With the death of Haakon Haakonsson, the continuous story of the sagas ceases. A fragment of the life of his son, Magnus Law-Mender (LagabÖter), written by Sturla Thordsson, is preserved, but the greater portion has unhappily been lost. What is known concerning the later kings, during the period of independence, is derived from many scattered and often unreliable sources. A period of decline, at first gradual and imperceptible, set in with the reign of King Magnus, and culminated in the loss of independence.

Magnus had been proclaimed king during his father's lifetime, and as he was of age, the government passed into his hands without dispute. Being indisposed to continue the expensive war with Scotland, he sent his chancellor, Askatin, to Alexander III. and obtained peace on the condition of ceding the Island of Man and the Shetland Isles, receiving in return 4,000 marks sterling, besides an annual tribute of 100 marks. The latter stipulation was intended to save appearances, as an annual tribute might well be interpreted as a continued recognition of the supremacy of the king of Norway.

It has often been questioned whether Magnus acted wisely in refusing to draw the sword to preserve the integrity of his kingdom. That the Scottish isles already had cost Norway more in blood and treasure than they were worth, is generally conceded; and the chances were that, as Scotland increased in power, still greater efforts would be required to assert the sway of Norway over the remote dependencies. Moreover, as England later rose to become a European power and absorbed Scotland, it was merely a question of time when Norway would be compelled to relax its hold upon the islands. Whether it was a mere native disinclination to fight, or a careful counting of the cost, which induced Magnus to depart from his father's policy, time seems to have justified the wisdom of his course. For all that, it is undeniable that the respect and influence abroad which Norway had gained by Haakon's assertion of the national dignity, were much diminished by the unwarlike spirit of his son. He had indeed the satisfaction to add Iceland to his possessions. But even this was in no wise due to his skill or merit. It was apparently the result of King Haakon's interference in the feuds of the Sturlungs, but in a deeper sense it was due to causes which do not lie so near the surface. The descendants of the proud men who, during the reign of Harold the Fairhaired, emigrated from Norway, merely because they would not surrender their allodial rights, would not have surrendered liberty itself without resistance, if they had not sadly degenerated from their ancestors.

Liberty had in Iceland long ago degenerated into license. No law had the power to bind the strong. It is a mistake to suppose that the institutions of the country were democratic. Though theoretically the rights of every free man were recognized, in practice they soon came to amount to very little. Icelandic society early separated itself into a yeomanry or peasantry and an aristocracy. The latter, who had the government entirely in their hands, proceeded by a series of bloody feuds to exterminate each other, until, of the fifty or more ruling families, scarcely half a dozen were left in possession of their dignity and power. As a matter of course, these half a dozen then endeavored to cut each other's throats, and, as the struggle grew fiercer, welcomed aid from any source and at any price. All public interests were lost sight of in the furious strife for personal ascendency. The proud sense of independence, which had been the glory of the race, developed into a mere ferocious passion for power, and a savage determination to crush out rivalry. Civic rights, moral obligations, and the bonds of blood were equally disregarded; brother waged war against brother and father against son. Murder and arson were every-day occurrences. Complete anarchy prevailed. Of this state of things Haakon Haakonsson took advantage, and by aiding one faction against the other secured the allegiance of the conquering party and thereby the submission of the island itself to the crown of Norway. Snorre's son-in-law and slayer, Gissur Thorvaldsson, was the first Earl of Iceland. He received the dignity from King Haakon (1258), before his countrymen had yet recognized the latter's overlordship. If it be true that the happiest nations are those which have no history, it may be safe to conclude that the happiest periods of a nation's life are the most uneventful. If so, the reign of Magnus Haakonsson afforded every chance of happiness to his subjects. The peasant cultivated contentedly his fields, and, undisturbed, the merchant and the artisan pursued their avocations. The development of the resources of the country afforded the king satisfaction, and he did all in his power to further every peaceful industry. To this end he also interested himself in legislation, and spent many years of his life in revising the laws and making them uniform. Formerly the country had been divided into four judicial districts, each with its own thing and its own laws. The Frosta-thing's code was the law of TrÖndelag, the Gula-thing's code was valid on the western coast, the Eidsivia code in the Oplands, and the Borgar-thing's code in Viken. Out of these four, Magnus now caused a new general code to be elaborated for the whole country, abolishing what was antiquated, removing inconsistencies and adapting the spirit of the legislation to the needs of the age. For four hundred years his laws remained in force, and a few of them have remained until recent times. All things, great and small, relating to civic life interested him; and a certain over-confidence in the power of law to regulate all human concerns is traceable in his labors. For the cities he elaborated a municipal law, and for his vassals and courtiers a court law (Hirdskraa), which was, however, an adaptation of a previously existing code, dating from the days of Sverre. The court law dealt with the feudal duties and privileges of vassals, prescribed rules for courtly intercourse, and a fixed ceremonial for the proclamation of a king, the conferring of the feudal dignities, etc. Among other things it ordained that no longer, as of old, should a peasant, as the representative of the people, confer the royal dignity upon the heir to the throne, but the man of highest rank present.

An inclination is visible in King Magnus' legislation to break with the democratic past, and to remodel Norway, as nearly as possible, after foreign patterns. It was particularly England, with its feudal institutions, which seemed to him and his surroundings worthy of imitation. Although it was by no means a pure democracy which had prevailed in Norway hitherto, there had yet been a recognition of the people as the source of power, and the old stubborn sense of independence which characterized the peasantry had never been eradicated. Hitherto the laws had been submitted to the people at the things, where every free-born man could make himself heard. Now this venerable custom was abolished, and the king and his council reserved for themselves the right to make and repeal laws, without consulting the people. That this decree was accepted without protest, nay appears to have caused no particular excitement, shows plainly the change that had come over the spirit of the Norsemen. If a king had proposed such a law, in the days of Haakon the Good or Olaf Tryggvesson, he would have risked his throne and his life. Whether it was because royalty had risen to such dignity and power that it seemed hopeless to oppose it, or because the tribal aristocracy, instead of making common cause with the people, had attached itself to the crown, certain it is that the supine acceptance of so radical a change argued a degeneracy which explains the subsequent events.

It is scarcely to be wondered at that the rise of feudalism throughout Europe, during the thirteenth century, also had its effect upon the institutions of Norway. The ideas which Magnus embodied in his laws were, so to speak, in the air; and the commercial intercourse with England had familiarized the Norsemen with the titles and the pomp and circumstance of chivalry. Thus the Royal Council, consisting of the chancellor, the earls, and the liegemen, was obviously copied after the English institution of the same name, and, to make the resemblance complete, the ancient title of liegeman was abolished and that of baron substituted. The court officials were made knights and squires.[A] A privileged class was thus raised distinctly above the people; and the foundation laid for a hereditary nobility. A partial immunity from taxes was granted to barons and knights, and the lucrative offices in the gift of the crown were parcelled out among them. Though some elements of the ancient tribal aristocracy were absorbed in the new order, there was also a large element which owed its rise purely to royal favor. It is thus to be noted, that the new nobility of Norway was in the main a court nobility, which depended upon the crown for its dignity, and could not be expected, when occasion demanded, to antagonize the king in the interest of the people. It therefore shared the fate of royalty and lost its power when the royal house became extinct. For the later rulers, the Danish kings, were surrounded by a hungry aristocracy of their own, whose fortunes they were bound to push, and the Norse candidates for their favor had to be neglected. Thus it happened that the Norse aristocracy again returned to the people, from which it had originally risen. It was gradually absorbed by and identified with the peasantry, which thereby gained more than the nobles lost. "A compact class of allodial freeholders was formed, which, on account of their numbers and their remoteness from public affairs, may be styled a peasantry, but by reason of their liberty and self-assertion almost maintained the rank of a nobility."[B]

It is this proud peasant-nobility which until this day have constituted the strength of the Norse people and the bulwark of its re-arisen liberty. They have at all times, even during the darkest days of the union with Denmark, constituted a force with which the government had to reckon.

In spite of his conciliatory disposition, King Magnus' reign had its share of quarrels and disturbances. Chief among these was his controversy with the Church, which ended, on his part, with an abject surrender. The archbishop, at that time, was the haughty and ambitious Jon the Red (RÖde), who, before consenting to a change in the law of succession, which the king had much at heart, extorted from him a series of humiliating concessions. At a meeting of notables in Tunsberg (1277), Magnus bound himself to abstain from all interference in the selection of bishops, and to surrender to the latter the right of filling, in accordance with their pleasure, all the clerical offices. He conceded, moreover, to the archbishop the privilege of coining money and to have a hundred men in his personal service, who should be exempt from feudal obligations to the king.

In his relation to foreign powers Magnus was equally unsuccessful in maintaining the dignity of his crown. When his brother-in-law, the Swedish king, Valdemar, begged him for help against his brother Magnus, who had deprived him of the greater part of his kingdom, preparations were indeed made for a grand campaign, but after several futile meetings and much talk, the Norwegian fleet was ordered home again and the Swedish king was left to his fate. To a proud and adventurous people like the Norsemen, jealous of their dignity at home and abroad, this unconquerable reluctance to draw the sword must have appeared humiliating. A high regard for honor and a genius for war had characterized the race up to this time; and however much one may disapprove of war, one cannot deny that peace may be bought at too high a price. The right to hold one's head high; to feel proud of one's history and one's country, is a precious privilege, without which no race ever achieved great things. King Magnus, by lessening the prestige which the country had enjoyed during the reign of his father, therefore contributed much toward the decadence which followed.

Physically as well as mentally, signs of degeneracy are beginning to be perceptible in the royal race of Norway. King Magnus was, indeed, endowed with a good intellect and his morals were blameless. But for all that, he was a far less sturdy and impressive personality than his father, and a still greater distance separated him from his great-grandfather, the wise, brave, gentle, unconquerable Sverre. Many of his imprudent acts are explained by the fact that his health was never vigorous. While he was yet in the prime of life, he began to suffer from ailments which warned his councillors that his days were numbered. He died in 1280, at the age of forty-one.