They were soon met by Eric who, though he performed prodigies of valour, was defeated and slain. His tragical death was one of the causes that led to his canonization. Another was the zeal which he showed in the extirpation of idolaters, whom he pursued with fire and sword. Add that he was the founder of monasteries and churches, and we have reasons enough for his deification. By most readers he will be valued, less for his unenlightened devotion, than for his compilation of a code of laws—“St. Eric’s Lag.” Yet the provisions which it contains are deeply impressed by his dominant characteristics. Against pagans they are sanguinary; and they visit offences against the Christian religion and the Christian worship with stern severity.

|1161 to 1167.|

Charles, the son of Swerker, was now monarch of the whole country. But he had some difficulty in expelling the invaders, who had proclaimed the son of the Danish king. He, too, was much attached to the church, and to which he was more generous than even his predecessor. If tradition be true (there is no contemporary authority for the statement), he embarrassed his affairs by his immoderate liberality. As he obtained from the pope the erection of an archbishopric,—that of Upsal,—he was expected to endow it. From his munificence in this respect, may have originated the report in question. His reign was not exempt from trouble. The adherents of the rival dynasty were his enemies, from a suspicion (apparently ill-founded) that he had been one of the conspirators against St. Eric. Though in conformity with the agreement which we have mentioned, he nominated Canute, the son of Eric, his successor, that prince would not remain in the kingdom, under the pretence that his life was in danger. In a few years he returned into Sweden, at the head of a considerable Norwegian force, was joined by the partisans of his house, and enabled to triumph over his rival, whom he captured and beheaded. This act he justified by appealing to the untimely end of his father, which he represented as the work of Charles.

|1167 to 1192.|

The reign of Canute was disturbed by two invasions. The first, consisting of Danes, who had armed to revenge the death of the late king, or rather under that plea to profit by the disasters of a rival country. The Goths, who loved the memory of Charles, immediately joined it; but the king was victorious. The second was an irruption of the Esthonian pirates, who laid Sigtuna in ashes, slew the archbishop of Upsal, and carried away many prisoners before the king could overtake them.

|1192 to 1210.|

Swerker II., the son of Charles, was the next king, in virtue of the compact between the Goths and the Swedes. But every day more clearly evinced the dangers resulting from that compact: it daily widened the breach, not merely between the two royal families, but between the two great tribes which constituted the nation. Blood had been openly or treacherously spilt by both parties; and the deadly feud had descended to the chiefs of both. It was, from the first, the object of Swerker to exterminate the family of his rival; but one prince—Eric, the only son of the late king—escaped into Norway. For some years he governed with moderation; but becoming tyrannical, the people of Upland invited the exile to return. Eric obeyed the call, was joined by most of the nobles, and enabled to triumph over Swerker, though the latter was supported by a Danish army. The king was expelled, and though he subsequently returned twice to renew the contest, twice he was defeated, and on the latter occasion his own corpse was among the slain.

|1210 to 1250.|

The reign of Eric II. commenced by more policy than could have been anticipated from preceding events. To pacify the rival faction, he declared prince John, the son of Swerker, his successor. To conciliate the Danes, who had so warmly espoused the cause of his rivals, he obtained the hand of a Danish princess, the sister of Valdemar II. His reign was pacific, but too short for the interests of his people. John I. (1220–1222) ascended without opposition the united thrones of the Swedes and the Goths; but his reign was still shorter—a misfortune the more keenly felt from his admirable conduct. If he was less fortunate in two or three military expeditions (so obscure, however, as scarcely to deserve notice) than was hoped from the justice of his cause, his civil government was one of great success. He was succeeded without opposition by the son of his predecessor, Eric II., named after the father. Eric III., surnamed the Lisper (1222–1230), had a reign less peaceful than those which immediately preceded it. There was a family in the realm too powerful for obedience—that of the Folkungar—the chiefs of which, by their wealth and their numerous connections, evidently aspired to the throne. To bind them to his interests, he married two of his sisters to nobles of that house, while he himself took to wife a lady of that family. But these alliances, as might indeed have been expected, only gave a new impulse to ambition. To wrest the crown from him, the whole family or tribe, the chiefs of which must have been connected with the royal line of either the Goths or the Swedes, broke out into rebellion—one noble only, the jarl Birger, remaining faithful to him. In the first battle Eric was defeated and compelled to flee; but he raised an army in Denmark, returned to Sweden, vanquished the usurper Sweyn, and was again acknowledged by the whole realm. In the last year of his reign, he sent an expedition against the Finns, who had reverted to idolatry. It was commanded by Birger Jarl, on whom he had conferred the hand of his youngest sister. The cruelty of the general, who probably acted in obedience to the royal orders, equalled that of the former military apostle, St. Eric.

|1250.|

The death of Eric the Stammerer was followed by a violation of the compact which had established the alternate order of succession. The Folkungar nobles no longer concealed their intention of aspiring to the throne. Through the intrigues of a dependent, when the diet met for a new election, the choice fell on Valdemar I., the son of Birger Jarl by the sister of the late king. On the part of the electors, this was an attempt to combine the interests of two great families. But Birger was dissatisfied: he had expected the crown himself; and he objected to the impolicy of choosing a child like his son. His design was to obtain the regency, and he succeeded.

|1251 to 1266.|

However censurable the means by which Birger arrived at power, he had qualities worthy of the post. He founded Stockholm, which he also fortified: he revised and greatly improved the Landslag, or written laws of the kingdom; he conferred on the cities and towns privileges similar to those contained in the charters of later ages; he improved the internal administration in other respects; while he defended the coasts against the ravages of the pirates. Such indeed was the prosperity which he introduced, that the diet requested the king to confer on him the ducal title—a title previously unknown in Sweden. But the success of his administration, and the power held by his family, incurred first the jealousy, and soon the hatred of a faction, or rather of several factions who united to oppose him. Among the great Swedish families was one that rivalled the Folkungar in riches, in the number of its armed dependents, in its widely-spread connection. This was the Folkungar family, which had beheld with the deepest mortification the elevation of a rival house. A civil war followed, which was indecisive; and it was ended by a pacification, but a pacification dictated by deceit. After Birger had solemnly sworn to it, and the heads of the other party repaired in unsuspecting confidence to his camp, he caused them to be put to death. One noble only escaped, Charles, who fled to the Teutonic knights, became a member of the order, and left an heroic name behind him. This perfidious act is a sad stain on the glory of his regency. Another was his excessive love of power, which induced him to retain the reins of government long after his son had arrived at manhood, and even after that son had married Sophia, daughter of Eric Plough-penny, king of Denmark. Death only caused him to release his grasp.

|1266 to 1276.|

The reign of Valdemar was one of trouble. Whether through the persuasion of the diet, or through fraternal attachment, he tolerated, if he did not himself establish, the independence of his brothers. Magnus duke of Sudermania, Eric prince of Smaland, and Benvit duke of Finland, had separate courts, and exercised a sovereign authority in their respective jurisdictions. Magnus, the eldest, was formed for a monarch. He was learned, courteous, generous, and highly accomplished in all military sciences. So popular did he become, that his palace was more frequented than the king’s. Of his popularity Valdemar soon became jealous; yet he could do no other than leave the regency to Magnus during his pilgrimage to Rome. The motive of this pilgrimage was to expiate a criminal connection, of many years’ standing, with Judith, sister of his queen. The severity of the penance was owing to the fact of Judith’s being a nun, who had precipitately fled from the convent of Roskild. Nine children were the result of this connection, which so scandalised the church, that the pope would not give him absolution until he had visited the Holy Land. Judith was condemned to perpetual seclusion. In 1276, after an absence of nearly three years, the royal penitent returned, and accused Magnus of intriguing for the throne. Whether there was any truth in the charge, cannot well be ascertained; but that suspicion should arise in his mind was inevitable. He was jealous, not of Eric only, but of all his brothers. On this occasion, Benvit, the youngest, exhibited a proof of magnanimity which may well obtain the praise of history: to consolidate the royal power, he resigned his duchy, took holy orders, and subsequently became bishop of Linkoping. The elder brothers, far from imitating the example, united themselves closely with the Danes, and a civil war followed. Valdemar was surprised, pursued, and captured. To end these disorders, the diet met, and divided the kingdom between the two brothers. To Valdemar was conceded the two Gothlands (East and West) with Smaland and Dalia: the rest fell to Magnus.

|1276 to 1279.|

This peace was of short continuance. Magnus did not pay his Danish auxiliaries, by whose aid he had triumphed. In revenge the Danish king ravaged the Swedish provinces, and entered into a treaty with Valdemar to restore him to the undivided throne. At the head of a Danish army, Valdemar marched against Magnus, but was defeated. To repair this disaster, Eric of Denmark took the field with a large army—so large that Magnus would not risk an action. But the Swedish prince obtained by policy the advantage which arms could not give him. He drew the invaders into the heart of the kingdom; cut off all supplies; and awaited the approach of winter to effect their destruction. But through the mediation of the chiefs on both sides, peace was restored. As Magnus had not the money due to Eric, he pledged one of his maritime towns. In return, he obtained not merely a friend, but his recognition as monarch of Norway. Valdemar, thus sacrificed, was made to renounce his claim to the whole country, and to pass the remainder of his days in Denmark, on one of the domains which he had received with his queen.

|1279, 1280.|

Magnus I. at his accession assumed the title of king of the Swedes and the Goths, to denote his superiority over the whole kingdom. But the title was more pompous than the power. He was soon accused of undue partiality towards the people of Holstein, who in virtue of his marriage with Hedwige, sister of the count Gerard^[175], flocked to Sweden in great numbers. The remonstrance did not weaken his attachment to these foreigners, whom he loaded with honours. To the great families, especially that of the Folkungar, this preference was gall; and a conspiracy was formed to extirpate the odious strangers. An opportunity for the execution of this plot soon arrived. Escorted by a considerable number of Holsteiners, the queen proceeded to Scara, a town of Gothland, to meet her father. The conspirators followed, and massacred the guard, including even the brother-in-law of the king. Nor was this all: they threw the count of Holstein into a dungeon; and they certainly would have laid their hands on the queen, had she not contrived to escape into a monastery. Knowing the power of the family which had instigated these excesses, and fearing that they were supported by foreign alliances, the king dissimulated, and made use of the most conciliating language, until he had obtained the enlargement of the count. He then summoned a diet, charged the unsuspicious Folkungar with high treason, sent them to Stockholm, and beheaded all of them except one, who was allowed to be ransomed. From this time that ambitious family ceased to have much influence over the realm. To establish his throne still more solidly, he entered into a double matrimonial alliance with Denmark. His son Birger, still a child, was affianced to a daughter of the Danish king, and as she too was a child, she was taken, in conformity with the custom of the times, to the Swedish court to be educated. And soon afterwards Ingeburga, daughter of Magnus, became the wife of Eric Plough-penny’s successor.

|1281 to 1290.|

The tranquillity obtained through these measures enabled Magnus to devote his whole time to the internal administration. His name is mentioned with great praise; and he appears to have deserved it. His consolidated power and his firmness were indeed blessings to a realm so long distracted by intestine commotions. It was feared, indeed, lest, in his hands, the sceptre should become oppressive: but this too would have been an advantage; for its weight would have fallen on the powerful and the turbulent only. To the peasant he was a friend. Prior to his reign, the local nobles had not hesitated to levy contributions on the despised portion of the nation. He decreed that whoever took any thing from a poor man’s hut without paying the value, should be visited with rigorous penalties. From his brother Valdemar he sustained some trouble; but he crushed the seeds of rebellion by imprisoning that restless prince. To support, with greater magnificence, the regal state, he obtained, from the gratitude of his people, a considerable augmentation of his resources. This augmentation consisted in certain returns from the mines, and from the great lakes of Sweden. Well did he merit this liberality; for never had the country a greater king.

|1290 to 1305.|

Birger, the son of Magnus, being only eleven years old at his father’s death, the regency devolved on Thorkil, a noble Swede. Nothing can better illustrate the merit of Magnus than this choice. At home and abroad Thorkil evinced his talents and his patriotism. His expeditions against the Finns, the Carelians, and the Ingrians, were crowned with success. But his great object was to render the people happy. Having reason to fear the interruption of the social tranquillity, he arrested the sons of the late king Valdemar, who could not forget their claims to the throne. But as Birger rose up to manhood, he had still more cause of apprehension from Eric and Valdemar, brothers of his sovereign. Both evidently aspired to distinct governments. To strengthen his interests, the former married Ingeburga, daughter of Hako V., king of Norway. Seeing that he and Valdemar were acting more openly in pursuit of their treasonable object, yet unwilling to adopt extreme measures, Birger, with the advice of his minister, obtained from them a written pledge never to leave the kingdom, or approach the royal residence without permission; never to conspire against the government; never to maintain more than a given number of armed men; and always to obey the commands of their sovereign. But what engagement could bind spirits so restless, which were emboldened to attempt any thing by the success of preceding rebels? The princes still continued to plot; and to escape imprisonment, they fled into Denmark. The Danish king, however, being persuaded to abandon them, they took refuge in Norway, were friendly received by Hako, and enabled, from their new fiefs of Nydborg and Konghella, to lay waste the neighbouring provinces with fire and sword. A body of troops sent by Birger to repulse them, was defeated. A second army was raised; and the king marched in person to chastise his brothers. They were, however, at the head of a large force, not of their own partisans merely, but of the Norwegians; and to avoid the effusion of blood, a pacification was recommended. They were received into favour on the condition of their swearing obedience to the king: in return he conferred on duke Eric the fief of Varberg. The next feature of this transaction was the sacrifice of the able and patriotic Thorkil. The brothers could not forgive him for thwarting them in their rebellion; and Birger was made to believe the vilest calumnies respecting him. The aged minister was sent to Stockholm and beheaded. At the same time his daughter, the wife of Valdemar, was repudiated. Thus was a long course of public service rewarded!

|1305 to 1319.|

By this criminal weakness, Birger was righteously left to the intrigues of his brothers. By them he was surprised and made prisoner, together with his wife and children, and forced to resign the crown in favour of Eric. His eldest son, Magnus, escaped, and fled to Denmark, the king of which armed for the restoration of his sister’s husband. From this period to the close of Birger’s reign there was war, alternated by hollow peace. In 1307, he obtained his liberty, on the condition of his kingdom being dismembered in favour of his brother. To revoke this dangerous act he renewed his alliance with Denmark, and again obtained help; but his proceedings were not decisive, and a new pacification followed, on conditions similar to the preceding, except that Birger was now regarded as the liege superior of his brothers, who did homage to him for their fiefs. Unable to reduce them by force, he had recourse to the usual acts of the base. He pretended great affection for them, and sent them many presents. At length alluring them to his court at Nykoping, he arrested them in bed, and consigned them to dungeons with expression of triumphant insult more galling than the perfidy itself. One died of the wounds which he had received in the effort to escape: the other was starved to death. But from this deed of blood the king derived no advantage. The bodies of the murdered princes being exposed to the public, roused the wrath of the very numerous party hostile to his government. The civil war was now renewed by Matthias Kettlemundson in behalf of duke Eric’s son. Since the death of Thorkil, the king had become rapacious, tyrannical, and consequently unpopular. The people, who lamented the fate of the murdered princes, favoured the cause which Kettlemundson had espoused; the fortresses that still held for the king were soon reduced: Magnus, his son, was made prisoner; and he himself compelled to seek a refuge in Denmark, where he was coldly received.

|1319, 1320.|

Fate had not yet done its worst for this exiled prince. A diet was assembled to choose a successor. Such was the hatred borne towards him and his line, that his son Magnus was beheaded for his crimes. The suffrages of the electors united in favour of duke Eric’s son, a child three years old. Grief the following year (1320) brought Birger to the tomb. Whatever good signalised his reign must be attributed to his able and virtuous minister: his own conduct was dictated by odious vices. Thorkil caused a law to be passed against the sale of slaves, on the ground that it was in the highest degree criminal for Christians to sell men whom Christ had redeemed by his blood. This noble truth is the best testimony to the character of that minister: we may add that it is the most deplorable illustration of the king’s, who could, without a cause, sacrifice such a man. What better than fratricide could be expected from him?

|1319 to 1354.|

During the long minority of Magnus II., the regency was exercised by Kettlemundson, who had contributed so largely to the expulsion of Birger, and the execution of the blameless Magnus, the son of Birger. His administration, which continued eighteen years, is mentioned with respect; but it was signalised by no great exploit deserving the attention of history. Both his policy and that of his sovereign, in respect to Scania, has been related.^[176] In the administration of justice and the maintenance of the public tranquillity, he was successful. On his demise, Magnus assumed the reins of government; but did not give so much satisfaction as his minister. He undertook an expedition against the western provinces of Russia (then subject to their own princes), influenced only by a wild ambition. The result was not glorious. The taxes which he levied on the people for its support, gave rise to complaint. The pope too complained that he had appropriated to his own use the money, which, in virtue of Olaf Skotkonung’s act, should have gone to the Roman treasury. Still his necessities increased: the purchase of Scania was another channel of expenditure; and though he pledged some of the royal domains, he had still to exact more from his people, including the clergy, than their patience would support. For this cause he was excommunicated by the pope. Regardless of murmurs, he proceeded in his course: he was distinguished alike for rashness, feebleness, and irresolution. Governed by young favourites, and still more by his queen, who persuaded him that he might do whatever he pleased with impunity, and anxious to place a third crown on his brow (he had inherited Norway in right of his mother), he exhibited at once his silly ambition and his incapacity by embroiling himself with Denmark. So far from obtaining that crown, he lost his own. The diet insisted that he should resign Norway to Hako, and Sweden to Eric, his two sons. He fled into Scania; implored the aid of Valdemar; and in return ceded that province to the Danish crown.^[177] He was enabled by this means and by the support of a party (for what king was ever without one?) to carry on a war with Eric. Its ravages were deeply felt; its issue was dubious; and a diet was convoked at Jenkoping to avert by a pacification the ruin of the monarchy. Under the mediation of two princes connected with the royal family, it was decreed that the country should be divided between the father and the son: to the former were assigned Upland, the two Gothias, Vermeland, Dalecarlia, with the northern portion of Halland, and the isle of Oeland; to the latter, Finland, Smaland, the southern portion of Halland, and Scania.

|1354 to 1357.|

The indiscretions of Magnus had lost him the hearts of his people, which turned with ardour to Eric IV. This circumstance roused the jealousy of him and his queen, who are said to have conspired against the life of Eric. Whether he was removed by poison administered to him by his mother, or by the violence of conspirators, or by lawless banditti, or, finally, by natural causes, must for ever rest unknown, since ancient annals say nothing on the subject. The majority of historians, native and foreign, concur in fixing the guilt on queen Blanche; but until some better evidence than any they have adduced be brought to establish so unnatural a crime, the common feeling of mankind must compel them to doubt it. The only fact that is certain is that Eric died, and that Magnus profited by the event, since it restored him to the monarchy.