Chapter III: 169

SWEDEN.

1001–1389.

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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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!

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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?

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 1357 to 1363.]

It was impossible for this weak and unscrupulous prince to win the esteem of the Swedes. He hated them because they had deposed him; and to be revenged on them, he entered into a close alliance with Valdemar of Denmark. Valdemar, to whom he ceded Scania, became, as we have before related, the willing instrument of that vengeance in the sack of Wisby and in other depredations.[178] This was not the way to acquire popularity: he and the whole Danish nation were soon detested; nor was the feeling diminished when the secret transpired of a projected union between the king’s son, Hako of Norway, and Margaret, the daughter of Valdemar. To prevent this obnoxious alliance, the nobles arose, imprisoned Magnus in the fortress of Calmar, called on Hako to assume the administration, and made him promise not only that he would renounce all connection with Denmark, but marry Elizabeth, sister of Henry count of Holstein. Though HAKO II. (the sixth of Norway) engaged to fulfil the wishes of the diet, neither he nor his father, who was soon enlarged, had the least intention to do so. On the contrary, they renewed their connection still more closely with the obnoxious Valdemar. The manner in which Elizabeth was deluded by that monarch until the marriage of his daughter with Hako was celebrated, has been already described.

[Sidenote: 1363.]

Nothing could exceed the anger of the Swedes, or rather of a considerable faction (for the majority were passive) when they heard of this marriage. Determined to exclude both father and son, they invited Henry of Holstein, who was connected with the royal line, to ascend the throne. But Henry was an old man; and he would not risk his tranquillity for an object that he could not long enjoy. He recommended the electors to make choice of Albert duke of Mecklenburg, whose mother was the sister of Magnus. But the duke had no wish to rule a divided, turbulent people; nor did he wish his eldest son to undertake the perilous charge. He had, however, a second son, also named Albert, who had nothing to lose, and whom he recommended to the suffrages of the electors.

[Sidenote: 1364 to 1371.]

ALBERT arrived at Stockholm early in 1364. That city was in the interests of Magnus, and for a time it resisted; but he forced or persuaded it to capitulate. There he was joined by most of the nobles who were discontented with Magnus. Their first act was to renew the deposition of the one; their next, to confirm the election of the other. Hako, then in Norway, prepared to invade the kingdom; and Magnus, who had still a party, effected a junction with him. Their army being augmented by a considerable number of Danes, they penetrated into Upland. But Albert, on his side, hastened to oppose them; and in a battle of some magnitude, victory the most decisive inclined to his standard: Magnus was taken prisoner; Hako was wounded and compelled to retreat with expedition into his own kingdom. The fortresses which held for the two princes were next reduced; two or three of them only made a vigorous defence. But Valdemar of Denmark, whose interest lay in disturbing the kingdom, sent, from time to time, supplies of troops, which harassed the king. Peace with that formidable rival was felt to be necessary for the repose of the realm, and it was purchased by the cession of some domains. Among them was the isle of Gothland with Wisby the capital. That these cessions were unwillingly made, may be easily conceived; and to procure their restoration, Albert entered into a close league with the enemies of Denmark. The war was consequently renewed. While his allies assailed other parts of Denmark, he invaded Scania, a portion of which he reduced. But little time was left him for exultation. Hako of Norway invaded Sweden, defeated him, and compelled him to throw himself into Stockholm, which was closely invested. In this extremity he proposed an interview, in which the conditions of peace were agreed on. Magnus was enlarged for a ransom of 12,000 marks; and in return for his cession of the Swedish crown, he received as fiefs West Gothland, Vermeland, and Dalia. He was, however, to have no share in the administration of these provinces, but merely to receive the revenues with the title of governor; and the rest of his days he was to pass in Norway. Lest he should break this, with as much levity as he had broken all his former engagements, sixty gentlemen of his party were to surrender themselves prisoners to Albert, if he should again disturb the peace of the realm. He did not disturb it, because he was soon afterwards drowned in crossing a ford.

[Sidenote: 1371 to 1376.]

For some years after this pacification Albert enjoyed comparative security. But he was not popular: he brought over many greedy Germans to share in the spoils of the kingdom; and exhibited in their favour a partiality so gross as much to indispose the nation against him. Like a true German, indeed, he had little regard for any thing beyond his immediate interests, and those of his family. Insecure as was his possession of Sweden, he raised troops to support the claims of his nephew, Albert of Mecklenburg, to the Danish throne, in opposition to Olaf, the son of Margaret and Hako.[179] The enterprise failed: the armament that was sent against the Danes was mostly destroyed by a storm; and there was no disposition to renew the contest.

[Sidenote: 1377 to 1387.]

The gross partiality of Albert for his foreign mercenaries was not the only fault he committed. Having a high notion of the kingly prerogative, he endeavoured to rule without the control of the diet. For his attempt to restrain the privileges of the nobles he would deserve our praise, were not his motives of the most selfish character. The people had still more reason to complain. Not only were they subject to a tyranny odious as that of the nobles, but they were ground to the earth by new imposts, and, what was still more mortifying, for the enrichment of avaricious foreigners. In this state of the public mind, he convoked a diet at Stockholm, and demanded an augmentation of his income. It was not, he observed, adequate to the decent support of royalty; and he solicited one third of the whole revenue, civil and ecclesiastical. Nothing could equal the indignant surprise of the diet at this extraordinary demand. They replied that former kings had found the usual revenues enough, not merely for comfort but for splendour; and intimated that if he was straitened, the cause lay in the number of foreigners whom he enriched. This intimation might have been expected to produce some good effect; but it had none on this imprudent king except to exasperate him, and to make him resolve that he would wrest by force what had been refused to his solicitations. In vain did both nobles and clergy cry aloud against his arbitrary purpose: in vain did they call upon him to respect the privileges which he had sworn to maintain; he persevered, and consequently plunged the kingdom into a ruinous civil war.

[Sidenote: 1388 to 1389.]

At this time Margaret, who had succeeded to her son Olaf, was sovereign of Denmark and Norway. To her the malcontents applied for aid, which she would not afford them, unless they acknowledged her for their queen. The condition was accepted: an army of Danes marched into Sweden, and was immediately joined by many of the nobles and clergy. The lower classes of the population—those who contributed little to the support of the state—were indifferent to the result, or if they had any bias, it was in favour of Albert—not from any attachment to him, but from dislike of the nobles. At Falkoping, in West Gothland, however, a good stand was made by his army, consisting not merely of Swedes but of Germans, and many adventurers whom the offer of large pay and the hope of plunder had drawn to his standard. But after a desperate conflict, he was defeated, and captured, together with his son. Both were committed to a fortress, where, notwithstanding the efforts of their German allies, and those of their own party, they remained above six years; nor did they obtain their enlargement without a solemn renunciation of the Swedish crown.

With MARGARET, sovereign of three kingdoms, begins a new era in Northern history.

------------------------------------------------------------------------