It is usually stated that Innocent III actually did lay an interdict on the land, but this appears to be an error. He authorized the bishops to do so, but they seem not to have made use of the authorization. See Bull, “Interdiktet mot Sverre”: _Historisk Tidsskrift_, Femte Række, III, 321-324. The militant Faroese was a man with strong literary interests; he was educated for the priesthood and it is believed that he had actually taken orders. He was eloquent in speech, but he realized the power of the written as well as of the spoken word. It is a fact worth noting that among the Northmen of the thirteenth century learning was not confined to the clergy. While the author of the _King’s Mirror_ urges the prospective merchant to learn Latin and French, he also warns him not to neglect his mother tongue. King Sverre replied to the ecclesiastical decrees with a manifesto in the Norwegian language in which he stated his position and his claims for the royal office. This pamphlet, which is commonly known as “An Address against the Bishops,” was issued about 1199 and was sent to all the shire courts to be read to the freemen. It was a cleverly written document and seems to have been very effective. In spite of the fact that the king was under the ban, the masses remained loyal. Between the political theory of the _Address_ and the ideas of kingship expressed in the _King’s Mirror_ there is an agreement which can hardly be accidental. It is more likely that we have in this case literary kinship of the first degree. It has been thought that King Sverre may have prepared his manifesto himself, but this is scarcely probable. Some one of his court, however, must have composed it, perhaps some clerk in the royal scriptorium, for the ideas developed in the document are clearly those of the king. It has also been suggested that the _Address_ and the _Speculum Regale_ may have been written by the same hand;[89] but the only evidence in support of such a conclusion is this agreement of political ideas, which may have originated in a careful study of the earlier document by the author of the later work. Footnote 89: This appears to be Heffermehl’s opinion. See _Historiske Skrifter tilegnede Ludvig Daae_, 87.