Anglo-Danish Empire - A Companion to the Reign of King Cnut the Great

["Chapter 14 \u201cVuiberg Hic Coronatur Rex Dacie\u201d 329 Map 14.3: Overview of all areas excavated at Viborg S\u00f8nders\u00f8 1981, 1984\u20131985 and 2001. Drawing Svend Kaae and Louise Hilmar. The Site\u2019s Physical Structure in the Early Eleventh Century The area of workshop buildings could have been quite large, covering perhaps as much as 5,000 sq m. Only the trench B\/881D shows signs of continuous oc- cupation, from 1018 until the fourteenth century. It is striking that both the quality and quantity of finds from this trench are greater than those from all the other trenches. The \u201cMain Building\u201d itself could have been positioned with several other houses on the solid ground a little further to the west, where the present Br\u00e6nderig\u00e5rden now lies. From here, there would have been easy ac- cess to the latrine and for depositing domestic waste over the entire area of the 2001 excavation (Map 14.3). Another possibility is that the main building stood on a sandy bank extending out from the foot of Borgvold. Along the edge of this bank were the remains of a planked causeway running north\u2013south; to the east of this were traces of a fence. Behind the fence were eight postholes mea- suring 50 cm by 60 cm. They were 1.5 m apart, forming a 17 m long row, and probably extended further at both ends. Do these represent the remains of","330 Jesper Hjermind some kind of solid fence, which, in this case, could have been part of the royal residence or perhaps the Thingstead or coronation area at the foot of Borgvold? Was this formerly the location of a fenced vi, or sacred grove? (Figure 14.15) Figure 14.15: A row at least 15 m long of oblong postholes from trench S. It is probably much longer from trench S. Could it be a part of an extremely visible and impressive demarcation of the Thingstead area at the foot of the Thingstead itself \u2013 Borgvold? Drawing Hans Krongaard Kristensen.","Chapter 14 \u201cVuiberg Hic Coronatur Rex Dacie\u201d 331 This open palisade could also have been part of a visible and extremely im- pressive demarcation of the Thingstead area at the foot of the Thingstead itself \u2013 that is, Borgvold (settlement plain).72 The defining fence could have represented a strong visual manifestation of power and sovereignty, along the lines of the pali- sades around Jelling, dated to the period 960\u2013985.73 At Jelling the entire monu- ment, with its rune stones, is centred on two man-made mounds, one of which does not contain a grave. A huge ship-setting and a palisade surround the entire complex. Perhaps a similar situation existed at Viborg, where the Borgvold mound also occupied a central location in a structure that was possibly royal. The con- struction of a conspicuous boundary around the foot of a piece of high ground \u2013 a mound \u2013 could have been motivated by a desire to demonstrate and mark Cnut\u2019s royal status, and perhaps also make an overt reference to royal history further back in time. Neither the plank causeway nor the fences around the animal enclosures exca- vated in 1985 shows signs of having been renewed, and many of the workshop buildings, though maintained for some years, were not altered or rebuilt. The building in the area excavated in 2001 was abandoned in around 1030, and this also seems to have been the case for buildings located by the other excavation trenches. From this time onwards, there was no longer any need for the extended structure comprising many workshop buildings, animal enclosures, roads, and so on; activity became concentrated around the central buildings on the site of Br\u00e6n- derig\u00e5rden or at the foot of Borgvold (Map 14.4a\u2013c). For these reasons, there was probably no proto-urban settlement on the land above S\u00f8nders\u00f8. There was appar- ently just the agrarian hinterland,74 which contributed to supplying the people by S\u00f8nders\u00f8 and at the Thingstead with food, drink, and other necessities. It was not until the middle of the eleventh century that a town began to form, perhaps in con- junction with the bishopric, which is first mentioned in about 1059\u20131060.75 72 Krongaard Kristensen, \u201cUdgravningerne 1981 og 1984\u20131985\u201d; \u201cBebyggelsen,\u201d 48, fig. 43 and 79, fig. 38. 73 K\u00e4hler Holst, Dengs\u00f8 Jessen, and Pedersen, \u201cRunestenens Jelling,\u201d 59. 74 Krongaard Kristensen, Middelalderbyen Viborg, 39\u201340. 75 Gelting, \u201cViborg Stifts grundl\u00e6ggelse,\u201d 11, 26.","332 Jesper Hjermind (a) (b) (c) Map 14.4a\u2013c: The probable extent of the S\u00f8nders\u00f8 settlement around a: 1020; b: 1050; c: 1100, superimposed onto a contour map, where modern earthworks have disturbed the historical landscape \u2013 the dam and roadway running down through the center of the illustration and back-fill under the Golf Hotel\u00b4s south-eastern corner. A: Br\u00e6nderig\u00e5rden; B: Golf Hotel, Viborg; C: Borgvold. Drawing Sara Heil Jensen.","Chapter 14 \u201cVuiberg Hic Coronatur Rex Dacie\u201d 333 Conclusion: King Cnut and the Thing at Viborg S\u00f8nders\u00f8 We know that there was building activity over a large area of the shore of Viborg S\u00f8nders\u00f8 during a short period in the early eleventh century. Some substantial parts of it then lay open and without buildings until the present day, whereas others, es- pecially those immediately to the east of Br\u00e6nderig\u00e5rden, were again built on during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. In its own time the great publication Viborg S\u00f8nders\u00f8 1000\u20131300. Byark\u00e6ologiske unders\u00f8gelser 1981 og 1984\u20131985 concluded that the area was an organized part of the town, housing many different craftsmen.76 At the present time it is probably more correct to regard the area as a single large unit with a wide range of activities. It could have been a royal residence, perhaps with a kind of \u201carmory\u201d function, where living quarters and workshops were con- structed, wooden roadways laid, wells dug, and animal pens established in one op- eration. Craft production also took place and jewelry was manufactured. Most of these things should be seen as components of a self-sufficient economy, but some products would, of course, have progressed to exchange or sale. There would, for example, have been a great demand for high-status artefacts at times when the Thing was assembled, and especially in 1019, which is when Cnut is thought to have been crowned king of Denmark in Viborg (Map 14.5). In the years following 1026 activities waned, but the location of a settle- ment close to, or directly on, the solid ground at Riddergade probably remained unchanged. In trench B\/881D, to the south-west of Br\u00e6nderig\u00e5rden, there are traces of buildings forming an unbroken sequence from 1018 to 1300. If the main building (a royal farmstead or residence) lay at the foot of Borgvold, then it must have been abandoned at the latest in connection with the damming up and raising of the water level in the lake in 1313. Cnut\u2019s apparent need to visit Viborg quickly disappeared again, because after 1023 there are no traces of craft activities at the site, and in the years around 1030 the workshop was to- tally abandoned; it was demolished and the site became overgrown. However, it is not possible to establish whether the workshop was moved to the site of Br\u00e6nderig\u00e5rden, or to a site much further up in the medieval town around the cathedral, where, together with the bishopric, it could have constituted a new center of power. 76 Viborg S\u00f8nders\u00f8 1000\u20131300, ed. Hjermind, Iversen, and Krongaard Kristensen.","334 Jesper Hjermind Map 14.5: Venetian portolan chart from 1339 with the Latin text, \u201cvuiberge hic coronatur rex dacie\u201d \u2013 Viborg here the Danish king is crowned.","Chapter 14 \u201cVuiberg Hic Coronatur Rex Dacie\u201d 335 Epilogue: A Later English Connection The English-Danish connection and the joint minting of coins under Cnut the Great also played a role at the end of the Second World War. In 1944 the Viborg Tourist Association had a copy made of one of Cnut the Great\u2019s coins, which was then used as a basis for a series of ornaments. The end of the war was ap- proaching and there was a clear expectation in all towns in Jutland that their people would be liberated by General Montgomery\u2019s troops; the Tourist Associ- ation wanted to give these ornaments to the English soldiers. That is almost how it happened. On May 12 a small armored force of 145 soldiers rolled into Viborg under the command not of General Montgomery, but of Major Francis Fischer. On Nytorv, Major Fischer was presented with a pair of cufflinks, a tie pin, and a necklace for his wife. The soldiers were each given an emblem. These ornaments were accompanied by a card bearing the following text: \u201cA true copy of the oldest existing Danish coin struck in Viborg, when Cnut the Dane was king of England and Denmark\u201d (Figure 14.16). Figure 14.16: Ornaments like this in the fashion of a coin struck in Viborg under Cnut the Great was presented to the English troops who rolled into Viborg on May 12, 1945. Photograph: Jesper Hjermind.","","Marie B\u00f8nl\u00f8kke Spejlborg Chapter 15 King Cnut of England and the Danish Homelands In the catalogue for the 1981\u20131982 exhibition in Copenhagen and York, The Vik- ings in England and in their Danish Homeland, the Keeper of the National Antiq- uities of Denmark, Olaf Olsen, discussed the evidence for an English presence and influence in Denmark during the Viking period: If we look towards Denmark, to see the effects of events in England on the home country, we are confronted by a profound darkness . . . Yet \u2013 when the eye accustoms itself to the gloom, we can begin to discern some misty contours of events, which, in their time, must have been of the greatest significance to the entire Danish community.1 With the exception of some runic and numismatic material, and a few archaeo- logical finds of Anglo-Saxon origin, Olsen notes that the rich historical and lin- guistic evidence available for the study of the Vikings in England is not reflected, or at least not significantly so, in the Viking homelands; indeed, the archaeolog- ical traces of connections with England were so few that it caused him to ques- tion the ability of archaeology to afford insights into historical events.2 Much research has gone into the question of Scandinavian influence in Viking Age England, demonstrating the great impact that Scandinavian activities had on many areas and levels of English society, from the raids of the great army in the late ninth century, through to the Scandinavian settlements, the Danish con- quests of the eleventh century, and the reign of Cnut the Great.3 The situation is markedly different when we turn our attention towards Scandinavia and the question of English influence there. The evidence attesting English connections within Scandinavia in the early and middle Viking period is highly fragmented and almost exclusively takes the form of archaeological artefacts. Most are found in Norway, though evidence of contact is present in Denmark as well.4 As to the 1 Olsen, \u201cThe English in Denmark,\u201d 171. 2 Olsen, \u201cThe English in Denmark,\u201d 171\u201375. 3 See, for example, Hadley and Richards, Cultures in Contact; Richards, Viking Age England; Graham-Campbell, Vikings and the Danelaw; Hadley, The Vikings in England; Rumble, The Reign of Cnut; Lawson, Cnut: England\u2019s Viking King; Bolton, Empire of Cnut the Great. 4 Wamers, \u201cInsular Finds in Viking Age Scandinavia\u201d; Heen-Pettersen, \u201cInsular Artefacts from Viking-Age Burials from Mid-Norway\u201d; Sawyer, \u201cEnglish Influence on the Development of the Norwegian Kingdom\u201d; Pedersen, \u201cAnglo-Danish Contact across the North Sea,\u201d 44\u201347. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/9781501513336-016","338 Marie B\u00f8nl\u00f8kke Spejlborg question of an English presence and influence in Denmark during the reigns of Cnut the Great and his sons, a little more is known. This chapter seeks to provide an overview of existing research and evidence relating to this question, whilst offering new perspectives and insight. Early English Influence on Denmark: Research Overview The first definitive historical study of early English influence on Denmark remains Ellen J\u00f8rgensen\u2019s pioneering work on foreign influences on the medieval Danish church, published in 1908.5 The greatest scholarly interest has been drawn to the study of English influence in the process of Christianization, from mission to church organization.6 Although J\u00f8rgensen\u2019s work is an invaluable resource and includes a diversity of foreign influences, it is very much the result of a generation of historical writings rather too concerned with national narratives and the position of nations within the world.7 Since then, English material in the Danish context has been treated primarily by Niels Lund in various studies of the later Viking period.8 His focus is often on Danish activities in England, whereas the situation in Denmark re- ceives little attention; however, Lund has repeatedly demonstrated that significant contacts traversed the North Sea into the late eleventh century.9 More recently, the interests and perspectives of global history have brought a renewed interest in net- works, migration, and cultural exchange. Of central significance here is a study by Timothy Bolton on English political refugees in mid-eleventh-century Denmark. Bol- ton convincingly demonstrates the value of tracing the movements of individuals, 5 J\u00f8rgensen, Fremmed Indflydelse. 6 Abrams, \u201cThe Anglo-Saxons and the Christianization of Scandinavia.\u201d See also Abrams, \u201cElev- enth-Century Missions\u201d; Abrams, \u201cEngland, Normandy, and Scandinavia\u201d; Brink, \u201cThe Formation of the Scandinavian Parish\u201d; Brink, \u201cNew Perspectives on the Christianization of Scandinavia and the Organisation of the Early Church\u201d; King, \u201cEnglish Influence on the Church at Odense in the Early Middle Ages\u201d; King, \u201cThe Cathedral Priory of Odense in the Middle Ages\u201d; Bergsagel, \u201cSongs for St. Knud the King.\u201d 7 See also J\u00f8rgensen, Helgendyrkelse i Danmark, 175; J\u00f8rgensen, \u201cBidrag til \u00e6ldre nordisk Kirke- og Litteraturhistorie.\u201d See also Bolton in this volume, pp. 459\u201384. 8 See for example Niels Lund, \u201cThe Danish Perspective\u201d; Lund, \u201cVille Knud den Store g\u00f8re Roskilde til \u00c6rkes\u00e6de?\u201d; Lund, \u201cCnut the Great and His Empire.\u201d 9 See, for example, Lund, De h\u00e6rger og de br\u00e6nder; Lund, \u201cCnut\u2019s Danish Kingdom.\u201d","Chapter 15 King Cnut of England and the Danish Homelands 339 as well as how English written material can highlight events that had an impact on Denmark, even when we cannot determine the exact nature of that impact.10 In this way, the archaeological record of English connections in Viking Age Denmark has improved significantly, and especially for the eleventh century, since Olsen wrote his chapter on \u201cThe English in Denmark.\u201d11 The evidence now includes not only indications of the bonds between royalty, aristocracy, and the Church, but also humbler objects that tell a story of connections otherwise un- known. In contrast to Olsen\u2019s rather bleak conclusion from the 1980s, Else Roes- dahl argued in 2007 \u201cthat there is ample evidence for contact across the North Sea during the eleventh century and that such contacts affected all levels of soci- ety.\u201d12 Examples of this include coins, warrior equipment, metalwork, and urban development, all of which will be discussed in further detail below. The improved picture of Anglo-Danish material culture merits a new look at the historical sources. From there it is possible to identify some of the people, both groups and individuals, who were active in bringing about the imports and influences demonstrated by the material evidence. It is face-to-face meetings be- tween people that form the basis for cultural exchange \u2013 and for change. Danish Connections with England before 1016 If archaeologists working on the 1981\u20131982 exhibition The Vikings in England were frustrated with the lack of evidence for the effects in Denmark of the Dan- ish conquests in England, the historians were, for their part, practically silent. Written sources illuminating the effects of Danish activities in England back on the homelands are extremely fragmentary. There is no Danish annalistic mate- rial to link activities at home to those abroad, and the English sources show little or no interest in Denmark before the year 1000. There are no sources simi- lar to the letters of Alcuin or sermons of Wulfstan that can tell of the Danish response to the Viking activities and conquests, nothing to inform us of the thoughts, motivations, or even actions of those who fought in the English cam- paigns \u2013 or of those who returned home. What is available are a few runic 10 Bolton, \u201cEnglish Political Refugees at the Court of King Sveinn \u00c1str\u00ed\u00f0arson.\u201d See also M\u00fcnster- Swendsen, \u201cEducating the Danes.\u201d For studies of linguistic influence see Gammeltoft and Holck, \u201cGemst\u0113n and Other Old English Pearls\u201d; Gammeltoft and Holck, \u201cRegionalitet og sproglig kontakt i vikingetid og middelalder.\u201d 11 For an overview see Roesdahl, \u201cDenmark-England in the Eleventh Century\u201d; Pedersen, Anglo-Danish Contact Across the North Sea. 12 Roesdahl, \u201cDenmark-England in the Eleventh Century,\u201d 27.","340 Marie B\u00f8nl\u00f8kke Spejlborg inscriptions, most of them from outside the area of medieval Denmark, recording the death of men who fought in England and the fortunes of some of those who returned from there.13 Coin legends list the names of English moneyers working in Denmark, and some English and Continental sources show an occasional interest in the Danes, but always from a non-Danish and often critical perspective.14 While the dearth of evidence is certainly a challenge for anyone working on the history of early medieval Scandinavia, close readings and the careful analy- sis of written sources do afford some information. Admittedly, only very few sources provide direct and unequivocal evidence for an English influence on Denmark. A study of English contact with and influence on Denmark must rely instead on occasional references to people who moved between the two coun- tries. Periods of high Anglo-Danish interaction, such as the reign of Cnut the Great, are well-attested, as are references to the most prominent travelers be- tween England and Denmark, especially kings and bishops. Written material also attests to a network of Anglo-Danish contacts throughout the late Viking period and spanning several layers of society. This material also enables a closer dating of some sets of connections than most of the archaeological finds can provide. On the whole, English influence on Denmark can be explained by King Cnut\u2019s access to various English markets and institutions as king of Eng- land. Written sources, however, clearly state that numerous connections were already in place before his reign (1016\u20131035). The late Viking Age saw significant imports of foreign silver coinage to Scandinavia. German coins make up the larger part, but of central interest here is the influx of Anglo-Saxon coins during the first half of the eleventh century, evidenced in Scandinavian hoards. Although it is difficult to connect any one hoard found within the boundaries of medieval Denmark with the payments of Danegeld extorted by Viking war leaders and kings, there can be no doubt that the high proportion of Anglo-Saxon coins in Denmark at this time is connected to these activities \u2013 that is to say, to people returning to Denmark after engag- ing in raiding (and trading) across the North Sea. Nevertheless, it is evident that the period of Viking attacks prior to the estab- lishment of Anglo-Danish rule did not form a barrier for the import of trained En- glish personnel to Denmark. Just before the year 1000, while Danish fleets were engaged in several raids in England, the Danish king, Sveinn Forkbeard, imported an English moneyer, Godwine, and an English bishop, Gotebald, to Denmark.15 13 Jesch, Ships and Men, 69\u201377; Jansson, Swedish Vikings in England. 14 Hauberg, Myntforhold og udmyntninger i Danmark indtil 1146; Spejlborg, \u201cThere and Back Again.\u201d 15 Steen Jensen, Tusindtallets danske m\u00f8nter, 22\u201323.","Chapter 15 King Cnut of England and the Danish Homelands 341 Adam of Bremen\u2019s entries on Gotebald, whose name does not, however, appear to be English, state only that he arrived from England and was appointed to teach in Sk\u00e5ne.16 Nothing further is revealed about his function or which church he en- tered, if indeed there was one. The relatively early date of Gotebald\u2019s appointment, as well as Adam\u2019s mention of teaching, makes it likely that his duties were mainly missionary and itinerant and that he may have been joined by other English cler- ics. Church-building was underway in Denmark already in the early years of the 1000s, and English contacts (both elite and ecclesiastical) were an active part in this process.17 Sveinn\u2019s earliest coinage, bearing the king\u2019s name, was struck in Lund ca. 995 and adopted from the English crux type. The legend on the obverse reads, \u201c+ ZVEN REX AD DENER\u201d (Sven king of the Danes), and on the reverse, + GOD\u01f7INE M-AN DNER (Godwine moneyer of the Danes) \u2013 clearly an English name.18 Sveinn Fork- beard died on February 3, 1014, barely weeks after his conquest of England. The appointment of English bishops and moneyers in Denmark before his victory indi- cates that he was nonetheless able to make contacts with well-developed English institutions. As argued later in this volume by Caitlin Ellis (p. 365), neither Sveinn nor Cnut after him was concerned by the apparent conflict in establishing a church at home while attacking Christians abroad. Additional early connections to England are evident in the story of Sveinn\u2019s death and burial in the Encomium Emmae Reginae. The anonymous author re- lates how the body of Sveinn was taken to Denmark for reburial by \u201cquaedam matronarum Anglicarum\u201d (a certain English matron).19 It is tempting to identify this unknown woman as \u00c6lfgifu of Northampton, whom Cnut had married dur- ing his father\u2019s English campaign.20 \u00c6lfgifu would have had the right connec- tions in both England and Denmark to carry out this act, but the evidence is no more than circumstantial. Whether she traveled with Sveinn\u2019s body or not, she is likely to have left England, most likely for Denmark, soon after Sveinn\u2019s death and its aftermath, the return of the English King \u00c6thelred and the departure of 16 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 101 (II.xxxix, schol. 26 [27]). Adam of Bremen: His- tory, trans. Tschan, 82. There are no entries for \u201cGotebald\u201d (nor any for \u201cGodb(e)ald,\u201d \u201cGeatb(e)ald,\u201d \u201cGeot(b(e)ald\u201d) in the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England: http:\/\/pase.ac. uk\/jsp\/index.jsp. 17 Roesdahl, \u201cHvorn\u00e5r Blev Kirkerne Bygget?\u201d; Cinthio, \u201cTrinitatiskyrkan i Lund\u201d; Carelli, \u201cLunds \u00e4ldsta kyrkog\u00e5rd\u201d; Spejlborg, \u201cAnglo-Danish Connections and the Organisation of the Early Danish Church.\u201d 18 Steen Jensen, Tusindtallets danske m\u00f8nter, 22. 19 Encomium, ed. Campbell, 18 (II.3). 20 Howard, Swein Forkbeard\u2019s Invasions, 137, n. 75; Williams, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 127; Bol- ton, \u201c\u00c6lfgifu of Northampton,\u201d 259.","342 Marie B\u00f8nl\u00f8kke Spejlborg the Danish fleet under the command of Cnut. At this point \u00c6lfgifu would have been pregnant with Cnut\u2019s child and may not have been safe in England.21 The Encomium Emmae further relates: Mittens ergo utrisque fratribus nuntium mandate corpus adresse paternum, ut hoc matur- ent suscipere, tumuloque quod sibi parauerat locare. Illi hilares adsunt, honorifice corpus suscipiunt, honor-ificentiusque illud in monasterio in honore Sanctae Trinitatis ab eodem rege constructo, in sepulchro quod sibi parauerat, recondunt. [Sending a messenger to the two brothers, she [the English matron] indicated that the body of their father was there, in order that they might hasten to receive it, and place it in the tomb which he had prepared for himself. They came gladly, and received the body with honour, and with yet more honour placed it in the monastery which the same king had built in honour of the Holy Trinity, in the sepulchre which he had prepared for himself.]22 Parts of this story correspond neatly with archaeological evidence from Lund. The first wooden church in town was the church of the Holy Trinity (also known as St. Drotten). This dedication, as well as the dedication of the like- named church in Roskilde, mirrors the dedication of the royal church in Win- chester.23 The successor of the wooden church in Lund, a stone church with signs of Anglo-Saxon influence, has been dated to the 1020s and linked to Cnut the Great and to his English bishop Bernhard.24 The burials associated with Lund\u2019s church of the Holy Trinity have been dated to the period 994\u20131053 (\u00b15 years).25 Adam of Bremen\u2019s note on the appointment of an English bishop to Sk\u00e5ne,26 the evidence of an English moneyer in Lund,27 and the account of Sveinn\u2019s burial given by the Encomiast, cast some light on the identity of others, besides the king, who may have been involved in these developments. Contacts Around the Time of Cnut\u2019s Conquest The event which would have had the most profound consequences for the Dan- ish homelands, after the Danish conquest of England and Cnut Sveinsson\u2019s 21 Bolton, \u201c\u00c6lfgifu of Northampton,\u201d 260. 22 Encomium, ed. Campbell, 18 (II.3). 23 See Ellis in this volume, p. 364. 24 Cinthio, \u201cTrinitatiskyrkan i Lund,\u201d 122. 25 Carelli, \u201cLunds \u00e4ldsta kyrkog\u00e5rd,\u201d 61. 26 The Chronicon Roskildense also contains a story of Sveinn appointing bishops and building churches in Sk\u00e5ne, although details differ: \u201cChronicon Roskildense,\u201d VI. 27 See below, p. 347.","Chapter 15 King Cnut of England and the Danish Homelands 343 accession to the English throne, was the disbanding of the Danish fleet in 1018. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle relates that On \u00feisum geare w\u00e6s \u00fe\u00e6t gafol gel\u00e6st ofer eall Angelcynn\u2015\u00fe\u00e6t w\u00e6s ealles twa \u204a hund- seofonti \u00feusend punda, butan \u00feam \u00fee seo burhwaru on Lundene geald, endlifte healf \u00feusend punda. \u204a se here \u00fea ferde sum to Denmarcon, 7.xl. scypa belifon mid \u00feam cynge Cnute.28 [In this year tribute was paid over all England, namely 72,000 pounds in all, apart from what the citizens of London paid, namely ten and a half thousand pounds. Then some of the army went to Denmark, and forty ships remained with King Cnut.] As the Chronicle does not say how many ships left, nor how many ships had made up the original fleet, it is impossible to ascertain how large an influx of ships and men from England arrived in Denmark in the aftermath of 1018.29 Nevertheless, taking into account the size of Viking Age ships dating from this period and the general consensus that late Viking Age fleets would have been considerably larger than those of the earlier period, it is reasonable to suppose that Cnut\u2019s fleet must have sailed with a significant number of people.30 Here the evidence of the runestones offers a rare insight into the deeds and minds of those who journeyed with the Danish kings to England and later re- turned home. Only four runestones mentioning England are located within the boundaries of medieval Denmark.31 One stands in Norway,32 the rest in Sweden (especially Uppland).33 This paucity can be partly explained by the differing practices of erecting runic monuments across Scandinavia, while it seems 28 ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, 63 (s.a. 1018). 29 Various uncertainties have led to different estimates as to the size of late Viking Age ships and crews. Peter Sawyer has argued that the ships of Sveinn and Cnut could have been manned by a crew of at least sixty men. Simon Keynes has arrived at a figure of sixty-five men per ship and M. K. Lawson has assessed the ships to have carried approximately eighty rowers and one steersman Naval historian N. A. M. Rodger has arrived at a figure of approximately one hundred men on average per ship. Sawyer, The Age of the Vikings, 131\u201332; Lawson, \u201cThe Collection of Danegeld and Heregeld,\u201d 721\u201338; Keynes, The Diplomas of King \u00c6thelred \u201cthe Unready,\u201d 225; Rodger, \u201cCnut\u2019s Geld and the Size of Danish Ships,\u201d 401\u20132. 30 Williams, The Viking Ship, 63; Bill, \u201cRoskilde 6\u201d; Crumlin-Pedersen and Olsen, The Skulde- lev Ships; Sawyer, The Age of the Vikings, 131\u201332. 31 Jacobsen and Moltke, Danmarks Runeindskrifter, DR 3, DR 6, DR 266, DR 337. 32 Olsen, Norges Innskrifter med de yngre Runer, N 184. 33 S\u00f6derberg, Sveriges Runinskrifter, U 194, U 241, U 344, U 504, U 539, U 616, U 668, U 812, U 978, U 1181, S\u00f6 14, S\u00f6 46, S\u00f6 53, S\u00f6 55, S\u00f6 62, S\u00f6 83, S\u00f6 106, S\u00f6 137, S\u00f6 159, S\u00f6 160, S\u00f6 164, S\u00f6 166, S\u00f6 173, S\u00f6 207, S\u00f6 260, S\u00f6 319, Vs 5, Vs 9, Vs 18, Gs 8, \u00d6g 68, \u00d6g 83, \u00d6g 104, \u00d6g 111, \u00d6g Fv1950;341, \u00d6g Fv1970;310, Vg 20, Vg 61, Vg 187, Vg 197, Sm 5, Sm 27, Sm 29, Sm 51, Sm 77, Sm 101, Sm 104, G 370.","344 Marie B\u00f8nl\u00f8kke Spejlborg plausible that people did travel from and return to Denmark, and that their ex- periences must have been similar to those commemorated in runic inscriptions from Sweden.34 It is generally agreed that runic monuments were a sign of so- cial and economic status, and that both the sponsors and the commemorated were economically independent landholders.35 As such, they were in an excel- lent position to bring elements of their English experience home to influence life at the homestead. The most famous of the English runestones is located in Ytterg\u00e4rde, Upp- land, in Sweden. The inscription reads: \u201cin ulfr hafiR o| |onklati \u2018 \u00feru kialt| | takat \u00feit uas fursta \u00feis tusti ka-t \u2018 \u00fe(a) \u2013 \u2013 (\u00fe)urktil \u2018 \u00fea kalt knutr\u201d (And Ulf has taken three payments in England. That was the first that Tosti paid. Then Thorkell paid. Then Cnut paid).36 Wherever a warrior like Ulf went and settled, the payment he took must have had an impact, otherwise the impetus for leav- ing home in the first place disappears. The arrival of an individual, most often a young man, with a large amount of silver is likely to have shifted the social and economic balance in a given area \u2015 either through purchases of land, through increased trading activity, or through marriage contracts that de- manded a sizable dowry or bride price. It is likely that, for many of the people who traveled to England with Cnut or other leaders, the journey became a mark of their identity. A good example of this is found on a stone raised by and for Alli in V\u00e4sby, Uppland: \u201cal|i| |l|it raisa stain \u00feino| |oftiR sik sialfan \u2018 hon tuk| |knuts kialt a| |anklanti \u2018 ku\u00fe hialbi hons ant\u201d (Alli had this stone raised in memory of himself. He took Cnut\u2019s payment in England. May God help his spirit).37 It is clear that Alli wanted to be remembered as a man who had trav- eled to England with Cnut the Great. If those who returned home from the En- glish campaigns wanted to be remembered in death for their participation there, it is reasonable to argue that they may also have wished to mark them- selves in life. Contacts Linked to the Travels of Cnut It is important, however, to keep in mind that not all of those who joined Cnut\u2019s fleet returned to Scandinavia. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that forty ships 34 Moltke, Runes and their Origin, 184. 35 Sawyer, The Viking-Age Rune-Stones, 69, 92. 36 U 344. 37 U 194.","Chapter 15 King Cnut of England and the Danish Homelands 345 stayed with the king, and more men are likely to have stayed in England and received land there.38 These people do not, on the face of it, appear to have made an impact in Denmark, but it is evident that Anglo-Danish settlers in Eng- land are likely to have kept in close contact with people and places at home.39 Most prominent of the people who traveled back and forth is, of course, Cnut himself. Although he spent most of his time in England, Cnut visited Denmark on at least three occasions during his reign in England, usually at times of un- rest. The first was in 1019, when he was presumably elected king. It was on this occasion that he traveled to Viborg with what appears to have been a large Anglo-Danish retinue.40 Cnut may also have returned to Denmark in 1022\u20131023, to deal with a threat from his most prominent earl, Thorkell the Tall,41 and again in 1026 on a visit which concluded with the Battle of Holy River, from where he went straight to Rome. Having returned to England from Rome in 1027, King Cnut visited Denmark a third time in 1028 in connection with the campaign against \u00d3l\u00e1fr Haraldsson. With the exception of the 1022\u20131023 visit, these jour- neys are recorded in letters sent by Cnut to his English subjects.42 Despite their political importance, it is difficult to assess whether Cnut\u2019s visits to Denmark had any lasting impact on a cultural level. The king would have arrived with a retinue and an army, and thus it is possible that the splendor of the great Anglo-Danish king and his people influenced the style and tastes of the local elite; it may be argued, indeed, that the taste for Anglo-Saxon styles evident in the archaeolog- ical material could be linked to these movements. Most important here are a number of swords and various pieces of riding gear, which have been ascribed to an Anglo-Scandinavian warrior milieu. Whereas most riding equipment of previous centuries was made of iron, harness-fittings of cast copper alloy appear from ca. 1000. This is a development observed on both sides of the North Sea, and the decorated stirrups, cheek-pieces, and strap mounts sug- gests a shared Anglo-Scandinavian warrior culture. Most finds are located in the Limfjord area, the first stop for fleets arriving in Denmark from England, with fur- ther distribution along the sea route to Sj\u00e6lland and Sk\u00e5ne. Further examples are known from Sweden and Norway and a few from northern Germany. The very high proportion and density of finds around the Limfjord may be the result of a 38 ASC (D), ed. Cubbin, s.a. 1018. 39 For a similar argument in the earlier Viking period see Abrams, \u201cDiaspora and Identity in the Viking Age.\u201d 40 See Jesper Hjermind in this volume, pp. 321\u201331, \u201cVuiberg hic coronatur rex dacie.\u201d 41 It is possible that it was on this journey that Cnut brought along his most prominent Eng- land earl, Godwine. Vita \u00c6dwardi Regis (I.i.); Simon Keynes, \u201cCnut\u2019s Earls,\u201d 72\u201373. 42 Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 273\u201377 (Cnut, 1020, and Cnut, 1027).","346 Marie B\u00f8nl\u00f8kke Spejlborg particularly active modern metal detecting community in that region. On the other hand, the general distribution of finds along the major sea routes between east and west appears to reflect actual patterns of transmission. While some of the pieces are finely made, on many the details seem poorly executed, and the num- bers in which they have been found in England suggest that these were not exclu- sively elite items. Instead of communicating a specific socioeconomic status, it is more likely that they signalled the ownership of a specific group with connections and activities on both sides of the North Sea.43 It is a reasonable assumption that this was a group of warriors associated with King Cnut, especially as the style of many of these objects points to southern England, an area closely connected with Cnut.44 The finer artefacts might then be associated with the men closest to the Anglo-Danish king, such as his earls and housecarls, while the lesser pieces may well have belonged to people who had joined the king\u2019s fleets and subsequently settled in England or returned home.45 The number and relative short duration of Cnut\u2019s visits to Denmark should not mask the fact that the king was highly involved with Denmark and played an active role in bringing English experts, customs, and techniques to his homeland, including in the fields of Church and economy.46 The appointment by Sveinn of the bishop Gotebald in ca. 999 has already been mentioned. Sveinn\u2019s ecclesiastical policies were continued by Cnut, whose reign provided new conditions for the transfer of ecclesiastical personnel from England to Den- mark. According to Adam of Bremen, Cnut appointed three English bishops to Denmark in around 1020\u20131022: Victor Chnut ab Anglia rediens, in ditione sua per multos annos regnum Daniae possedit et Angliae. Quo tempore episcopos ab Anglia multos adduxit in Daniam. De quibus Ber- nardum posuit in Sconiam, Gerbrandum in Seland, Reginbertum in Fune. [Cnut returned victorious from England and for many years held in his power the king- doms of Denmark and England. At that time, he introduced many bishops from England into Denmark. Of these he placed Bernhard over Sk\u00e5ne, Gerbrand over Sj\u00e6lland, Regin- bert over Fyn.]47 43 Pedersen, \u201cRiding Gear from late Viking-Age Denmark.\u201d 44 Pedersen, \u201cAnglo-Danish Contact across the North Sea,\u201d 47\u201355. 45 Pedersen, \u201cRiding Gear from Late Viking-Age Denmark,\u201d 133\u201360. 46 Abrams, \u201cThe Anglo-Saxons and the Christianization of Scandinavia,\u201d 226\u201327; J\u00f8rgensen, Fremmed Indflydelse. 47 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 115 (II.lv). Translation after Adam of Bremen: His- tory, trans. Tschan, 93.","Chapter 15 King Cnut of England and the Danish Homelands 347 From the way Adam phrases this episode, it seems that Bernhard, Gerbrand, and Reginbert were not the only bishops brought from England by Cnut, but rather three among many. As it was not in Adam\u2019s interest to exaggerate the interference of other powers in what he saw as the rightful province of the Ham- burg-Bremen see, we might trust his word on this. It is also possible to identify at least one other bishop who was trained in England and appointed to a Dan- ish see in the time of Cnut, namely Odinkar in the see of Ribe.48 Outside the Church, and in addition to Anglo-Saxon coins making their way across the North Sea as the result of Danegeld or trade, Scandinavians in the late Viking period took to the minting of Anglo-Saxon imitative coinages (that is, coins struck in Scandinavia but closely imitating English models, and sometimes including the names of English kings). From the tenth century onwards, coin- dies were transported from England to Scandinavia and a number of extensive die-chains link English and Scandinavian mints into large networks.49 With the dies came English moneyers, and Danish coins dated to the period ca. 995\u20131085 name close to ninety moneyers whose names are English or can in some way be linked to England.50 A pen-case lid ornamented in Winchester style found in Lund and featuring the inscription \u201cLeofwine me fecit\u201d (Leofwine made me) has been interpreted as the possession of one such moneyer.51 The moneyers were largely associated with the emerging urban centres of Denmark and the development of some of these towns themselves appears to be closely linked to the reign of Cnut and the connections across the North Sea. Most notable are Viborg, Roskilde, and Lund: all were church centres with strong royal connections and well-established trading links.52 In Lund, Viborg, Lejre, and Roskilde, archaeologists have found pottery of the Torksey and Stam- ford-ware types.53 Petrological analysis of the fragments found in Lund and Lejre has shown that these were not imports from England, but pots produced 48 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 96\u201397 (II.xxxvi and schol. 25). 49 Gunnarsson, \u201cMyntstamp fr\u00e5n Lincoln\u201d; Malmer, The Anglo-Scandinavian Coinage ca. 995\u20131020; Blackburn, \u201cEnglish Dies Used in the Scandinavian Imitative Coinages\u201d; Steen Jen- sen, Tusindtallets danske m\u00f8nter. 50 Hauberg, Myntforhold og Udmyntninger i Danmark indtil 1146; Spejlborg, \u201cThere and Back Again,\u201d 182\u201397. 51 Okasha, \u201cAn Inscribed Anglo-Saxon Lid from Lund,\u201d 181\u201383; Pedersen, \u201cAnglo-Danish Contact across the North Sea,\u201d 59. 52 Viborg is a special case with significant links to Cnut the Great and his journey to Denmark ca. 1019. See Iversen, Robinson, Hjermind, and Christensen, Viborg S\u00f8nders\u00f8 1018\u20131030; Roes- dahl, \u201cEnglish Connections in the Time of Knut the Great\u201d; Hjermind, \u201cVuiberg hic coronatur rex dacie,\u201d in this volume. 53 Ulriksen, \u201cFremmed indflydelse i vikingetid og tidlig middelalder,\u201d 107\u20138.","348 Marie B\u00f8nl\u00f8kke Spejlborg from local clay, which must therefore have been produced in Denmark.54 In Vi- borg, local ware with Torksey style decorations has been identified.55 Whether the craftsmen were English settlers in Denmark or Danes who had learned the craft in England and brought it back home is unknown, but the Stamford-ware of early medieval Denmark is clear evidence for the movement of people from England to Denmark at the lower levels of society. These may have traveled as part of the households of members of the elite (possibly English bishops and moneyers), or made their way to Denmark of their own accord. Lund, Roskilde, and Viborg housed a significantly higher number of parish churches than other early Danish towns: Viborg had thirteen, Roskilde fourteen, and Lund twenty-two. In comparison, Ribe and Schleswig had between six and eight, while Aarhus, Odense, and Aalborg each had only three. This disparity has been ascribed to a higher degree of English influence in Lund, Roskilde, and Viborg, and has been compared to the case of York, Norwich, and London, towns which had forty-seven, fifty-six, and more than one hundred churches respectively.56 This hypothesis is supported by the case of St. Clement\u2019s Church (now Skt. J\u00f8rgensbjerg) in Roskilde. Below the present-day church, dated to ca. 1070\u20131120, archaeologists have excavated the remains of the foundations of an older church.57 A small coin hoard found in the foundations has been dated to the period 1029\u20131035.58 The building consequently falls firmly within the reign of Cnut the Great, and is the ear- liest example of masonry found in Denmark. The church, moreover, exhibits clear architectural links with Anglo-Saxon England; the building techniques and decora- tions are so close to contemporary English styles that the church must have been built by English masons.59 Anglo-Danish Settlers Returning Home As demonstrated above, while the presence and actions of an Anglo-Danish king were certainly important for the transfer of English influence to Denmark, other actors were involved as well. At the highest level of society, just below the king, 54 Christensen, \u201cEarly Glazed Ware from Medieval Denmark,\u201d 67\u201376; Roesdahl, \u201cEnglish Con- nections in the Time of Knut the Great.\u201d 55 Rasmussen and Hjermind, \u201cBestemmelse af proveniens,\u201d 429. 56 Nyborg, \u201cKirke og sogn i h\u00f8jmiddelalderens by,\u201d 124\u201346. 57 Olsen, St. J\u00f8rgensbj\u00e6rg Kirke, 34. 58 Steen Jensen, Tusindtallets danske m\u00f8nter, 38. 59 Olsen, St. J\u00f8rgensbj\u00e6rg Kirke, 1\u201331. On the range and importance of St. Clement in Cnut\u2019s dominions, see Crawford in this volume, pp. 431\u201357.","Chapter 15 King Cnut of England and the Danish Homelands 349 the written material reveals cases in which men with significant experience in England were appointed as earls in Denmark. In 1023 Cnut entrusted Denmark to Thorkell the Tall, a man who had been a significant player in English politics for more than ten years.60 It is generally assumed that Thorkell was married to an Englishwoman of high birth, perhaps even of royal blood, who was the widow either of Ulfcytel of East Anglia, or of Eadric Streona.61 Thorkell must also have been in possession of a large household, perhaps including a household priest, as well as a military following. Many of these may have followed him to Denmark. In addition, one of Cnut\u2019s sons was at least promised to Thorkell\u2019s care.62 Thorkell is thus an example of a powerful magnate with significant English experience who settled in Denmark with an Anglo-Danish following. Thorkell\u2019s place of settlement in Denmark is unknown, although his family probably came from Sk\u00e5ne. As the regent of Denmark he is likely, in any case, to have traveled widely within the kingdom. However, it is possible to speculate that some of the strong English in- fluence which is evident in the early Danish towns could be related to Thorkell, just as aspects of the English influence in Roskilde have been connected to the presence there of \u00dalfr, who had replaced Thorkell by 1026. \u00dalfr was married to Cnut\u2019s sister \u00c1str\u00ed\u00f0r or Estrith, and before his appointment in Denmark \u00dalfr had been in England: Adam of Bremen names him \u201cdux Angliae.\u201d63 It seems as though \u00dalfr had some English experience, and his place in the Anglo-Danish net- work is likely to have been similar to Thorkell\u2019s. In 1026 \u00dalfr was killed on the orders of Cnut for his role in a plot against the king at the battle of Holy River.64 The Chronicon Roskildense recounts that the murder took place in the church in Roskilde when \u00dalfr was attending matins, adding that Estrith gave her husband an honorable funeral and then had the old wooden church replaced with a new one built in stone.65 For this job she is likely to have called on English masons; 60 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 104 (s.a. 1023). 61 \u201cSupplement to J\u00f3msv\u00edkinga Saga (Appendix IV),\u201d in Encomium, ed. Campbell, 92\u201393; Chronicon ex chronicis, by John of Worcester, II, ed. Darlington and McGurk, s.a. 1009. See also Keynes, \u201cCnut\u2019s Earls,\u201d 56, n. 57. 62 ASC (C), ed. O\u2019Brien O\u2019Keeffe, 104 (s.a. 1023). See further Bolton in this volume, pp. 477\u201381. 63 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 114 (II.liv). Ulf witnessed at least one Charter of Cnut in England: see Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters, S 984. He is also listed among the attesta- tions of S 980 (dated 1021\u00d71023) and S 981 (no date), but both of these are of questionable authenticity. Indeed, S 980 may have been modeled on S 984. 64 Lund, \u201cCnut\u2019s Danish Kingdom,\u201d 37. 65 \u201cChronicon Roskildense,\u201d VII.","350 Marie B\u00f8nl\u00f8kke Spejlborg her church must have been \u2013 or must have been closely connected to \u2013 St. Clem- ent\u2019s Church (now Skt. J\u00f8rgensbjerg) in Roskilde.66 Alongside the movements of king, earls, and their respective retinues from Eng- land to Denmark, other members of the Anglo-Danish elite moved independently. Some of these were Danes who had settled in England but were unsuccessful as land- holders there and decided to return home. Two such unfortunates are encountered in the Ramsey Chronicle, compiled ca. 1170: on at least two occasions, Bishop \u00c6thelric of Dorchester was able to buy land back from Danes who had received it from Cnut after the conquest. According to the chronicle, these Danes left England out of fear, and in one case the background story is provided. The Danish landholder, who had previously married an English widow of property, treated his English workers so badly that they opposed him and he became afraid for his life.67 The Ramsey Chroni- cle does not specify the destination of the exile, but given that all the events de- scribed took place before Bishop \u00c6thelric\u2019s death in 1034, and given that the man in question is called a Dane, it seems likely that he returned to his homeland. Whether he brought his English wife and (part of) his Anglo-Danish household home with him is more uncertain, but he, and others like him, are likely to have carried new knowledge, technology, customs, and materials from England to Denmark. One of the areas in which people arriving in Denmark from England during the eleventh century could have been active was as founders of early proprietary churches in Denmark, in rural as well as urban environments. They and their net- works would have been excellent channels for English influence on Denmark, in such areas as church foundations and the cults of saints.68 The returned settlers, from the earls to the middle- and lower-ranking landholders, together with their households, may also account for some of the personal ornaments of Anglo- Saxon and Anglo-Danish style of varying quality found in Denmark. The larger part of Cnut\u2019s men who were granted land in England had settled in the south and east of the country, which corresponds well with the source distribution pat- terns for the Anglo-Danish jewelry finds in Denmark.69 The fact that these finds include not only a number of fine enamel brooches, but much simpler dress or- naments as well, some in the form of hooked-tags of copper-alloy, demonstrates that connections to England were not entirely limited to the warrior class.70 These artefacts may be connected to similar examples from East Anglia and the 66 Olsen, St. J\u00f8rgensbj\u00e6rg Kirke. See further Crawford in this volume, pp. 445\u201347, 453\u201354. 67 Chronicon abbatiae Rameseiensis, ed. Macray, 75\u201377 (III). 68 Spejlborg, \u201cAnglo-Danish Connections and the Organisation of the Early Danish Church\u201d; Spejlborg, \u201cThere and Back Again.\u201d 69 See above and Pedersen, \u201cAnglo-Danish Contact across the North Sea,\u201d 56\u201359. 70 Roesdahl, \u201cDenmark-England in the Eleventh Century,\u201d 18.","Chapter 15 King Cnut of England and the Danish Homelands 351 south-east of England.71 The enamel brooches may have been trade objects cater- ing for the taste of the Anglo-Danish elite in Denmark. They are unlikely to have been locally produced. The detailed knowledge, intensive workmanship, and specialized skills needed for this type of work means that late Viking Age cloi- sonn\u00e9 enamel brooches in Denmark are all considered to be imports.72 As in the case of Scandinavian brooches found in England, it is worth contemplating whether these were objects of trade or whether they arrived in Denmark on the garments of a traveler.73 While the enamel brooches are evidence of elite ex- change, the humbler copper-, tin-, and lead-alloy ornaments relate to lower so- cioeconomic strata, and thus mirror the finds of riding gear. Conclusion: Anglo-Danes in Denmark For a time during the first half of the eleventh century, Anglo-Saxon objects, styles, and technologies entered Denmark. This influence was linked to the elite, and most likely to people connected with King Cnut. The potters working in Viborg, Roskilde, and Lund are the obvious exception, but lead-glazed pottery was not for everyone; the contacts that brought these people to Denmark must have been con- trolled by the higher levels of society. Similarly, the lower-standard jewelry was most likely either the result of a trickle-down effect affecting fashion in certain areas of Denmark, or they were the possessions of lower-status people who had arrived with those of higher status. The fact that much of the archaeological evi- dence found in Denmark has counterparts in England and is interpreted as belong- ing to one group points to an active network spanning the North Sea, whose actors displayed a specific Anglo-Danish (or Anglo-Scandinavian) culture. The textual evidence for the impact of Cnut\u2019s English reign in Denmark is scanty and fragmented. Nevertheless, when compared with the growing quantity of archaeological evidence, it does afford us some insights into how the English elements found on Danish soil ended up where they did. To paraphrase Olsen, there is a light in the darkness that catches the eye of anyone trying to gauge the impact of the Viking activities in England on the Danish homelands. The period surrounding Cnut\u2019s conquest of England was the most intense for English contacts in Denmark. This is evident in the number and variety of people who traveled 71 Pedersen, \u201cAnglo-Danish Contact across the North Sea,\u201d 56\u201358. 72 Pedersen, \u201cAnglo-Danish Contact across the North Sea,\u201d 56\u201358. 73 On Scandinavian metalwork in England, see Kershaw, Viking Identities; Kershaw, \u201cCulture and Gender in the Danelaw,\u201d 299.","352 Marie B\u00f8nl\u00f8kke Spejlborg across the North Sea: the members of Cnut\u2019s army who returned to Scandinavia after the successful campaign; the earls who had interests and positions on both sides in both England and Denmark; and the people who initially settled in Eng- land but later returned home. The travels of many of these individuals would have led to the movement of other people, including wives, retinues, servants, and more. Through the written sources, it is possible to follow the movements of peo- ple, some named, others unknown, back and forth across the North Sea. Just as the policies of Cnut drew on the traditions of both Denmark and Eng- land,74 the links between these people created a network of Anglo-Danish con- tacts which formed the channels through which goods, ideas, and technologies moved freely across the North Sea. Although the network centered around Cnut, who was instrumental in its manifestation, the developments seen in Denmark at this time, and reflected in the archaeological record, cannot be explained by the king alone. This was a collective effort. In addition, his period saw the intensifi- cation, and perhaps formalization, of some of the connections which had been initiated by his father Sveinn Forkbeard, such as the employment of English moneyers and ecclesiastics in Denmark. Similarly, the reign of Cnut laid the foundation for Anglo-Danish contact during later periods. It was at this time that many families of Danish and English origin were joined through intermarriage. A number of Danish settlers who had received land from Cnut were later to return home, and the forty ships which had remained with Cnut in England formed a force which would continue to diminish across the following decades, as ships and crews slowly returned to Denmark. These were people with considerable En- glish experience and connections that helped to extend the English presence and influence in Denmark long beyond the reign of Cnut the Great. 74 See Ellis in this volume, 355\u201378.","Chapter 15 King Cnut of England and the Danish Homelands 353 Map B: Denmark, Norway, Sweden in Cnut\u2019s reign (1016\u20131035).","","Caitlin Ellis Chapter 16 Cnut\u2019s Ecclesiastical Policy in the Context of His English and Danish Predecessors The abiding stereotype of the Vikings has been of pagan warriors who were ig- norant of, and hostile to, Christianity.1 This simplistic view, influenced by the rhetoric of writings from those being attacked by raiders, does not take into ac- count developments over time or the fact that Christianity could be attractive or useful to some Scandinavians, particularly rulers. There has been increasing scholarly recognition that the Christianization of Scandinavia was a long pro- cess, involving the gradual build-up of familiarity with Christianity \u2013 which res- onates with some of the arguments below \u2013 through general contact and trade with Christians as well as through missionary activity. The focus has usually been on the conversion itself rather than on the establishment of church insti- tutions. Debate has centered on the different influences on Christianization, whether from the continent, especially the see of Hamburg-Bremen, or from England, or from native impetus. The reality was that all these influences and factors played a role. Overall, as scholarship on the kingship of Cnut has traditionally either been somewhat Anglocentric or somewhat Scandinavia-centric, some increased com- munication between the two fields is desirable \u2013 the same can also be said of scholarship on his relations with the Church specifically. Some of the major works are discussed below. This chapter aims to view this aspect of Cnut\u2019s reign holistically, since national biases can give us only a partial, incomplete, picture. Such a divide can also be detected in the surviving sources, since the Anglo- Saxon Chronicle and the Encomium Emmae Reginae emphasize Cnut\u2019s model Christian kingship, whereas Norse sources, particularly skaldic verse, depict him as a traditional Scandinavian ruler. There has also been an understandable trend in the scholarship for biographies of individual kings; this chapter will place Cnut in the broader context of his predecessors. It will also provide an overview of his relations with the Church, where others have focused on individual aspects (for example, Cnut\u2019s patronage of manuscript production). 1 The author would like to thank Laura Amalasunta Gazzoli, Fraser McNair, Levi Roach, Simon Keynes, and Elizabeth Ashman Rowe. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1515\/9781501513336-017","356 Caitlin Ellis Cnut and the Church: Research Overview The reputation of Cnut, king of England and Denmark, as an ecclesiastical patron in England, following the West Saxon model, is vividly exemplified by the image of him in the Liber Vitae of the New Minster at Winchester, which echoes that of King Edgar in the earlier New Minster Charter (see Figure 10.2). According to Timo- thy Bolton, \u201cmore evidence of Cnut\u2019s interaction with the English Church survives than for any other King of Anglo-Saxon England,\u201d and historians have had to ac- count for this somehow.2 These historians generally fall into two camps, as will be discussed below. Both camps have largely focused on Cnut\u2019s gifts to the Church and his symbolic gestures towards Christianity. He also displayed an interest in church organization in both England and Denmark.3 I will consider Cnut\u2019s forays into ecclesiastical matters, beginning with the roots of his own Christianity, and proceeding to discuss three key points that structured the Church in his domains. These are, first, Cnut\u2019s relations with bishops, which partly continued his father\u2019s policy, with a case study on Orkney and a particular bishop; second, the patronage and manipulation of saints\u2019 cults; and third and last, the discourse of Christian kingship in terms of Cnut\u2019s apparent lack of engagement with the penitential tradi- tion, which was so visible in \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign. Perhaps understandably, studies fo- cusing on pre-Conquest England have rarely delved into Scandinavian matters and sources in depth, whereas, likewise, studies on Scandinavia that encompass Cnut have seldom fully appreciated the English dimension to his reign.4 This division of interest can impede scholarly attempts to assess the influences on Cnut\u2019s kingship and his Christianity. In the following, I shall contextualize aspects of Cnut\u2019s reign more fully by drawing comparisons with previous kings of both Denmark and Eng- land. In so doing, I will correct some perhaps old-fashioned views of Cnut. 2 Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 77. 3 Abrams, \u201cConversion of the Scandinavians of Dublin,\u201d 27\u201328. 4 Lawson\u2019s Cnut: The Danes in England is strong on England, but less so on the Scandinavian con- text. Indeed, as Jesch notes, the very subtitle (The Danes in England in the Early Eleventh Century) of (the first edition of) this book implies that \u201cCnut\u2019s reign was merely a blip in the otherwise or- derly progress of English history\u201d (Jesch, Review of The Reign of Cnut, by Rumble, 272). (The book\u2019s subtitle in its later edition, England\u2019s Viking King, seems to wish to alleviate this impression.) Jesch laments further that Rumble\u2019s edited volume The Reign of Cnut (1994) did not include a contribu- tion by a saga specialist and more broadly emphasizes that Norse texts have a contribution to make to the Anglo-Scandinavian field (Review of The Reign of Cnut, by Rumble, 274). In response to Jesch\u2019s review, the next major study of the Anglo-Danish king, Bolton\u2019s Empire of Cnut, was stronger on the Scandinavian side. Bolton\u2019s chapter in this volume, especially pp. 463\u201371, surveys the historiographical traditions, as well as the history of Scandinavian source criticism on Cnut.","Chapter 16 Cnut\u2019s Ecclesiastical Policy 357 Some scholarship in the twentieth century, now outdated, viewed Cnut as a king who was not far from being a hapless heathen and allowed himself to be molded by others into an acceptable Christian monarch. According to Frank Sten- ton, Cnut\u2019s \u201crelations with his bishop and abbots were those of a pupil towards the teachers who had introduced him to the mysteries of a civilization higher than his own.\u201d5 He alleges further that \u201c[a]s a reward for his obedience to their teaching, [Cnut\u2019s] rule in England came to be regarded through a haze of kindly tradition.\u201d6 Many scholars have attributed Cnut\u2019s Christian kingship to the influence of Wulf- stan, archbishop of York. For example, Dorothy Bethurum claimed that the \u201cyoung barbarian . . . put himself under Wulfstan\u2019s tutelage.\u201d7 Frank Barlow even argued that the level of Cnut\u2019s gift-giving decreased after the death of Wulfstan in 1023,8 although Bolton has robustly and convincingly denied this.9 Some have claimed that Lyfing, archbishop of Canterbury at the start of Cnut\u2019s reign, was as influential as Wulfstan.10 The credit for Cnut\u2019s patronage has gone not only to churchmen, however. Cnut\u2019s wife, Emma of Normandy, has also been seen to have guided him in this area.11 In considering gifts of de luxe manuscripts to churches, Heslop sug- gests that Cnut would have understood the benefit of showy munificence, \u201csince distribution of treasure among adherents was a common enough practice in the Vi- king world,\u201d but that the \u201creligious dimension is more likely to have been his wife\u2019s contribution to the policy.\u201d12 Emma\u2019s Norman descent is apparently considered to imbue her automatically with the appropriate Christian credentials. These figures certainly played their parts in Cnut\u2019s ecclesiastical policy, and notably Wulfstan, who shaped Cnut\u2019s law codes. However, one might find it difficult to imagine the hardened warrior Cnut \u2013 the man who had eliminated untrustworthy figures such as Eadric Streona \u2013 being cowed by clerics, or indeed by his wife, into compliance. In more recent scholarship an alternative view of the background to Cnut\u2019s ecclesiastical patronage has emerged. In 1993 M. K. Lawson initiated the case that church patronage was useful to Cnut for political ends.13 Bolton, in 2009, drew attention to ways in which Cnut\u2019s ecclesiastical policy rein- forced his authority on a regional basis, undercut his enemies or curried favor 5 Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 411. 6 Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 412. 7 Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, 63\u201364. 8 Barlow, English Church, 41. 9 Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 77\u201380. 10 Brooks, Church of Canterbury, 287\u201388; Lawson, Cnut: The Danes in England, 128\u201329. 11 Lawson, Cnut: The Danes in England, 128\u201329. 12 Heslop, \u201cProduction of de luxe Manuscripts,\u201d 180. 13 Lawson, Cnut: The Danes in England, 117\u201360.","358 Caitlin Ellis where appropriate.14 It is notable, though, that a certain extra degree of cyni- cism is applied by some to Cnut\u2019s church patronage, who imply that his belief was not genuine and his gifts to the Church were motivated only by cunning in order to secure his own position. While we can never look directly into the mind of a medieval person and in so doing accurately assess the sincerity of their faith, the same cynicism is not so often applied to Cnut\u2019s West Saxon predecessors, such as Edgar. If we assume that Cnut\u2019s only motivation for church patronage was political scheming, we should perhaps also extend this assumption to other English monarchs. A prime example of this is King Edgar (r. 957\u2013975), famously a patron of monastic reform, whose reign witnessed a proliferation of Benedictine houses. The reform in England had a particularly strong royal involvement, in compari- son to the contemporary Continent, where there was a greater degree of aristo- cratic participation.15 The Regularis Concordia, composed during Edgar\u2019s reign, states that royal approval should be sought in abbatial elections and that pray- ers for the king and queen should be offered frequently.16 The Fens, the marsh- lands of eastern England, was one of the areas with the largest number of Benedictine monasteries during Edgar\u2019s reign;17 it seems likely that the king wanted to extend his own influence into the fenland area where his dynasty held little land. Religious foundations looked to the king for gifts and wealth as well as for protection, and the king might expect them to take heed of his wishes in return. As George Molyneaux observes, in the latter half of the tenth century large tracts of land had been taken from powerful lay individuals and given to institutions which were often connected to the West Saxon royal house, strengthening royal control in particular areas.18 Although it might not have been his primary motivation, in the process of promoting the monastic re- form movement Edgar was definitely strengthening his allies financially. With the kingdom of England newly coalescing, English reform was also more con- cerned with standardizing practice than its Continental counterpart at the time. In the words of Levi Roach, English reform offered \u201ca blueprint for unity; it 14 Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 106. Since then, and since the research for this chapter was carried out, Bolton has argued that Cnut was \u201cmost probably a devout Christian\u201d who also made use of relics in England, including on the battlefield (Bolton, Cnut the Great, 209; for relics see 87\u201389, 108\u20139). 15 Roach, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 39. 16 Regularis Concordia, ed. and trans. Symons, viii, ix, x, xvii, xix, xxi, xxiv, xxv, xxxi, xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxvii, 74\u201376, 81\u201382, 83, 84, 86, 90, 91\u201392, 93. 17 Molyneaux, Formation of the English Kingdom, 175. 18 Molyneaux, Formation of the English Kingdom, 175.","Chapter 16 Cnut\u2019s Ecclesiastical Policy 359 provided an ideological underpinning for administrative centralization.\u201d19 A monarch steeped in a centuries-long tradition of Christianity, such as Edgar, could be just as likely to benefit from aspects of his ecclesiastical policy as a new conqueror, such as Cnut, from a less Christianized land. Thus, although these two views of Cnut in his religious dealings \u2013 the clue- less pagan steered by others or the skillful politician feigning piety to further his own goals \u2013 are at extremes, they both, maybe unconsciously, owe something to the implicit perception of Cnut, and perhaps of Scandinavians more generally, as heathens. Indeed, in an otherwise excellent book, produced after the turn of the second millennium, Mary Frances Giandrea repeatedly and inexplicably makes this assumption. Referring to Cnut as \u201cthe former pagan,\u201d she claims that, \u201cas a recent convert to Christianity, Cnut was starting from scratch.\u201d20 Further- more, she asserts somewhat dramatically that \u201c[a]s an outsider, and more impor- tantly, a recently converted pagan, Cnut could have been a disaster.\u201d21 It is unclear upon what evidence she is basing this assumption of Cnut\u2019s previous pa- ganism. Admittedly, at least one of Cnut\u2019s contemporaries had apparently as- sumed him to be a pagan. In the 1020s, Fulbert of Chartres wrote to the king that \u201cte quem paganorum principem audieramus, non modo Christianum, uerum etiam erga ecclesias atque Dei seruos benignissmum largitorem agnoscimus\u201d (you, whom we had heard to be a pagan prince, we now know to be not only a Christian, but also a most generous donor to churches and God\u2019s servants).22 Cnut had proved his piety through his donation to Chartres and other institu- tions. Modern historians should likewise weigh up the evidence for Cnut\u2019s com- mitment to Christianity. Given the decades of Christianity in Denmark, there may be a note of humor in Fulbert here, but whether it is humor or a genuine misap- prehension, his statement surely derives from the stereotype of pagan Northmen. Haraldr Bluetooth, Sveinn Forkbeard, and Cnut\u2019s Christian Roots Cnut was in fact a third-generation Christian. The details of his matrilineal heri- tage are uncertain, due to the terseness of the historical record on the subject, 19 Roach, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 40. 20 Giandrea, Episcopal Culture, 53 and 58. 21 Giandrea, Episcopal Culture, 58. 22 Letters and Poems of Fulbert, ed. Behrends, 66\u201369 (no. 37). See Gelting, \u201cUn \u00c9v\u00eaque da- nois,\u201d for further discussion, also on the letter\u2019s date.","360 Caitlin Ellis but Cnut\u2019s mother, a Polish princess, was presumably a Christian. She is men- tioned briefly by the author of the Encomium Emmae Reginae, by Adam of Bremen in his Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum and by Thietmar of Merseburg in his Chronicon (see later Morawiec, pp. 419\u201324, and Gazzoli, pp. 410\u201311). Al- though we have little reliable information about Cnut\u2019s mother, and cannot even be certain of her name, there is general agreement that she was a daughter of Mieszko I (ca. 960\u2013992), founder of the Piast dynasty.23 Mieszko\u2019s own baptism, along with that of much of his court, probably in 966, is seen as a major turning point in the Christianization of Poland.24 There is more evidence for Christianity on the patrilineal side. Cnut\u2019s grandfa- ther, Haraldr bl\u00e1t\u01ebnn (\u201cBluetooth\u201d) Gormsson, had been the first ruling Danish king to be converted to Christianity, in the 960s.25 He famously claimed to have converted his people on the Jelling stone, referring to himself as \u201csa | haraltr [:] ias: s\u0105\u0280 \u00b7 uan \u00b7 tanmaurk ala \u00b7 auknuruiakaukt(a)ni(kar\u00fei)kristn\u0105\u201d (that Haraldr who won the whole of Denmark for himself, and Norway, and made the Danes Chris- tian).26 This inscription was not his only symbolically Christian gesture. Haraldr moved his father Gormr\u2019s remains to the new and impressive 30 m by 14 m wooden church constructed at Jelling to give him a Christian rather than pagan burial. Har- aldr also minted Cross pennies \u2013 the first overtly Christian Danish coinage \u2013 most likely at the emporium of Haithabu (or Hedeby) in ca. 975\/980.27 This short-lived issue represents a clear effort to proclaim Denmark\u2019s status as an independent, Christian land. Given the brief appearance of this coinage, it might seem that it was issued in reaction to the German invasion of Otto II in 973. Such an impetus to reaf- firm Christianity and political sovereignty might be seen to take its inspiration from the maxim provided by St. Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:17: \u201cand where the spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.\u201d28 Conversion had previously been used as an excuse for invasion, for example by Charlemagne when converting Saxons and Frisians. How- ever, the threat of invasion facing the Danes has often been overestimated: Thiet- mar\u2019s account of Otto\u2019s invasion seems to describe something more like a border 23 Morawiec, \u201cLi\u00f0smannaflokkr,\u201d 107. 24 See Urba\u0144czyk and Rosik, \u201cPoland,\u201d 263 and 275\u201376. 25 In 826 the Danish Harald \u201cKlak,\u201d while in exile for a second time, had been baptized at Mainz, prompted by Louis the Pious, who became his godfather. Despite support from Louis, Harald did not succeed in regaining the Danish throne, but was expelled by the sons of God- frid the following year. 26 Moltke, Runes and their Origin, 207. 27 Moesgaard, King Harold\u2019s Coinage, 101\u20135. 28 Discussed with reference to Old Norse literature by Weber, in \u201cIrreligiosit\u00e4t und Heldenzei- talter\u201d and \u201cIntellegere historiam,\u201d and extended to Flateyjarb\u00f3k by Rowe, in Development of Flateyjarb\u00f3k, 188\u201399.","Chapter 16 Cnut\u2019s Ecclesiastical Policy 361 skirmish, while Denmark seems to have been low on the list of foreign-policy priori- ties for the Ottonian emperors.29 Jens Christian Moesgaard suggests that the purpose behind the production of Haraldr\u2019s Cross coinage was to pay the troops and secure the support of magnates across the country; perhaps this accounts for the wide- spread distribution of the coinage during his construction program to create a new, stronger military infrastructure.30 For the present discussion, it is more significant that Haraldr chose to embrace the Christian imagery and ideology of kingship. There is thus tangible evidence of Cnut\u2019s Christian heritage. However, even if he had been born a pagan of pagan ancestors, he would not have been as unfamiliar with Christianity as is implied by some of the interpretations cited above, which sug- gest that other people had to steer him towards proper Christian kingship. Before he gained the throne in 1016, Cnut had already spent some time in England; on his first appearance in English history he was left in command of the fleet and hostages at Gainsborough in the absence of his father Sveinn tj\u00faguskegg (\u201cForkbeard\u201d) Haralds- son.31 Furthermore, England had had a notable influence on Christianity in Scandi- navia itself from the outset.32 For over two centuries Scandinavians themselves had been traveling back and forth between Scandinavia, Britain, Ireland, Frankia, Nor- mandy, and Brittany. Thereby they could not have failed to amass a basic knowl- edge of the Christian church, regardless of whether they were converted or not. Adam of Bremen\u2019s account of Sveinn Forkbeard\u2019s accession, by which he takes the throne from his father Haraldr as part of a pagan uprising, may have influenced this misperception of both Sveinn and, by extension, his son Cnut. Adam relates that Sveinn led a great persecution of the Christians in Denmark.33 His account is preju- diced throughout against Sveinn, referring to this king\u2019s \u201ccrudelitate ac perfidia\u201d (cru- elty and perfidy).34 It was influential in the portrayal of Sveinn in later sources too, particularly Sven Aggesen\u2019s Brevis historia regum Dacie and Saxo Grammaticus\u2019s Gesta Danorum, which drew on Adam for information. While Sveinn may have suc- ceeded his father as a result of a rebellion, the motivations for such a rebellion were highly unlikely to have been theological. There is no other evidence for a pagan reac- tion resulting in an official end to Christianity in Denmark.35 Furthermore, even Adam has to admit that Sveinn did become a Christian later in his reign, when 29 Gazzoli, Review of King Harold\u2019s Cross Coinage, edited by Moesgaard, 7. 30 Moesgaard, King Harold\u2019s Coinage, 102\u20133. 31 ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 70 (s.a. 1013); (E), trans. Swanton, 143 (s.a. 1013). 32 See Abrams, \u201cAnglo-Saxons and the Christianization of Scandinavia.\u201d 33 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 91 (II.xxvii). 34 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 91 (II.xxvii). Adam of Bremen: History, trans. Tschan, 75. 35 Gelting, \u201cKingdom of Denmark,\u201d 83.","362 Caitlin Ellis \u201creversus in semetipsum peccata sua pre oculis habuit penitensque oravit ad Domi- num\u201d (returning to himself, he considered his sins and in contrition prayed to the Lord.)36 Adam attributes Sveinn\u2019s change of heart to his suffering a series of defeats at the hands of the Swedes, events for which there is no corroborating evidence; at the time that Adam claims Sveinn was vanquished and in exile, he was leading Vi- king attacks on England, and was thus strong enough to entrust his Danish kingdom to others. It seems that Adam is forced to acknowledge Sveinn\u2019s (renewed) Christian- ity in his narrative just when he is about to relate Sveinn\u2019s victory at the Battle of Sv\u01ebl\u00f0r in 1000. Here Sveinn\u2019s defeat of the missionary king of Norway, \u00d3l\u00e1fr Tryggva- son, surely meant that God was on his side. Adam\u2019s account continues by suggesting that Sveinn actively promoted Christianity in Norway afterwards.37 The Encomium Emmae Reginae describes Sveinn Forkbeard in a more uniformly positive light, al- though it can be seen as equally problematic in its efforts to give the best possible spin to the Anglo-Danish hegemony. It portrays Sveinn as a religious man loved by his people: \u201cTantam deinde illi gratiam diuina concessit uirtus, ut etiam puerulus in- timo affectu diligeretur ab omnibus\u201d (The divine power granted him such great fa- vour, that even as a boy he was held by all in close affection).38 In reality, Sveinn was the first Scandinavian king to be born into the Chris- tian faith. Sveinn minted a coinage in around 995; like that of his father it em- ployed Christian imagery. The obverse has the slightly incorrect ZVEN REX AD DENER (\u201cSveinn king of the Danes\u201d or \u201cSveinn king of Denmark\u201d).39 Apart from the runic inscriptions at Jelling, the legend on these coins represents the only surviving use of \u201cDanes\u201d or \u201cDenmark\u201d in a Danish source from the tenth century.40 The reverse has C-R-U-X set in the arms of a cross. These coins are modeled closely on \u00c6thelred\u2019s CRUX type coinage, struck between ca. 991 and ca. 997.41 Only a limited number of Sveinn\u2019s coins were produced, so their pro- duction cannot have had a purely economic motivation.42 It seems therefore that Sveinn was keen to assert his kingship and his Christianity together. Adam\u2019s negative portrayal of an irreligious Sveinn seems to have had two moti- vations. Firstly, it is possible that Sveinn \u00c1str\u00ed\u00f0arson (or Svend Estridsen), the 36 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 99\u2013100 (II.xxxviii). Adam of Bremen: History, trans. Tschan, 81. 37 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 100 (II.xxxix). 38 Encomium, ed. Campbell, 8\u20139. 39 Jensen, Tusindtallets Danske M\u00f8nter, 22. Marie B\u00f8nl\u00f8kke Spejlborg in this volume considers this coinage in the light of Sveinn\u2019s English connections, including bishops and moneyers, pp. 340\u201341. 40 Jensen, Tusindtallets Danske M\u00f8nter, 22. 41 Jensen, Tusindtallets Danske M\u00f8nter, 22. 42 Jensen, Tusindtallets Danske M\u00f8nter, 22.","Chapter 16 Cnut\u2019s Ecclesiastical Policy 363 Danish king who was one of Adam\u2019s sources, hoped that Haraldr Bluetooth, his great-grandfather, would be made a saint, and so was prepared to downplay or vilify his namesake, the son who had exiled Haraldr and replaced him.43 Secondly, Sveinn Forkbeard did refute Hamburg-Bremen\u2019s claims to jurisdiction over the Danish church. Following a devastating Viking raid on Hamburg in 845, the noted mission- ary Anskar (or Ansgar), bishop of Hamburg, received the additional see of Bremen, presumably in an effort to restore its fortunes, and so formed a joint archbishopric, Hamburg-Bremen. Based on apparent imperial and papal privileges, this archbish- opric claimed jurisdiction over Scandinavia and the Slavic lands, but the documen- tary evidence for this is contested.44 Hamburg-Bremen\u2019s assertions in this regard were also connected to its rivalry with Mainz and Cologne, two archbishoprics on the Rhine.45 In 948, bishops had been appointed to the three new Danish sees of Schleswig, Ribe, and Aarhus, presumably by Hamburg-Bremen in an attempt to swell the ranks of its suffragans.46 It is likely that they were not able to take up phys- ical residence in these sees until Haraldr Bluetooth\u2019s conversion, when a fourth bish- opric in Odense was created.47 Sveinn Forkbeard must have expelled these four bishops early in his reign, and at any rate no later than 988, since Otto III provided for their maintenance outside Denmark by a privilege of March 18, 988; Michael Gelting concludes from this provision that their exile was not seen as temporary.48 Although the privilege itself does not specify exile, it does seem likely that they were often absent from Denmark.49 According to Adam, only a few of Hamburg-Bremen\u2019s missionary bishops were able to operate in Denmark; perhaps, in fact, only one, Odi- nkar the Elder, who was a member of a wealthy and aristocratic Danish family and therefore a special case.50 While Sveinn bypassed Hamburg-Bremen in sourcing his 43 See Demidoff, \u201cPoppo Legend\u201d; Lund, \u201cBaptism\u201d; Lund, \u201cHarald Bluetooth.\u201d 44 Adam refers to these privileges in Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 24\u201325 (I.xviii) and Rimbert in his Vita Anskarii, ed. Waitz, 34\u201335 (chap. 13). Knibbs, in Ansgar, Rimbert and the Forged Foundations, 78\u201388 (his discussion of the crucial privilege of Gregory IV), argues that significant parts of the papal privileges in their extant state were forged and misused by Hamburg-Bremen. 45 Johnson, \u201cAdalbert of Hamburg-Bremen,\u201d 149. 46 Although we do not know for certain which party pushed for the appointment of these bishops who appear at the Synod of Ingelheim, Hamburg-Bremen seems the most likely candidate. 47 Gelting, \u201cElusive Bishops,\u201d 172. 48 Gelting, \u201cKingdom of Denmark,\u201d 83. 49 Ottonis II. et III. diplomata, ed. Sickel, 441 (D O III 41). There are some corruptions in the text, much of which is taken from Otto\u2019s I privilege of 965. 50 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 94\u201395 (II.xxxiv), 106\u20137 (II.xlvi\u2013vii). Gelting, \u201cElu- sive Bishops,\u201d 174\u201377; Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 192.","364 Caitlin Ellis bishops, it appears from a recent case by Bolton that the Danish court had court chaplains from Sveinn\u2019s reign onwards, even before he invaded England.51 There is further evidence of Sveinn\u2019s Christian kingship in that his ecclesiastical policy extended to endowments. The two church buildings that the missionary An- skar had consecrated in Denmark during the ninth century were dedicated to the Virgin Mary, thus imitating the dedication of the archbishopric\u2019s main church in Hamburg.52 This is not surprising, given that Anskar was an archbishop of Ham- burg-Bremen.53 However, during the reign of Sveinn, new churches at Roskilde and Lund were dedicated to the Holy Trinity in imitation of the royal church in Winches- ter. The Encomium Emmae Reginae relates that Sveinn\u2019s body was placed \u201cin monas- terio in honore Sanctae Trinitatis ab eodem rege constructo, in sepulchro quod sibi parauerat\u201d (in the monastery which the same king had built in honour of the Holy Trinity, in the sepulchre which he had prepared for himself).54 Admittedly, the scale of such endowments by rulers in Scandinavia does not compare with the scale of those by English and Continental rulers. Lesley Abrams has observed that, in com- parison to the rule of English kings, the kingship of tenth- and eleventh-century Scandinavia was institutionally weaker and lacked royally owned estates which could have been granted to churches.55 Cnut\u2019s showy patronage, compared with that of his Danish predecessors, was enabled during his rule of England by that kingdom\u2019s wealth. While the evidence for Christianity in Denmark is more limited than in Eng- land, and while Denmark\u2019s conversion did not lead to immediate and complete Christianization,56 it is possible to trace a Danish royal tradition of Christianity. During the reigns of Cnut and his predecessors, the fact that Christianity was newer and less established in Denmark made its connections to kingship stronger.57 51 Bolton, Cnut the Great, 3, 36\u201337. 52 Forte, Oram, and Pedersen, Viking Empires, 358. 53 Knibbs, in Ansgar, Rimbert, has questioned Anskar\u2019s archiepiscopal status on the basis of forgeries within the papal privileges for Hamburg-Bremen, but this argument has not been ac- cepted by Jansson, in \u201cAnsgar,\u201d or by Goetz, in \u201cArchbishopric of Hamburg-Bremen.\u201d 54 Encomium, ed. Campbell, 18\u201319. Spejlborg in this volume, p. 342, compares this account to the archaeological evidence at Lund. 55 Abrams, \u201cEleventh-Century Missions,\u201d 35\u201336. 56 Pagan furnished burials continued after Harald\u2019s conversion, even at his own ring for- tresses: see Roesdahl, \u201cEn Gravplads,\u201d 158. 57 Although Wickham observes that Christianity and the church had a greater role in solidify- ing the power of kings in Norway than it did in Denmark (Medieval Europe, 93 and 96), conver- sion was still associated with kings (89\u201391 and 94). Indeed, the fact that Denmark had a stronger monarchy may have made them less reliant on the church administration and there- fore better able to interfere at an early date.","Chapter 16 Cnut\u2019s Ecclesiastical Policy 365 Conversion was largely top-down; the turning point was Haraldr Bluetooth\u2019s official acceptance of Christianity. Since church organization was less established here than in England and other parts of Europe, Danish kings may have had ample op- portunity for control. The Episcopal Policy of Sveinn and Cnut Much to the chagrin of Adam of Bremen, Sveinn did not turn to Hamburg- Bremen for new bishops but brought in his own from England. This happened at the time of Sveinn\u2019s recurrent raids there, even before he had conquered the kingdom. Sveinn and Cnut presumably did not see it as a disjuncture that their rule involved raiding, attacking, and impoverishing Christians abroad even while they were active in establishing their own church. Christian kings were no less prone to attacking one another throughout this period.58 During Sveinn\u2019s reign in Denmark, Adam refers in particular to a bishop named Gotebald, who had been sent to Sk\u00e5ne from England.59 Gotebald, whose name seems more Conti- nental than English, has sometimes been considered the first bishop of Lund be- cause he is named in the necrology of Lund Cathedral, but he and another early cleric are referred to simply as bishops, whereas Henry, whom we shall hear more of later, is dubbed \u201cprimus nostr\u0119 \u0119cclesi\u0119 episcopus\u201d (the first bishop of our church).60 From this and Adam\u2019s account it seems likely that Gotebald, trained in England, became an itinerant missionary bishop based in Sk\u00e5ne.61 The fact that Christianity was recently established in Scandinavia meant that it was more closely associated with royalty than in England, which already had a sophisticated church organization and administration.62 The missionary bishops who had come from outside Denmark in Sveinn\u2019s reign seem to have lacked fixed dioceses. They may have been itinerant along with the royal court, especially if Christianity was the preserve of the aristocracy.63 Thus these bish- ops were reliant on the king; this state of affairs largely continued even later in 58 See also Reuter, \u201cPlunder and Tribute\u201d; and Stone, \u201cWaltharius and Carolingian Morality.\u201d 59 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 101 (II.xl, schol. 26 [27]). Adam of Bremen: History, trans. Tschan, 82. 60 Necrologium Lundense, ed. Weibull, 88. 61 Gelting, \u201cElusive Bishops,\u201d 175. For further discussion of Gotebald, see Spejlborg, \u201cAnglo- Danish Connections,\u201d 78. 62 Spejlborg observes that the \u201cearliest phase of church building in Denmark was directed by kings and bishops,\u201d in \u201cAnglo-Danish Connections,\u201d 86. 63 Gelting, \u201cKingdom of Denmark,\u201d 83.","366 Caitlin Ellis the eleventh century and into the twelfth century, when they had amassed greater resources and estates.64 Like Sveinn before him, Cnut brought clerics into Denmark from England. Adam of Bremen records that \u201cepiscopos ab Anglia multos adduxit in Daniam\u201d (he introduced many bishops from England into Denmark) and appointed three of them to Fyn (Funen), Roskilde, and Sk\u00e5ne.65 In addition, Odinkar the Youn- ger, bishop of Ribe and a native Dane, had been educated in England at Cnut\u2019s suggestion.66 It was perhaps only natural for Cnut to make use of the English church, which was both long-standing and under his dominion, while the Scan- dinavian church was still in its relative infancy. Similarly, Cnut drew on the re- sources of the church of other regions, as some of the bishops he sent to Denmark seem to have been Lotharingian.67 The main influence seems to have been English, however. A new diocesan structure for Denmark was probably es- tablished early in Cnut\u2019s reign. Four bishoprics were put in place, one for each of the main provinces: Jylland, Fyn, Sj\u00e6lland, and Sk\u00e5ne.68 This was perhaps following the English pattern of regional archbishoprics, which gave Canter- bury jurisdiction over the south of England and York over the north. At least one bishop for Denmark, Gerbrand, had been consecrated by Arch- bishop \u00c6thelnoth of Canterbury under the authority of Cnut. Attending an English royal assembly in 1022, Gerbrand witnessed a charter as \u201cGerbrandus Roscylde pa- rochie Danorum gente\u201d (Gerbrand of Roskilde parish of the Danish people).69 In- deed, excluding the king and queen, this Danish bishop takes third place in the witness-list, preceded only by the archbishops of York and Canterbury, in that order. This is a remarkable position for someone who had presumably not been ac- tive in the English court for any great period of time. L. M. Larson postulated that it was Cnut\u2019s intention for \u00c6thelnoth of Canterbury to be archbishop not only of the English, but also of the Danish church.70 Noting that the building of a stone church was begun in Roskilde during Cnut\u2019s lifetime, Niels Lund has suggested that Cnut hoped to elevate Roskilde to an archbishopric.71 There is not enough available evi- dence to confirm this suggestion, but it seems certain that Cnut hoped to increase 64 Gelting, \u201cKingdom of Denmark,\u201d 110. 65 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 115 (II.liii). Adam of Bremen: History, trans. Tschan, 93. 66 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 97 (II.xxxvi, schol. 25 [26]). Adam of Bremen: His- tory, trans. Tschan, 79. 67 Hare, \u201cCnut and Lotharingia\u201d; Keynes, \u201cGiso, Bishop of Wells.\u201d 68 Gelting, \u201cKingdom of Denmark,\u201d 83. 69 Sawyer, Electronic Sawyer (S 958). 70 Larson, Canute the Great, 190. 71 Lund, \u201cCnut\u2019s Danish Kingdom,\u201d 35, 42.","Chapter 16 Cnut\u2019s Ecclesiastical Policy 367 ties between the Danish and English churches. The timing of Gerbrand\u2019s consecra- tion is particularly significant as well: he appears in the charter two years after the new archbishop of Canterbury, \u00c6thelnoth, had been appointed in 1020, but before he received his pallium from Rome.72 Bolton has observed that Cnut, for all that he inherited from \u00c6thelred elderly incumbent archbishops of Canterbury and York whose backing he won for the remainder of their time in office, used their deaths as opportunities to intervene directly and install his own supporters.73 \u00c6thelnoth, the new archbishop of Canterbury, might have been more amenable to Cnut\u2019s ambi- tions for Denmark. Whatever the truth of the matter, Adam, if he is to be believed, tells us that Hamburg-Bremen considered Canterbury\u2019s consecration of Gerbrand enough of a threat to intervene. Adam says that Unwan, archbishop of Hamburg- Bremen, had Bishop Gerbrand captured, whereupon Gerbrand, \u201cquod necessitas persuasit\u201d (persuaded by necessity), gave him a promise of loyalty.74 Later, Ger- brand\u2019s successor in Roskilde, Bishop Avoco, was consecrated by Archbishop Li- bentius of Hamburg-Bremen (1029\u20131032), Unwan\u2019s successor. Towards the end of Cnut\u2019s reign there seems to have been a change in policy. As has often been recognised, Cnut\u2019s dealings with Emperor Conrad were proba- bly the primary reason that Cnut came to terms with Hamburg-Bremen. Whatever Cnut\u2019s previous plans for linking the churches under his rule, for him an alliance with Germany was a higher ambition. Following the coronation of Emperor Con- rad II in Rome on March 26, 1027, Cnut walked next to the emperor and Rudolph of Burgundy in the procession.75 As Cnut\u2019s Letter of 1027 relates, he secured reductions in tolls for merchants and pilgrims from England and Scandinavia traveling to Rome.76 He also set in motion a powerful alliance, with an agree- ment that, once both were old enough, Cnut\u2019s daughter would marry Conrad\u2019s son. Adam claims that Archbishop Unwan was central to instigating the rap- prochement between the Anglo-Danish king and the emperor. The precise na- ture of the presumed agreement on ecclesiastical matters is unclear, but Cnut presumably agreed to acknowledge Hamburg-Bremen in some way, while Hamburg-Bremen agreed to accept Cnut\u2019s English-consecrated bishops. Per- haps Cnut\u2019s international standing made him secure enough to make this con- cession. Unlike his father and grandfather before him, Cnut was too powerful 72 Keynes, \u201cCnut\u2019s Earls,\u201d 49, n. 38. 73 Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 83. 74 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 116 (II.lv). Adam of Bremen: History, trans. Tschan, 93. 75 For a discussion of the background in European politics to the imperial coronation and speculations on Cnut\u2019s involvement, see Bolton, Cnut the Great, 163\u201371. 76 EHD I, ed. Whitelock, 476 (no. 53: Cnut\u2019s Letter of 1027).","368 Caitlin Ellis to be concerned that recognizing the ecclesiastical authority of the imperial see of Hamburg-Bremen might amount to recognizing the political authority of the German emperor.77 Orkney and the Bursting Bishop Henry As well as having a bearing on his wider policies of episcopal organization and rela- tions with European churches, Cnut\u2019s international standing may have had a smaller-scale impact in bringing more marginal areas of Britain into the orbit of the English archbishops. Cnut\u2019s rule of England alongside his position in Scandinavia might have brought the earldom of Orkney to the attention of the English church. Authority over Orkney, which was Norse-speaking, had long been claimed by kings of Norway and so, in theory, Cnut\u2019s claims to be overlord of Norway may have in- cluded an assumption that he ruled Orkney as well. While it is arguable that the English church was seeking to expand into this traditionally Scandinavian area under Cnut\u2019s rule specifically, its position may have needed shoring up at home. A comparison can be drawn here with a trend detectable in \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign, during which bishoprics were strengthened in response to the escalation of Viking activi- ties. In 995 \u00c6thelred approved the relocation of the bishopric of Norham to Durham (see Map III.1);78 the previous year there had been a Viking raid on Lindisfarne which may have encouraged the community of St. Cuthbert to transfer to a place of greater safety further inland. There was a Viking army at large in the country throughout the period 991\u20131005 and this threat must have been felt by contempo- rary ecclesiastics.79 Whereas \u00c6thelred was on the defensive during his reign, 77 Niblaeus has shown that the back-projected idea of constant hostility between Denmark and the supposedly imperialist German church, particularly Hamburg-Bremen, is simplistic and potentially unhelpful: German influence can be seen on the Scandinavian church in a va- riety of ways (\u201cGerman Influence,\u201d 261\u201363; on Adam\u2019s account specifically, 111\u201313). While this is instructive and the German threat has sometimes been over-emphasised, Niblaeus\u2019s thesis focuses on the mid-eleventh to twelfth centuries. When the Danish kingdom was in its infancy, tensions with the Franks were greater, and it seems that these extended into the Ottonian pe- riod as well. Wickham notes that for ninth-century Danish kings, \u201cChristian conversion was closely connected to acceptance of Frankish hegemony\u201d and that Haraldr Bluetooth\u2019s conver- sion was tied to Emperor Otto I, in that Haraldr was trying \u201cto use him as a political model and to neutralise him as a threat\u201d (Medieval Europe, 90, 91). 78 Traditionally believed to be located at Chester-le-Street. McGuigan, in \u201cNeither Scotland,\u201d esp. 81, argues that the community of Cuthbert was actually at Norham. 79 Besides the Cuthbert relocation, King \u00c6thelred issued a charter in 994, S 880, which as- sured the bishop of Cornwall that he had all the same rights as other bishops. This assurance","Chapter 16 Cnut\u2019s Ecclesiastical Policy 369 including with regard to his ecclesiastical policy, Cnut was often on the offensive and sought to expand his influence. Although they were more difficult to control politically and militarily, geographically outlying or independently ruled regions such as Orkney provided opportunities for expansionist metropolitans to increase their own power and influence. The official establishment of a bishopric in Orkney is usually attributed to Earl \u00deorfinnr Sigur\u00f0arson of Orkney, datable to his pilgrimage to Rome in around 1050. However, a missionary bishop appears to have been in Orkney even earlier: Henricus or Henry, who, according to Adam of Bremen, was treasurer to King Cnut and ended his days as bishop of Lund by exploding at a feast.80 Henry is usually supposed to have been in Orkney in around 1035, although Haki Antons- son observes that this dating \u201ccannot be established with any certainty.\u201d81 Al- though his name seems French or German, Henry has been assumed to be a man \u201cof Anglo-Danish provenance.\u201d82 If Cnut and the English church had been trying to interfere in ecclesiastical matters, \u00deorfinnr may have had this as one of his in- centives for taking ecclesiastical matters into his own hands. There is more information about Henry when he later served as bishop of Lund. According to Adam of Bremen, Henry was appointed there in around 1060 at the behest of King Sveinn \u00c1str\u00ed\u00f0arson of Denmark.83 Gelting argues that Henry\u2019s transfer from Orkney to Lund probably took place in the reign of Magn\u00fas inn g\u00f3\u00f0i (\u201cthe Good\u201d) \u00d3l\u00e1fsson, king of Norway and Denmark (1035\/1042\u20131047), rather than in that of Sveinn (1047\u20131076).84 Magn\u00fas seems to have made a con- certed effort to increase his control over Orkney and backed one party in the dis- puted succession to the earldom, although his favored candidate was killed towards the end of his reign. According to Gelting, it was this \u201cevent which may seems connected to the raid on Padstow (ASC (CD), s.a. 981) and to the fact that the whole south-west was vulnerable to attack from Viking ships making for the Irish Sea (Simon Keynes, pers. comm.). The fact that the Cuthbert relocation and S 880, would provide, respectively, one instance from within the province of York and one from within the province of Canterbury suggests that both archbishops were involved in this policy. The long-standing conflicts be- tween the sees of Crediton and St. Germans, however, may have been more significant for S 880, whose wording borrows very heavily from the longer S 876, issued the previous year. See Electronic Sawyer. 80 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 236 (IV.viii). 81 Haki Antonsson, St. Magn\u00fas, 86 (and references therein). 82 Cant, \u201cChurch in Orkney and Shetland,\u201d 2. 83 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 235 (IV.viii). On the dating, which takes Bishop Avoco\u2019s death in 1057 as its terminus a quo, see Adam of Bremen: History, trans. Tschan, 191, n. 15. 84 Gelting, \u201cElusive Bishops,\u201d 190\u201391.","370 Caitlin Ellis have led the Norwegian-Danish king to find a safer see for a loyal Orcadian bishop.\u201d85 A significant overhaul of the Danish diocesan structure occurred in 1059. New Danish bishops loyal to Adalbert, archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen, were ap- pointed to each see after the previous bishops, loyal to the Danish king, had died or been removed on the grounds of uncanonical consecration. Adalbert, arch- bishop from 1043 to 1072, was particularly active in this way in attempting to ex- tend the sway of his see. Although he met with only mixed success, in 1047 he did manage to obtain a letter of privilege from Pope Clement II, granting him au- thority over the lands of the North and the Baltic. Two subsequent popes, Leo IX and Victor II, confirmed these privileges in 1053 and 1055 respectively.86 The one obstacle to Adalbert\u2019s plan was Henry of Lund, who, according to Gelting, \u201cnot only was alive, but was also canonically unimpeachable, for as for- mer bishop of Orkney he had a proper ordination, probably from the Anglo- Saxon church.\u201d87 Egino was made bishop of Dalby, only 11 km away; on Henry\u2019s death (possibly as early as 1060), Egino moved to Lund, while Dalby ceased to be a bishopric and became a college of canons instead. It seems that Egino was ei- ther an auxiliary bishop at the chapel of the royal residence of Dalby, or a mis- sionary bishop who was based at Dalby. Either way, it is probable that he was expected to succeed to the see of Lund after Henry. Gelting concludes that the most likely explanation for this curious situation is that \u201cthere never was, nor was intended to be, any diocese of Dalby.\u201d88 Adam\u2019s vividly negative depiction of Henry\u2019s death in his Gesta is contextualized if we see that the bishop\u2019s very existence was an obstacle to the ambitions of Hamburg-Bremen: Henry, says Adam, brought Cnut\u2019s \u201ctesauros\u201d (treasure) over to Denmark and \u201cluxuriose vitam peregit. De quo narrant etiam, quod pestifera consuetudine delectatus inebriandi ventris tandem suffocatus crepuit\u201d (spent his life in voluptuousness. About him it is even stated that, revelling in the pestiferous practice of drinking his belly full, he at last suffocated and burst).89 Henry had Anglo-Danish ties, nor does Adam locate his origin in Hamburg- Bremen, so it seems probable that he was sent to Lund by the English church. It has been assumed that earlier he was sent to Orkney by the archbishop of York.90 85 Gelting, \u201cElusive Bishops,\u201d 191. 86 Regesta Norvegica I, ed. Gunnes, 35\u201336. 87 Gelting, \u201cElusive Bishops,\u201d 190. 88 Gelting, \u201cElusive Bishops,\u201d 190. 89 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 236 (IV.viii). Adam of Bremen: History, trans. Tschan, 192. See also Acts 1:18. 90 Haki Antonsson, St. Magn\u00fas, 86.","Chapter 16 Cnut\u2019s Ecclesiastical Policy 371 As a provenance for Henry, this northern English archbishopric is geographically closer to Orkney than is Canterbury, relatively speaking. However, if we associate Henry with Cnut, as Adam permits, this king\u2019s efforts in connecting the Danish church to Canterbury make it plausible that Canterbury, not York, was Henry\u2019s point of origin. Alternatively, York might have been responding to Cnut\u2019s ecclesias- tical impetus by adding Henry to its own suffragans. Although Wulfstan of York was influential in his day, York could never truly rival Canterbury\u2019s jurisdiction. In the eleventh century Canterbury possessed twelve or thirteen English sees, placing it among the most extensive metropolitans in the Christian world. In comparison, York\u2019s domain north of the Humber only included the see of Durham, placing it among the smallest metropolitans.91 Worcester was occasionally brought into York\u2019s orbit: several archbishops of York held this see in plurality until the Pope ended the practice in 1061.92 This practice may have had an economic motivation, since Canterbury was far wealthier than its northern counterpart, while York needed reconstruction. York did consecrate bishops for Orkney in the 1070s, a pe- riod in which she claimed metropolitan status over mainland Scotland too; this claim was officially recognized in 1072, seemingly as a consolation prize for the concurrent reinforcement of Canterbury\u2019s superiority. It remains unclear, however, whether these efforts by York had a precedent so early as the person of Henry. Additionally, it is possible that Bishop Henry is identifiable with a \u201cHeinrekr\u201d named in Icelandic sources, who stayed in Iceland for two years, according to Ari \u00deorgilsson\u2019s \u00cdslendingab\u00f3k (1122\u00d71133).93 Heinrekr is also listed in Hungrvaka, the history of the Icelandic see of Sk\u00e1lholt, as one of the bishops who visited Iceland during the episcopacy of \u00cdsleifr Gizurarson (1055\/1056\u20131080).94 In \u00cdslendingab\u00f3k the list of foreign bishops appears just after the death of \u00d3l\u00e1fr Tryggvason in 1000 and before the episcopacy of \u00cdsleifr more than fifty years later; directly after the list, \u00cdslendingab\u00f3k turns to the appointment of Skapti \u00de\u00f3roddsson as lawspeaker, an office he held from 1004 to 1030. It seems, therefore, that the thirteenth-century author of Hungrvaka dated Heinrekr\u2019s stay in Iceland in the second half of the elev- enth century, because he misplaced Ari\u2019s list of foreign bishops in his reconstruc- tion of the sequence of events in Iceland. In view of the long-standing connections between Iceland and Orkney, including the fairly frequent maritime traffic for trade, it is possible that a missionary bishop named Henry, who was probably sent from York or Canterbury and later served in Lund, spent time in both these Scandi- navian settlements in the North Atlantic. 91 Barlow, English Church, 232. 92 Giandrea, Episcopal Culture, 99. 93 \u00cdslendingab\u00f3k, ed. Jakob Benediktsson, 18. 94 Hungrvaka, ed. Kahle, 95.","372 Caitlin Ellis Cnut and the Cults of Saints Another prominent feature of Christianity in this period was saints\u2019 cults, which, like episcopal matters, could provide kings with the opportunity to be- come involved in ecclesiastical affairs. I will consider Cnut\u2019s actions with re- gards to these cults, in comparison with \u00c6thelred\u2019s involvement with the cult of his murdered half-brother King Edward the Martyr (975\u2013978). Although blame for Edward\u2019s assassination would later fall on \u00c6thelred and then, espe- cially in the writings of Anglo-Norman historians, on his mother, \u00c6thelthryth, no contemporary evidence clearly incriminates either of them.95 By the time we have any evidence of this cult, it was associated with royal patronage.96 This need not be surprising, since Edward had been an anointed king, a status that made his murder in 978 all the more shocking. Roach has noted that it was \u201cno accident\u201d that the cult should grow in popularity in proportion to Viking activ- ity, since \u201csuch signs of divine displeasure must have made Edward\u2019s death ap- pear in a new light.\u201d97 Cnut continued to patronize the cult of Edward, perhaps hoping to emphasize some continuity of the West Saxon royal line into his own reign. The same impulse may be detected in Cnut\u2019s foundation in 1020 of a min- ster at Assandun, the site of his defeat of Edmund Ironside in 1016.98 This may seem incongruous, like Cnut\u2019s patronage of the cult of St. \u00c6lfheah, the arch- bishop of Canterbury whom a Viking army had martyred in 1012. It has already been noted that Sveinn and Cnut saw no problem with attacking Christians while being Christian themselves. The same would be true of a Danish king pa- tronizing the cult of a saint killed by Viking raiders; this perhaps is an irony more apparent to modern scholars than to contemporary commentators. Cnut may not have associated himself with \u00c6lfheah\u2019s killers any more than a given English person would identify with the actions of any other group or faction within the realm. Nevertheless, the translation of \u00c6lfheah\u2019s relics from London, the cult\u2019s centre, to Canterbury in 1023 was a shrewd political move by Cnut (see the Prologue, pp. 12\u201317). According to Nicole Marafioti, the translation helped \u201cto defuse the impact\u201d of these relics.99 Cnut\u2019s patronage of Bury St. Ed- munds reflects a similar attitude on his part to the cult of King Edmund of East 95 Keynes, \u201cCult of Edward the Martyr,\u201d 116\u201317; Roach, \u00c6thelred, 75\u201377. 96 Cubitt, in \u201cSites and Sanctity,\u201d argues that the cult swept to popularity as part of general opposition to \u00c6thelred, but Keynes, in \u201cCult of Edward the Martyr,\u201d has established that the cult was an official, not a popular one, and that Canterbury was involved from the outset. 97 Roach, \u00c6thelred, 169. 98 For the battle, see ASC (DE), trans. Swanton, 152 (s.a. 1016). 99 Marafioti, The King\u2019s Body, 195.","Chapter 16 Cnut\u2019s Ecclesiastical Policy 373 Anglia, killed in around 870 by Vikings and rapidly proclaimed a martyr.100 St. Edmund\u2019s was another instance of the sensitive management of a potentially embarrassing cult, although the chronological remove from his martyrdom pre- sumably decreased its association with the Anglo-Danish regime; more gener- ally, however, it was part of Cnut\u2019s overall approach to Christian kingship. Cnut had a particularly interesting relationship with another and, on the surface, perhaps similarly surprising, cult: that of St. \u00d3l\u00e1fr Haraldsson, king of Norway. Although Adam\u2019s claim, that between the two kings \u201ccontinuum fuit bellum, nec cessavit omnibus diebus vitae eorum\u201d (there was continual war, and it did not cease all the days of their lives),101 is exaggerated, they certainly came into conflict. Cnut hoped to add Norway to the realms under his domin- ion. In his description of this conflict between the Danes and the Norwegians, Adam of Bremen sides with \u00d3l\u00e1fr against Cnut on the basis that \u00d3l\u00e1fr\u2019s case was more justified, since he was fighting \u201cpro libertate\u201d (for freedom), whereas Cnut was fighting \u201cpro imperio\u201d (for dominion).102 The reality was more compli- cated. \u00d3l\u00e1fr Haraldsson had fought in England under Cnut, but began his reign in Norway in 1015, during the Danish invasion of England, with political back- ing from \u00c6thelred, king of England, and with English ecclesiastical connec- tions. Meanwhile, Cnut would not have been unjustified in believing that he had a right to the overlordship of Norway: it has been argued that his family originated there, as Adam may mean,103 while we have seen that his grandfather Haraldr Bluetooth Gormsson proclaimed his hold over Norway on the Jelling Stone; moreover, H\u00e1kon inn r\u00edki (\u201cthe Mighty\u201d) Sigur\u00f0arson, earl of Hla\u00f0ir and ruler of Norway, had fought alongside Haraldr against the Germans. Cnut\u2019s father Sveinn Forkbeard continued Haraldr\u2019s policy, organized the downfall of \u00d3l\u00e1fr Tryggvason, and continued to rule Norway through the earls of Hla\u00f0ir. One gen- eration later, Cnut bribed Norwegian magnates away from King \u00d3l\u00e1fr Haraldsson, thus squeezing his power ever more, until the internal opposition to \u00d3l\u00e1fr be- came insurmountable and he fled Norway for Kyiv in 1028 (see Crawford, pp. 435\u201336). The importance of Norway to Cnut is particularly apparent in his takeover of this realm: it was Cnut\u2019s only self-generated conquest and the great effort 100 See Marafioti, The King\u2019s Body, 207\u20139 for discussion of the extent of this patronage. 101 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 117 (II.lv). Adam of Bremen: History, trans. Tschan, 94. 102 Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 117 (II.lv). Adam of Bremen: History, trans. Tschan, 94. 103 Bolton, Cnut the Great, 44\u201345; Adam Bremensis Gesta, ed. Schmeidler, 52 (I.lii: \u201cNortman- nia\u201d); Adam of Bremen: History, trans. Tschan, 47 (\u201cNormandy\u201d).","374 Caitlin Ellis he expended indicates its importance to him. The accumulated cost of bribes to the Norwegian aristocracy in 1026\u20131028, the repeated military campaigns, and the propaganda campaign of 1028\u20131029 all suggest strongly that, as Bol- ton says, \u201cNorway was won at a substantial financial loss.\u201d104 Cnut was not directly involved in the death of \u00d3l\u00e1fr Haraldsson at the Battle of Stiklasta\u00f0ir in 1030; as a result of his apparent unpopularity, \u00d3l\u00e1fr was killed by his fellow Norwegians. Although \u00d3l\u00e1fr\u2019s cult had arisen in Trondheim quite rapidly after his death, we should also remember that the martyr-king\u2019s develop- ment into a national symbol and the patron saint of Norway was much more gradual.105 In particular, the saint\u2019s son, Magn\u00fas the Good (1035\u20131047), and his half-brother, Haraldr \u201char\u00f0r\u00e1\u00f0i\u201d (harsh ruler) Sigur\u00f0arson (1046\u20131066), actively promoted the cult during their reigns. It was Eysteinn Erlendsson, archbishop of Nidaros (1161\u20131188) and compiler of the Passio Olavi, who established \u00d3l\u00e1fr as national protector and eternal king of Norway, a figurehead of church and mon- archy both.106 We have perhaps been unduly influenced by the positioning of St. \u00d3l\u00e1fr as central to the account of Norwegian history in Heimskringla and other kings\u2019 saga texts. If St. \u00d3l\u00e1fr did not yet represent Norway at large, the spread of his cult elsewhere was not necessarily emblematic of pro-Norwegian sentiment, contrary to Benjamin Hudson\u2019s claim that \u201csympathy for the Norse among the colonists round Britain and Ireland can be gauged by the rapidity of the spread of the cult of St. Olaf throughout the Irish Sea after the saint\u2019s death.\u201d107 Hudson places this in the context of Cnut\u2019s political actions in Britain and Ireland, imply- ing that the popularity of St. \u00d3l\u00e1fr\u2019s cult was perceived as some sort of threat to Cnut. As is often the case with the medieval period, loyalties and associations were not so clearly defined along national lines, especially in Scandinavia, whose three constituent countries coalesced comparatively late. Furthermore, it has been established by Matthew Townend that Cnut patron- ized and popularized the cult of St. \u00d3l\u00e1fr for his own ends: \u201cto view the early cult of \u00d3l\u00e1fr predominantly as a focus for anti-Danish hostility, or for popular piety, is to miss the drama of contesting patronage.\u201d108 This was not only true of the cult in Scandinavia, for it also seems likely that Cnut had a hand in its spread in England, too. A church to St. \u00d3l\u00e1fr still standing in York is the oldest church in town after 104 Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 288. 105 Mortensen, \u201cWriting and Speaking of St. Olaf,\u201d 208. 106 Imsen, \u201cThe Nidaros Church,\u201d 23. 107 Hudson, \u201cDublin,\u201d 333. Hudson may also overstate the speed and extent of the cult\u2019s spread in the area; for example, there are only three dedications to \u00d3l\u00e1fr known from the West- ern Isles: see Abrams, \u201cHebrides,\u201d 177. 108 Townend, \u201cKn\u00fatr and the Cult of St. \u00d3l\u00e1fr,\u201d 273.","Chapter 16 Cnut\u2019s Ecclesiastical Policy 375 the minster.109 According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, this church in York was founded by Siward, earl of Northumbria, a Scandinavian appointee of Cnut.110 In London, where perhaps as many as half a dozen churches were dedicated to St. \u00d3l\u00e1fr, it seems likely that these dedications are connected to the long-term pres- ence of Cnut\u2019s troops and followers.111 The church of St. \u00d3l\u00e1fr in Exeter received patronage from Earl Godwine, whose rise to power was ushered in by Cnut and by Godwine\u2019s wife Gy\u00f0a, whose brother, \u00dalfr, had the honor of being married to Cnut\u2019s sister. Like the cult of St. Edward the Martyr in \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign, the cult of St. \u00d3l\u00e1fr clearly had royal backing and approval. Cnut and Penitential Kingship A further ecclesiastical comparison to draw between \u00c6thelred and Cnut is in the degree to which both kings espoused the penitential tradition. This was taken up enthusiastically during \u00c6thelred\u2019s monarchy, particularly under the influence of Wulfstan, and is seen as a response to the concentrated period of damaging Vi- king attacks in the latter decades of his reign.112 The minting of the \u201cAgnus Dei\u201d (lamb of God) coin, a break from the traditional design, is a vivid demonstration of this impetus to ask for God\u2019s forgiveness. Still, Cnut\u2019s reign (1016\u20131035) wit- nessed fewer external signs of divine displeasure in the form of defeats and fam- ines than had beset \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign (978\u20131016), and this may have decreased the degree of his emphasis on the penitential. Roach has observed that \u201c\u00c6the- lred\u2019s Anglo-Danish successors . . . did not embrace such ideas about sin and re- pentance to the same degree.\u201d113 Comparisons may be drawn in this regard with the Frankish kingdom after the reign of Louis the Pious (813\u2013840), in which pub- lic penance had become more prominent.114 Mayke de Jong observes in the writ- ings following the rebellions against Louis a \u201cdeeply felt wish to put a distance between the present and that turbulent past.\u201d115 A similar wish would have been understandable in post-\u00c6thelredian England. Indeed, the fact that penance had demonstrably proved ineffective against Scandinavian invasion may have has- tened the decline of this discourse in England under Anglo-Danish rule. 109 Clarke, \u201cChristian Cults and Cult Centres,\u201d 144. 110 EHD II, ed. Douglas and Greenaway, 133 (no. 1, ASC, s.a. 1055). 111 Townend, \u201cKn\u00fatr and the Cult of St. \u00d3l\u00e1fr,\u201d 266\u201368. 112 See Roach, \u201cPublic Rites and Public Wrongs.\u201d 113 Roach, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 324. 114 See de Jong, The Penitential State, 260\u201370. 115 De Jong, The Penitential State, 262.","376 Caitlin Ellis Nevertheless, during Cnut\u2019s kingship \u201cthe penitent ruler was not consigned to oblivion.\u201d116 In one charter to the New Minster at Winchester, dating to 1019, Cnut restores five hides to the church, having bestowed them on a young man of Winchester after having been wrongly informed that they were royal property.117 Cnut expresses remorse for this error, invoking a less marked form of the dis- course that we see in \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign: that his repentance is not quite so rhetori- cal here, in a charter exceptional for its reflection of the penitential tradition, is perhaps due in part to its early date, closer to \u00c6thelred\u2019s reign. A continuity was established by archbishops Lyfing (1013\u20131020) and Wulfstan (1002\u20131023), both of whom were still in office and served as the charter\u2019s second and third wit- nesses. Other possibilities are that this charter relates directly to church matters, making the penitential discourse more readily applicable, or that the situation reflects the same land-grabbing anti-monastic reaction that followed the death of Edgar.118 Crucially in this instance, it also seems that Cnut has made a clear and distinct mistake, but a small one, in the scheme of things; he can be repentant without admitting to wrongdoing on a scale that might taint his whole rule. Cath- erine Cubitt comments that \u201croyal admission of wrongdoing and atonement can be a high-risk strategy,\u201d arguing that churchmen were able to take advantage of \u00c6thelred\u2019s acknowledgment of past wrongs to religious establishments.119 More dramatically, the fact that Frankish bishops had forced Louis the Pious to do public penance in 833 had led to his removal from power, albeit temporarily, in association with his sons\u2019 rebellions. Given the risks and diminished relevance of royal penance in England after the Danish wars, it was perhaps natural that this was one aspect of Christian kingship with which Cnut did not much engage. And yet the penitent monarch reappears in the Letter of 1027, in which Cnut declares that he has been to Rome \u201coratum pro redemptione peccaminum meo- rum\u201d (to pray for the remission of my sins), claiming that \u201csi quid per mee iuuen- tutis intemperantiam aut neglegentiam hactenus preter id quod iustum erat actum est\u201d (if anything hitherto contrary to what is right has been done through the in- temperance of my youth or through negligence), he will put it right.120 This letter is reminiscent of some of \u00c6thelred\u2019s restitutive charters in the 990s, which refer to the king\u2019s previous youthful indiscretions and ignorance:121 a convenient excuse, 116 Roach, \u00c6thelred the Unready, 324. 117 Sawyer, Electronic Sawyer (S 956). 118 See Jayakumar, \u201cReform and Retribution.\u201d 119 Cubitt, \u201cPolitics of Remorse,\u201d 190. 120 Cnut\u2019s Letter of 1027, in Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 276\u201377; EHD I, trans. Whitelock, 476\u201377 (no. 53). 121 See Stafford, \u201cPolitical Ideas.\u201d","Chapter 16 Cnut\u2019s Ecclesiastical Policy 377 once one has reached maturity. For Cnut\u2019s letter, the context of his pilgrimage to Rome, which was always a chance for an established ruler to repent, is also signifi- cant. The Encomium\u2019s vivid description of Cnut visiting the monasteries of St. Omer on his way to Rome emphasizes that his prayers and gifts were accompanied by shedding tears, beating his breast, and kissing the pavement.122 This parallels earlier descriptions of the Carolingian rulers Charlemagne and Louis the Pious with precise verbal echoes.123 Elaine Treharne notes the \u201ctheatricality of Cnut\u2019s piety\u201d and calls his penitential pilgrimage and its textual depictions a \u201cmasterpiece of self-promotion.\u201d124 Cnut was at the pinnacle of his personal hegemony and in- ternational standing at this time: he could present himself as both powerful and pious. To sum up, Cnut used the Church for political ends, as did his English pred- ecessors. Occupying a throne gained by conquest as Cnut did, and therefore needing to appease his new subjects, was not the only unstable situation in which a king might need to shore up his rule. Edgar (957\u2013975), for instance, although he did not face the challenges of a conqueror, had gained the throne after a troubled period following \u00c6thelstan\u2019s reign (924\u2013939). Moreover, Cnut\u2019s church patronage outside England and his gifts to establishments on the Conti- nent cannot be explained away as having quite the same motivation; instead, he may have wished to present himself as a good Christian ruler on the Euro- pean stage. He could also have been motivated by genuine religious conviction. \u00c6thelred\u2019s penitence, particular to the personal legacy of his own indiscreet youth, may be exceptional; it is not surprising that this did not feature so prom- inently in Cnut\u2019s reign. Conclusions: The Church as an Arm of Power In short, the Danish as well as the English influence on Cnut\u2019s ecclesiastical policy should be acknowledged. Cnut was raised a Christian, with Christian pa- rents. We can postulate some continuity from his grandfather Haraldr Blue- tooth\u2019s confident assertion of Christianity to Cnut\u2019s kingship. Cnut certainly made use of the apparatus of pre-Conquest England in displaying his associa- tion with Christianity, but the impetus for this may not have been purely En- glish; whereas Haraldr had a runic monument, Cnut had his law codes and his 122 Encomium, ed. Campbell, 36\u201337. 123 Encomium, ed. Campbell, 37, n. 3; Treharne, \u201cPerformance of Piety,\u201d 349\u201350. 124 Treharne, \u201cPerformance of Piety,\u201d 349, 356.","378 Caitlin Ellis two Letters to the English people. The fact that Christianity was a more recent development in Denmark did make a difference, but actually it meant greater royal involvement and for Cnut, a more immediate model for Christian king- ship. His father, Sveinn, had set an example of vigorous interference in the Church and of control over bishops in Denmark.125 Since Cnut actively arranged for bishops for Denmark to be consecrated in England and for Danish clerics to be sent to England for further education, we can expect him to have been equally engaged with the English church, whose support was necessary for these developments. Cnut might have been more careful in his dealings with them, but he was not passive or a pawn. This can be seen in his promotion of politically useful cults such as that of St. Edward the Martyr and St. \u00d3l\u00e1fr Har- aldsson. Through cults such as these, Cnut connected himself with previous rulers of both England and Norway. Cnut thus drew on the traditions of both Denmark and England. To some ex- tent he might be considered to have synthesized them, but they were already closely linked.126 In some ways the situation under Cnut was that a single political authority now connected these transnational ecclesiastical traditions, which meant that he was able to employ effective tactics utilizing bishops and parallel saints\u2019 cults. While there is more evidence for Cnut\u2019s ecclesiastical policy in England than in Denmark, it is clear that he was operating on a truly international level. 125 Sveinn\u2019s control of bishops accords with the Scandinavian situation more generally: Abrams notes that \u201cthe bishop\u2019s primary relationship was with the king,\u201d in \u201cEleventh- Century Missions,\u201d 34. 126 It should be noted that the Danish church was not simply a replica of the English church. Abrams, in \u201cEleventh-Century Missions,\u201d 33, discusses the differences between the Christiani- zation of England and Denmark and the differences between their churches. For a survey of the strong ecclesiastical links between England and Denmark, both before and after Cnut, see Spejlborg, \u201cAnglo-Danish Connections.\u201d"]