Sovereign dealings with blasphemy: the prosecution of written pacts with the Devil within the absolute monarchy of Denmark-Norway

ABSTRACT

This article discusses how to perceive developments in the prosecution of written pacts with the Devil in Denmark-Norway between 1634 and 1754. While existing scholarship interprets the prosecution within the framework of an Enlightenment narrative by presenting the cases as evidence of an incomplete rejection of magical beliefs, such as the possibility of making a pact with the Devil, this article investigates the cases with regard to the early absolutist sovereigns’ endeavours to deal with blasphemy offences. The medley of punishments imposed in the cases – including public confession, executions, and imprisonment with hard labour – calls for a more complex evaluation of both ruptures and continuity in the prosecution of this type of crime during the period. Through selected cases representing varying approaches of the respective sovereigns, this article analyses how the understanding and administration of the offence developed in the legal practice of the emerging absolutist state.

KEYWORDS:

• blasphemy
• sorcery
• absolutism
• Enlightenment
• legal practice

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Tine Reeh for her helpful conversations and advice.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. The phrase ’written pacts with the Devil‘ is Tyge Krogh’s translation of varying Danish terms (commonly ‘forskrivelser til Djævelen’). Krogh, “The Rise and Fall.” Considering the terminology applied in the legal framework and court records, I refer to ‘sorcery’ rather than ‘witchcraft’. Birkelund, Troldkvinden og hendes anklagere, 32; and Johansen, Da Djævelen var ude, 14.

2. For a discussion of the legal thought of early Danish absolutism, see Stenbæk, “En kirkeretslig vurdering.”

3. Levack, “The Decline and End,” 435–41.

4. Johansen and Wittendorff both focus on the decline in cases from the early 1650s onwards even though they explain it in different ways. Johansen, Da Djævelen var ude, 139–60; and Wittendorff, “Trolddomsprocessernes ophør i Danmark.” In contrast, Henningsen emphasizes the importance of the procedural initiative seized by the central government in 1686 and, thus, speaks of an abolition rather than simply a cessation of sorcery trials. Henningsen, Heksejægeren på Rugård, 172; and Henningsen, “Trolddom i det 17. århundredes,” 144.

5. Werlauff, Historiske antegnelser, 463; Henningsen, “Trolddom og hemmelige kunstner,” 195–96; Henningsen, “Hekseforfølgelse efter ‘hekseprocessernes tid’,” 101–2; Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, passim; and Holm, Skal dette være Troja?, passim.

6. Werlauff, Historiske antegnelser, 463.

7. Holm, Skal dette være Troja?, 21, 23, 33, and 35.

8. Nyerup, Almindelig morskabslæsning, 192; and Thomsen, “Bøger for folket,” 267–74.

9. Werlauff, Historiske antegnelser, 460–63; and Holm, Skal dette være Troja?. For Holberg’s mention of his discovery of a written pact, see epistle 92. Holberg, Epistler, 68.

10. Holmboe, “Højesteret og strafferetten,” 64 and 187 note 3; Jacobsen, Danske domme, 230–33; Henningsen, “Trolddom og hemmelige kunstner,” 191–96; and Henningsen, “Hekseforfølgelse efter ‘hekseprocessernes tid’,” 141–43.

11. Nyerup, “Om forskrivninger til Fanden,” 334; and Henningsen, “Hekseforfølgelse efter ‘hekseprocessernes tid’,” 143. All translations by author.

12. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 124–50. For an adaptation of the monograph into English, see Krogh, “The Rise and Fall.”

13. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske.

14. For Krogh’s survey of the political initiatives to ensure the centralization of final convictions, see Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 62–66 and 114–18.

15. Krogh identifies the cognitive development among the social elite and its implication for legal practice to be the core of his investigation. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 12. For Krogh’s characterization of this cognitive development in terms of a transition from a magical to a rational worldview, see ibid., 23–29. Furthermore, Krogh provides a survey of intellectual currents that influenced the period’s criminal law and practice. Ibid., 99–118. For a discussion of Krogh’s definitions of ‘magic’ and ‘religion’, see the oppositions given by Ole Feldbæk, Jens Christian V. Johansen, Henrik Stevnsborg, and Ditlev Tamm in Feldbæk et al., review of Oplysningstiden og det magiske.

16. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 123, 126, and 149.

17. Olli, “The Devil’s Pact”; Olli, Visioner av världen; and Olli, “Blasphemy.”

18. Olli, Visioner av världen, 6–7; and Olli, “Blasphemy.”

19. Although the Danish regulation against sorcery issued in 1617 adopted the learned definition of sorcery (including its emphasis on a pact with the Devil), the Danish judges constantly considered allegations of inflicted harm. Birkelund, Troldkvinden og hendes anklagere, 28–30 and 107–8; Johansen, Da Djævelen var ude, 25; Ankarloo, “Witch Trials,” 75–76 and 82; and Hagen, “Witchcraft Criminality,” 383. In a comparative study of the criminal procedures of early modern Italy and Denmark concerning sorcery prosecutions, Louise Nyholm Kallestrup argues that the lacking impact of the 1617 regulation on legal practice had to do with an accusatorial criminal procedure. Kallestrup, “Lay and Inquisitorial Witchcraft Prosecutions,” 274.

20. Kallestrup, “The Infected”; and Kallestrup, “When Hell Became Too Small.”

21. See note 13 above, 149.

22. Krogh describes the cases as a severe type of religious crime adjoined to blasphemy and sorcery or adjoining blasphemy and a pact with the Devil. This description also includes the cases regarding abuse of the Host. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 124–25. In his outline of the legal framework of the prosecution of written pacts, Krogh refers both to the regulation against sorcery that implies a pact with the Devil (Section 9) and the two regulations against blasphemy (sections 7 and 8). Ibid., 126.

23. Secher, Kong Christian, 857–64.

24. Ibid., 862.

25. Ibid.

26. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 124.

27. Secher, Kong Christian, 862–63.

28. Jørgensen, Dansk strafferet, 394; Jacobsen, Danske domme, 174–75, 201; and Johansen, Da Djævelen var ude, 24. For a discussion of the different wording, see Birkelund, Troldkvinden og hendes anklagere, 31. See regulation in Sj.t. 1617, fol. 259v, dated October 12.

29. E.g. beheading before burning, as was the case in the last execution for sorcery following Section 9 in 1693. Jacobsen, Danske domme, 238.

30. For Christian IV’s request, see Sj.t. 1635, fol. 372 v, dated January 10. Holger Fr. Rørdam and Henningsen assume the case was unprecedented. Rørdam, “En sørgelig historie,” 411; and Henningsen, “Trolddom og hemmelige kunstner,” 193. For Frederik V’s resolution, see Jy.t. 1754/90–91, fol. 606v–612r, dated November 15. Werlauff and V. A. Secher consider this case the last. Werlauff, Historiske antegnelser, 462–63; and Secher, “En forskrivelse til Fanden,” 92. I exclude what I consider an isolated case from 1803 settled by the chancellery. See Christensen, “En forskrivelse til Fanden.”

31. The DC repeats previous procedural law (the recess of 21 November 1576, Section 8) when stipulating that the High Court should affirm death sentences in sorcery cases before execution. See DC 1-24-51, which also includes homicide cases, in Secher, Kong Christian, 184–85. A rescript of July 21/20 November 1686, moreover requires that the Supreme Court affirm death sentences in sorcery cases before execution. Jy.t. 1686/68, fol. 403v–404r, dated July 21 and 1686/90, fol. 416v–417r, dated November 20; and Jacobsen, Danske domme, 203.

32. See examples in Jacobsen, Danske domme, 299; and Birkelund, Troldkvinden og hendes anklagere, 30 and 39.

33. Tamm, Juraens 100 bedste historier, 291.

34. See DC 1-26-1 in Secher, Kong Christian, 200–202.

35. See DC 1-24-52 in Secher, Kong Christian, 185.

36. Holmboe, “Højesteret og strafferetten,” 104; and Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 63.

37. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 73.

38. This structure differs from Krogh’s division of the period (1683–1715; 1715–30; 1730–44; and 1745–60). Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 124–50.

39. Due to the loss of, i.a., the Supreme Court records of judgements (“dombøger”) from 1700 to 1793, voting protocols constitute a unique source for tracing the development of the Supreme Court during the eighteenth century. Rasch, “Højesterets arkiv,” 545–46. Regarding the trial of the cases from 1733 and 1738 before the Supreme Court, see Holmboe, “Højesteret og strafferetten,” 64 and 187 note 3; Jacobsen, Danske domme, 230–31; and Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 140–42. For the other nine cases, see, respectively, Voteringsprotokol 1704A, 81–85, 99 (cf. 1704–07, 140–44, 175) [1.]; 1725A, fol. 182v–184v [2.]; 1727A, fol. 94v–98v, 139r [3.]; 1733A, fol. 178r–181v [4.]; 1737A, 358–61 [5.] and 525–28 [6.]; 1738A, 438–39 [7.]; 1740A, fol. 129v–130r [8.]; and 1760A, 296–99 [9.].

40. The other charges include slander, a priest’s deviations from the Church Ritual of 1685, accusations of lese majesty and treason, confessions of sodomy, vagrancy, and fraud, vandalism, scandalous lifestyles and threats, and a priest’s engagement to a married woman. As to the references to the blasphemy regulations in two of the cases (1704 [1.] and 1737 [6.], see note 39 for citations), the verdicts disregarded these allegations.

41. 1704 [1.], 1737 [5.], 1738 [7.], and 1740 [8.]. For citations, see note 39.

42. For the granted trials before the Supreme Court, see Sj.t. 1733/347–9, fol. 242v–244v, dated October 24; and 1738/389–91, fol. 740v–742r, dated July 14. For the resolutions, see Jy.t. 1733/109, fol. 450v–451r, dated December 28; and Sj.t. 1738/705, fol. 929v–930r, dated December 19.

43. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 386–566.

44. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 515–66. I have discovered an additional case regarding blasphemy and religious delusion from 1723 against a person named Carsten Junge. Kopibog 1723, 1194ff.

45. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 454–514.

46. Sj.t. 1635, fol. 372v, dated January 10.

47. Rørdam, “En sørgelig historie,” 404.

48. Ibid., 404–5.

49. Ibid., 406.

50. Ibid., 405–7.

51. As the professors also explicitly stated that Pedersen had been of sound mind, they indirectly rejected his plea for temporary insanity. Rørdam, “To mærkelige universitetsbetænkninger,” 451.

52. Ibid., 451–2. The professors found their justification for capital punishment via the following biblical references: (1) due to a pact with the Devil, found in Exod. 22:18, Lev. 20:2–5.27, Deut. 18:9–12, and Psalms 106:37; (2) due to blasphemy, found in Lev. 24:16; and (3) due to violation of the Mosaic law, found in Heb. 10:28–29.

53. Rørdam, “To mærkelige universitetsbetænkninger,” 452–3.

54. Fy.t. 1635, fol. 316v–317r, dated February 5.

55. Jacobsen, Danske domme, 185. For the royal rescript regarding the punishment of the responsible guard, see Fy.t. 1635, fol. 354r, dated December 3.

56. This conclusion resonates with characteristic Danish legal practice in sorcery cases, according to which the circumstantial evidence of inflicted harm decisively led to conviction (see note 19). Jørgensen, Dansk strafferet, 394–96; Jacobsen, Danske domme, 25 and 184; Birkelund, Troldkvinden og hendes anklagere, 54–55 and 116; and Tørnsø, Djævletro og folkemagi, 121.

57. See note 31. Arguably, the regulation was a contributing factor to the cessation of sorcery trials by the end of the seventeenth century (see note 4). Henningsen, “Trolddom i det 17. århundredes,” 144.

58. For a reprint of the newspaper article, see Wolff, Journal for politik, 15–16.

59. Kopibog 1687, 77. The professors included H. Bagger, J. Lassenius, H. Wandal, and H. G. Masius.

60. Ibid.

61. While the professors did not specify Preusner’s intended use of the Host in their recommendation, it appears from a reported interrogation of Preusner that he had envisioned using it for love magic. Ibid., 79 and 80.

62. Ibid., 77.

63. Ibid., 77–78.

64. Ibid., 78.

65. Ibid.

66. Ibid. Probably following the regulation against judicial torture, which prohibited the use of torture before the conviction of a death sentence. See DC 1-20-1 in Secher, Kong Christian, 136. Regarding regulations against judicial torture in Danish legislation, see Vogt, “Likewise No One,” 80–81.

67. Wolff, Journal for politik, 155; and Bircherod, Uddrag, 241. It remains uncertain whether or not the king imposed the qualified capital punishment stipulated in the blasphemy regulations. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 128.

68. Wolff, Journal for politik, 155.

69. For the professors, see those mentioned in note 59.

70. Kopibog 1690, 114.

71. Ibid.

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid.

74. Ibid., 115.

75. Wolff, Journal for politik, 154–55.

76. Kopibog 1692, 153; and Sj.t. 1692/33–34, fol. 399r–v, dated January 19.

77. Sj.t. 1692/4, fol. 377v–378r, dated January 2; and Kopibog 1692, 151.

78. See DC 6-1-10, against foolish and imaginary tricks to bewitch and harm another, stipulated, i.a., lifelong imprisonment with hard labour. DC 6-1-12, against white magic stipulated, i.a., banishment from the king’s realm. See Secher, Kong Christian, 863–64.

79. Kopibog 1692, 151–52.

80. The professors included Bagger, Wandal, and Masius.

81. Ibid., 154.

82. Ibid.

83. The professors argued for her banishment based on the community’s suspicion and fear of her rather than for her culpability for sorcery. Ibid., 154–5.

84. Sj.t. 1692/55, fol. 412r, dated February 27.

85. See note 13 above., 119, 124–25, 527, and 531–32; and Kopibog 1723, 1194ff.

86. Three of the offenders repeated the offence: Johan Christian von Aachen (1721, 1724), Margrethe Schmidt (1724, 1733), and Carl von Utlandt (1724–25, 1727). Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 127.

87. The professors included H. Bornemann, Wandal, Masius, H. Bartholin, and B. Botsac.

88. The applied section appears implicitly from the description of the imposed punishment. Kopibog 1708, 435.

89. Ibid., 436. The biblical reference is found in Lev. 24:16.

90. Ibid., 436.

91. Ibid., 436–37.

92. The professors included C. W. Worm, H. Bartholin, H. Steenbuch, and J. Trellund.

93. Kopibog 1715, 833.

94. Ibid.

95. The professors referred generally to the DC and the “war articles” (“Kriigs-articler,” presumably the Christian den femtes Krigsartikelbrev af 9. Marts 1683). Kopibog 1719, 274.

96. The professors included Worm, H. Bartholin, Steenbuch, and S. Lintrup.

97. Kopibog 1719, 273–74.

98. Sj.t. 1710/1–3, fol. 428r–429v, dated January 11; and Kopibog 1710, 546.

99. Kopibog 1710, 545.

100. Ibid., 552.

101. Ibid. The professors included H. Bornemann, Wandal, H. Bartholin, and Steenbuch. Wandal also deliberated the case in 1690. While the intended removal of the pact evidently represented a mitigating circumstance, the implication of the removal is unclear.

102. Ibid., 553.

103. Ibid., 553–54.

104. Ibid., 554.

105. Sj.t. 1710/35–37, fol. 454r–455v, dated January 28.

106. Ibid., 454v.

107. Kopibog 1718, 66.

108. Ibid.

109. Ibid. The professors included Worm, H. Bartholin, Steenbuch, Trellund, and Lintrup.

110. The minority (Worm and H. Bartholin) voted for lifelong imprisonment with hard labour. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 130 note 220; and Forhandlingsprotokol 1684–1776, fol. 118r.

111. Kopibog 1718, 75.

112. Ibid., 75–76.

113. Ibid., 76.

114. Ibid.

115. Ibid.

116. Ibid.

117. Ibid., 77.

118. Ibid.

119. Sj.t. 1720/356, fol. 615v–616v, dated September 16; and Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 132 and 135 note 235.

120. Frederik IV released a thirteen-year-old student, Hans Bilde Michelsen, after about a year-and-a-half imprisonment with hard labour. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 127 and 135. See also Sj.t. 1722/232, fol. 370v–371r, dated May 29.

121. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 131–33, and 136–37. The king refrained from consulting the Faculty of Theology in the case against Michelsen (see note 120) and Abraham Tørchelsen Bølge. Ibid., 127 and 135–36.

122. Ibid., 131–32.

123. Ibid., 132 note 224.

124. Ibid., 132; and Henningsen, “Trolddom og hemmelige kunstner,” 194–95.

125. According to Henningsen and Birkelund, the capital punishment imposed on Forthammer followed Section 9 against sorcery. Henningsen, “Hekseforfølgelse efter ‘hekseprocessernes tid’,” 143; and Birkelund, Troldkvinden og hendes anklagere, 111. Although we cannot plainly clarify the legal basis for the king’s decision, I consider the significance of Section 9 unlikely. While some of the respondents did refer to Section 9 as well as sections 7 and 8 against blasphemy (e.g. the bishops J. Lodberg, L. Thura, J. Ocksen, and F. Thestrup), the respondents who were experienced in considering criminal cases (the king’s legal advisor C. Bartholin, Lintrup, Trellund, Worm, H. Bartholin, and Steenbuch) clearly considered the offence as blasphemy in line with the previous two cases (1718 and 1720). NKS 1703 Folio. Possibly due to a typing error, Krogh notes that C. Bartholin referred to Section 9 against sorcery in regard to the offence. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 135. In fact, Bartholin referred to Section 7 against blasphemy. Koncepter til erklæringer 1721–33, dated 4 March 1721.

126. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 136–37.

127. Ibid., 137–38 and 543.

128. Ibid., 125, 127, 140–42, and 475.

129. Ibid., 140–46 and 475.

130. Kopibog (1717–1733) 1733, 1559.

131. Ibid., 1559–60. The professors included Worm, Steenbuch, M. Wöldike, and J. F. Reuss.

132. Jy.t. 1733/3, fol. 335v, dated January 16.

133. See note 42.

134. Voteringsprotokol 1733A, fol. 407r. I have added assessors’ first names and adjusted the spelling. Cf. Falk-Jensen and Hjorth-Nielsen, “Stat,” 284–286. Given the description of the punishment, the lower court sentence followed DC 6-1-7 and -8.

135. Voteringsprotokol 1733A, fol. 407r–v. The prosecutor furthermore called for the burning of the written pact by the executioner.

136. Ibid., fol. 407v. I examine further the evaluation of Jørgensen’s mental state in Nissen, “Professional dynamics.”

137. Voteringsprotokol 1733A, fol. 407v–408r. Boson alleged DC 2-5-2[9]. See Secher, Kong Christian, 243.

138. Fjeldsted followed DC 6-1-10. See note 78.

139. Voteringsprotokol 1733, fol. 408r–v.

140. Ibid., fol. 408v–409r.

141. Ibid., fol. 409v–410r.

142. Ibid., fol. 410v. As DC 1-1-1 obliged the courts to follow the letter of the law, any clemency depended on royal resolutions. Holmboe, “Højesteret og strafferetten,” 104.

143. Voteringsprotokol 1733, fol. 409r–v. As the account of the Supreme Court’s vote on the case only distinguishes between “Bartholin” and “Mr. Bartholin,” I cannot ascertain whether the argument belonged to C. or T. Bartholin.

144. Ibid., fol. 410r–v.

145. Jy.t. 1733/109, fol. 450v, dated December 28.

146. Kopibog (1733–1745) 1733, 97–100.

147. Bog over jernfangerne, no. 193.

148. See note 42.

149. Sj.t. 1738/705, fol. 929v–930r, dated December 19.

150. See DC 1-15-1 and -2 in Secher, Kong Christian, 118–19.

151. The Supreme Court response to Christian VI has been appended, along with other case documents, to the draft of the royal resolution. See Sj.t. (drafts/appendices) 1738/705.

152. Voteringsprotokol 1738A, 300. Due to abbreviations, deciphering the manuscript requires some amount of guesswork. Nonetheless, it appears that Eggers refused to consider Nielsdatter’s statements before the Supreme Court.

153. That Eggers reproved the application of Section 9 is a presumption on my part, but it would explain his suggestion to apply Section 8 instead.

154. Voteringsprotokol 1738A, 300–301.

155. Ibid., 301.

156. Ibid., 301–2.

157. Assessors Schouboe, Hojer, Støcken, F. v. Hagen, and Helt concurred with Sechman. Ibid., 302.

158. See note 149 above.

159. Sj.t. 1738/708, fol. 931r–v, dated December 19.

160. Besides the case against Nielsdatter (1738), Christian VI also imposed lifelong imprisonment with hard labour in a case against the musketeer Jens Olsen (1740). Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 142 and 480. Otherwise, the king eventually reduced the time (1733 and 1745) or imposed imprisonment with hard labour for a limited time to begin with (1738, 1740, and 1741). Ibid., 140–46.

161. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 145–47. The final theological consideration in 1733 articulated a similar concern for secrecy when recommending the conduction of future cases behind closed doors. Ibid., 552; and Kopibog (1733–1745) 1733, 99–100. See also the Supreme Court assessors’ discussion of the 1738 case against Nielsdatter. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 141.

162. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 147.

163. Jy.t. 1754/90–91, fol. 606v–612r, dated November 15.

164. Kofod Ancher, Svar paa nogle spørsmaale, 1–9 and 67–73. The chief prosecutor in military matters requested a recommendation from the Faculty of Law and applied their line of reasoning in his recommendations to Christian VI and Frederik V. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 142–45 and 148–49.

165. The Finnish legal historian Lars Björne includes Kofod Ancher’s deliberations in his discussion of the influence of the Enlightenment on Nordic legal scholarship. Björne, Patrioter och institutionalister, 305–17.

166. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 143.

167. The letter books from the Faculty of Theology, from 1683 onwards, include no deliberations on sorcery cases. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 123 and 126–27.

168. Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 130–38.

169. Krogh compares sorcery and blasphemy to religious crimes in general and draws a line between the last execution of a death sentence in a sorcery case (1693) and the first execution of a death sentence passed in a case regarding a written pact with the Devil (1718). Krogh, Oplysningstiden og det magiske, 129, 131, and 149.

170. Olli, Visioner av världen, 19.

171. Olli, “The Devil’s Pact,” 103; Olli, Visioner av världen, 43–45; and Olli, “Blasphemy,” 462–65.

172. Koefoed, “Emotions, Obligations, and Identities”; and Koefoed, “Authorities Who Care.”

173. Besides Swedish studies, Olli only refers to Krogh’s investigation of cases in Denmark and a study of a number of cases by the Finnish historian Antero Heikkinen. Olli, Visioner av världen, 10–11.

174. Lawton, Blasphemy, 110–43; Cabantous, Histoire du blasphème; Loetz, Mit Gott handeln; Schwerhoff, Zungen wie Schwerter; Villa-Flores, Dangerous Speech; Laborie, Enlightening Enthusiasm; Vettore, “Blasphemy on Trial”; Whickman, “Blasphemy and Copyright”; and Valdés, “Illicit Reassertions.”

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nanna Eva Nissen

Nanna Eva Nissen (b. 1988) is a PhD fellow at the Section for Church History, University of Copenhagen. She holds a MA in Theology and specializes in archival studies of eighteenth-century legal practice. Her PhD project – co-funded by the Faculties of Theology, Health and Medical Sciences, and Law – investigates the dynamics between law, theology, and medicine in the prosecution of written pacts with the Devil during the absolutist monarchy of Denmark-Norway.