Account for the introduction of Absolutism as a form of Government in Scandinavia in the mid-to-late Seventeenth Century.

 The development of State bureaucracies is an integral part in accounting for the introduction of Absolutism as a form of Government in Denmark.  The financial crisis led to the collapse of the Rigsrad, which had been blamed for the defeat in the war and the financial chaos: ‘A decade of corrupt and inefficient government and defeat in war produced by 1660 the complete collapse of government finances.  The cession to Sweden of the provinces on the further side of the Sound, which meant that dues could now only be collected with the consent of Denmark’s main enemy, was a final blow to the system of aristocratic rule’ This statement clearly shows that the change in government was not radical in the sense that it seemed to be in a weakened state before the introduction of hereditary monarchy.  This did however signal radical political change in Denmark.   A new hierarchy that allowed officials of the Crown to gain power in the different divisions replaced the previous estate structure with hereditary nobles at the top.  In addition to this, Frederik appears ruthless in absolutism compared to that of Charles XI of Sweden.  One example of this is in the way that Frederik exploited every avenue in order to obtain more power.  Frederik’s brothers-in-law, Hannibal Sehested, Governor of Norway and Korfits Ulfedt were powerful under Frederik's father, however both were soon made to leave their powerful positions, offices and estates to King Frederik.  In Norway, the changes in administration proved to be an improvement to the previous control of Danish Nobility.  While still regarded as inferior, the peasants in Norway suffered less under the new ‘alien-government’ than the Danish nobility landlords. 

Another important area to investigate, in order to fully understand the introduction of Absolutism is the influences that the King’s advisers had on Frederik’s decision to rule absolutely.  Previously we have looked at Schumacher and his influence, however other figures contributed much to the introduction of Absolutism.  Christopher Gabel, the King’s secretary proved to be very passive in the movement of absolutism at that time.  In addition, in 1664 Hans Nansen was elected burgomaster of Copenhagen, which had come three years after he proposed hereditary monarchy to the King.  After the introduction of Hereditary Monarchy we see another of Christopher Gabel’s colleagues becoming very influential in the introduction of absolutism.  Bishop Hans Svane, together with Hans Nansen put forward the renouncement of privileges that would mean the nobility would also have to do the same, thus decreasing the power of the nobility further.  The influence of Gabel, Nansen and Svane was instrumental to the events that led to the King’s law in 1665 and subsequently, the most important statement of Absolutism in early modern Europe.  

The introduction of Absolutism in Sweden in the second half of the Seventeenth Century is significant in that it created a hugely successful and organised state in Europe, and allowed efficiency in areas of bureaucracy and the military.  To examine absolutism in Sweden it is essential to look at the structure of representation at that time.  In the ‘Diet,’ there existed four estates, each with distinct functions and rewards.  Looking at the Diet from the highest to the lowest we start with the ‘first estate of the nobility’ that were the titled counts and barons within nobility, exempt from taxation and rich in crown lands.  Just beneath existed the ‘estate of the clergy’, which were predominately University teachers, Bishops and Priests.  The role of the Clergy was to educate and preach to Society, remaining secular and loyal to the King.  Thirdly, we observe the “Estate of the burghers’ which included specialised traders and manufacturers, usually located in the urban areas and were able to self-govern to an extent.  Finally the last of the four estates was the ‘Estate of Peasants.’  Swedish Peasants were tenants on land owned by the other three estates.   The peasants were hugely important, not so much within the Diet but in Society as a whole.  They produced the basic necessities for life, paid the majority of taxes and were the labour force of the country.  The Swedish Peasant was not self-governing but did enjoy relative freedom and rights as a member of society and of the Diet as well.  From this we can see that there was a clear hierarchy in Sweden’s political set-up.  However it seems that Peasants in Sweden enjoyed certain freedoms that in other areas were not so readily available.  

Relating this structured society to Absolutism formation in the latter half of the Seventeenth Century is the divisions in these four estates that led to the transfer of power from the Council to the King.  The demands for the resumption by the crown of nobility lands divided the Diet.  Out of this the King received support from the lower estates and thus he seized the opportunity to increase his power in 1680:  ‘…the estates were asked to respond to three questions posed by the King:  was he bound by the 1634 Form of Government and the 1660 Addition; was he obliged to govern with the advice of the council; and was the council, as it claimed, a distinct estate of the realm.  The reply of the estates was that the King was not bound by the Form of Government, but by Sweden’s laws and customs; as such, he had no need to seek the advice of the council, whose claim to be a distinct estate was declared to be incorrect.’   The Form of Government had assured the nobility of their rights in representative society, the Council’s legitimacy in decision-making and the restriction of the King’s powers.  Without the Form of Government, the nobles and the estates lost a lot of power while the King stepped into absolutist rule.  Thus we can see that the four estates are crucial in understanding why absolutist rule began in Sweden.

   After the ‘Declaration of Estates,’ which formally introduced absolutism the King began to rule accordingly.  Firstly observers noted that the King was restructuring the Armed forces.  He had taken on direct control of the military administration with Regimental Colonels reporting directly to Charles XI.  He involved himself fully in any appointment, promotion or dismissal and in doing so led to the reduction of the War College’s influence.  In the matters of Regency, the King promoted the investigation into misconduct of funds, which included areas of the Council of State as well.  It has been stated that this was in order to boost revenue rather than any moral crusade by Charles.  In addition, Charles XI also changed the name of the ‘Council of State’ to the ‘King’s Council’ which, although not hugely radical, clearly indicated that Charles would revel as an absolute monarch, especially considering these changes were within just two years of the Declaration of Estates.   

However, it is important to look at what intentions Charles XI had for absolutism in Sweden.  Its formation was hardly repressive as there were numerous Diets throughout the latter half of the Seventeenth Century.  Most reforms were in order to stabilise the economy rather than to exert more influence.  He aimed to free Sweden from ties to other foreign powers such as France, and indeed ensure that money was available so that subsidies from other nations would not be necessary.  In addition, the Standing Army was generally defensive and Charles XI reign meant a relatively peaceful period in Swedish History, with those in the Standing Army receiving benefits such as housing.  It seems that Charles, to a large extent, ruled for the good of the nation rather than to the expense of it.  His prosecution of fiscal corruption within the Regency and the Council of State, and his ‘reduktion’ policies funded the reforms but also benefited the lower estates as well.  Thus, Swedish absolutism is unique, as it seems more of a natural development for the good rather than for the bad of the country.  Certainly it is a much less radical absolutism than that experienced in France under Louis XIV.

In conclusion, from the Danish perspective, the introduction of absolutism came around due to the impact of the wars before the Peace of Copenhagen.  The King, by negotiating with the burghers and Clergy, undermined the noble hierarchy in Parliament, which led to the collapse of the Rigsrad and allowed hereditary monarchy to exist.  From this, the Accession charter was withdrawn, and subsequently Frederik and Peder Schumacher drew up one of the significant formal statements of absolutism that allowed him to rule in this manner.  The nobility were discredited and criticised heavily, largely in order to allow the King to diminish the powers of those nobles that were held in high office.  His reign as an absolute monarch did not bring the stability that occurred in Sweden, nor did it totally address the financial crisis that had been one of the reasons for hereditary monarchy.  Frederik seemed to stabilise absolutism through careful planning and the alienation of those who were in a position to challenge his authority.  In Sweden it appears that absolutism was different in that Charles XI addressed the problems facing Sweden while ruling as an absolute monarch.  The Diets in Sweden existed after the introduction of hereditary monarchy and it seemed more of a natural progression than forced absolutism.  This can be seen by the repeal of the Form of Government, which had previously curtailed the King’s power.  The King’s bureaucratic and military involvement allowed the economy to improve in Sweden, and the penalties imposed on the regency and the elite nobles showed that while fair, Charles would be ruthless if necessary for the promotion of his Country.  It is however worth noting that some historians believe such a natural progression occurred in Sweden as the King already regarded himself as absolute and thus had little to prove to the masses when this came around formally. Scandinavian Absolutism in the Seventeenth Century occurred due to the Wars between both Countries, the criticisms that resulted from the effects of this and the seizing of opportunity by the respective King’s that the burghers and clergy had offered them.

Bibliography

• Bain Nisbet, R.  Scandinavia.  A Political History of Denmark, Norway and Sweden From 1513 to 1900, Cambridge University Press, 1905

• Derry, T K.  A History of Scandinavia.  Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Iceland, Macmillan Press Ltd.  1998

•   Kirby, David.  Northern Europe in the Early Modern Period.  The Baltic World 1492-1772.  Addison Wesley Longman Inc. 1990

• Munck, Thomas.  Seventeenth Century Europe 1598-1700.  Macmillan Press Ltd, 1990

• Pennington, D H.  Europe in the Seventeenth Century, Scandinavia and Poland. 

• Upton, A F.  Charles XI and Swedish Absolutism.  Cambridge University Press, 1998.

• Upton, A F.  Absolutism in Seventeenth Century Europe.  Macmillan Education, 1990

   

---