chapter 2 A Speculum Regale

In this chapter, the thoughts of political leadership will be examined by ana- lysing the perceptions of leadership in Danish chronicles and charters from the earliest time to the thirteenth century. This method is perhaps unconventional in the history of ideas, but it is the only feasible method to be used. Political science and political thinkers proper did not exist in the Middle Ages, but in Italy, France, and England jurists and theologians in their theoretical works dealt with a number of political issues from which political theories can be constructed. No such medieval Danish legal and theologian theoretical tradi- tion existed before 1300. On the other hand abundant reflections on political leadership are detectable in the Danish chronicles and charters. These reflec- tions, more or less tossed together in various historical contexts, can be puzzled together to construct views on political leadership from around 1100 to the end of the period. There are few explicit and elaborate statements on politi- cal leadership in the Danish chronicles and none in the charters exploited in the following study. The first sources written on Danish soil are from around 1100. At least some of the earliest are written by foreigners. Still, it might be expected that they reflect the attitude in the higher circles of the Danish communities. The later ones certainly do, not merely because the most important sources are written by Danes, more because the authors’ affiliations to the most powerful social strata is pretty well known. In order to be able to put these thoughts on leadership in the Danish sources into a wider theoretical context, a sketch of the historical development of European theories of political leadership will be presented before turning to the Danish sources.

The European Context

The main controversy in political thought from the fifth century to the High Middle Ages was whether lay or ecclesiastical power was superior. In principle, the priesthood (sacerdotium) and kingship (regnum) was considered one and this unity constituted the body of Christianity. In political theory, the medieval kingship as an independent secular power did not emerge until the thirteenth

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi: 10.1163/9789004358355_004 34 chapter 2 century.1 In the theoretical discussion of the nature of political leadership no basic distinction between the sacerdotal and secular power was drawn up until the High Middle Ages. Neither was there any fundamental difference between the concept of the leadership of the pope and that of the emperor. One reason for this was that there were no political thinkers proper before the twelfth century. Another was that the theory of government was developed by churchmen and monks well versed in the scriptures in which monarchy is the ideal form of government. In addition, the only form of government they saw in practice was monarchy. Therefore, Christian thought on government emerged as monarchical. All the same, the relationship between secular and spiritual power was a controversial issue until a century after the so-called Investiture Controversy. Christian writers accepted lay power in accordance with biblical dogmas. Christ allegedly said that his kingdom was in heaven and he accepted the secular rule of the emperor. Several other passages in the Bible support the idea that lay governing authorities shall be obeyed. Civil authority comes from God and therefore rebellion against lay authorities resists God’s will, it was held.2 The question was, however, which ways God’s delegation of power fol- lowed. Did God endow the emperor with power directly, as could be argued on the basis of Corpus iuris civilis issued under Emperor Justinian (527–534), or was it transmitted from God to the emperor by God’s representative on earth? According to the Petrine Doctrine, put forward by Pope Leo i between 440– 461a.d., the pope was Jesus’s agent in this world. The doctrine was based on an interpretation of two verses in the Bible and a false letter made in the late sec- ond century (Epistola Clementis) from Pope Clement i to St James, a relative of Jesus and the first bishop of Jerusalem.3 In Matthew 16:18–19, Jesus declares that he will build his church on his disciple Peter, and that he gave Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven as well as the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. These powers St Peter allegedly handed over to Pope Clement accord- ing to the mentioned letter. Thus, the pope and each succeeding pope, accord- ing to tradition, became the unworthy direct heirs of St Peter. The thought of the primacy of the Apostolic See was substantiated by a decree issued by Emperor Valentinian iii in 445 declaring the Roman bishop’s sovereignty

1 Walter Ullmann, A History of Political Thought: The Middle Ages (Harmondsworth, 1965, repr. Harmondsworth, 1970), p. 17. 2 John 18:36; Matthew 22:21; 1Peter 2:17; Romans 13:1–2. 3 Leo the Great, Sermons of Leo the Great, trans. C.L. Feltoe (New York, 1985), p. 117.