ure to the deed. The signature was obtained, however, only on
condition that if the monastery should be unable to keep up its
standing, Gripsholm and all its possessions should revert to the heirs.
Hence we have good right to protest and to claim the inheritance of
which our father was deprived by threats and fraud. Indeed, the good
brothers have considered the matter well, and have agreed to withhold no
longer property to which they have no right. We have therefore offered
them another monastery.... But they have not ventured to accept it,
fearing to offend the brothers already occupying it. So they have asked
permission to go back to their friends and to the posts which they held
before entering the monastery. This, at the desire of our Cabinet, we
have granted, since we are ever ready to listen to their counsel, and we
have furnished the good brothers with clothing and money to aid them. We
trust they will be grateful; and to prove to you that such is the case,
we enclose herewith an extract from the letter which they have written."
As the deed conveying Gripsholm to the brotherhood is lost, we cannot
discuss with thoroughness the merits of the case. It is enough that the
monarch's action accorded with the policy which he adopted later toward
all the monasteries in the land. The seizure of Gripsholm was justified,
at any rate, by a show of right. Of later cases it is difficult to say
even this. The Gripsholm Monastery had not been closed six months when
Gustavus claimed another monastery, this time in the diocese of Brask.
The abbot it appears had died, and Brask was busy making a list of the
monastery's property, that nothing should be lost. Gustavus wrote to
Brask with orders to leave the place alone. "Your fathers," he added,
"did not found the monastery; and even though your predecessors in the
bishopric may have founded it, they did so with money belonging to the
people.... We intend, therefore, to take charge of it ourselves." To
these imperative orders the wearied bishop answered: "I feel a special
obligation to this monastery, since it was founded by the yearly incomes
of the bishopric." This assertion, however, proved of no avail. Within a
year the monastery was yielded to the crown, and one of the monarch's
officers took the entire property in fee.[138]

All things apparently conspired to bring the aged bishop to the dust.
The seizure of his monastery occurred at a moment when he was in deep
distress about t