Russell Poole
One skald amongst those who composed poetry about Cnut, namely Sigvatr Þórðarson, furnishes a notable exception to the heathen style which, in Richard North’s view in the next chapter, characterizes most of the skalds in this volume.1 For some of Sigvatr’s output this characterization is admittedly justified, so long as we re-word to “the macho swagger of Christendom.” His Nesjavísur (“Verses about [the Battle of] Nesjar ‘Headlands’”) is an example. In this chapter, nonetheless, it is my intention to point out Christian elements within the Sigvatr corpus that suggest the impress of a more morally inflected discourse. My focus will be on Sigvatr’s role as a king’s agent and intermediary between Cnut and Cnut’s great rival, Óláfr Haraldsson of Norway. I will try to show that Sigvatr acted as a medium in the vernacular communication to a Norwegian audience of Christian precepts with proximate origins in the circles of Æthelred and Cnut. That he performed these roles with some degree of independence is indicated by his intermittent censure of both Óláfr and Cnut, the latter in particular. The verses I will discuss are excerpted from Vestrfararvísur (Verses on a Journey to the West), Nesjavísur, the postulated Flokkr about Erlingr Skjálgsson, and his lausavísur (free-standing individual verses).
Career of Sigvatr Þórðarson
Sigvatr Þórðarson lived and worked in the first half of the eleventh century, and thus in the Late Viking Period.2 With more than 160 stanzas and half-stanzas, his oeuvre is the most fully attested of all the skalds.3 It is remarkably diverse, encompassing different kinds of encomia not only on King Óláfr Haraldsson,4 but also on King Cnut (Knútr) Sveinsson5 and the Norwegian nobleman Erlingr Skjálgsson.6
Where Cnut is concerned, the caveat has to be entered that Sigvatr’s principal attested poem about this king, Knútsdrápa (Eulogy on Knútr), is difficult to date and may have been composed after the king’s death.7 Other partially extant works include Sigvatr’s poem of counsel to his godson King Magnús inn góði (“the Good”) Óláfsson8 and poems on the Norwegian pretender Tryggvi Óláfsson9 and on Óláfr Haraldsson’s widow, Ástríðr Óláfsdóttir.10 Sigvatr is also credited with having composed for the Swedish king Ǫnundr Jakob Óláfsson and the Norwegian chieftain Ívarr inn hvíti (“the White”), but in these cases there is no surviving text to corroborate the testimony of Skáldatal (Enumeration of Poets). Several of Sigvatr’s poems encompass both travelogue and political commentary (Vestrfararvísur and Austrfararvísur [Verses on a Journey to the East]); the latter genre is also well represented in Bersǫglisvísur and his lausavísur.11
Although no saga centering on Sigvatr can be shown to have existed, his career is hinted at by numerous episodes in the various redactions of Óláfs saga helga.12 According to these in general unreliable sources, Sigvatr was brought up by his foster-father, a certain Þorkell, at Apavatn in south-west Iceland, and first sailed to Niðarós (now Trondheim) in Norway as a late adolescent or young adult. Here he is said to have met his father Þórðr Sigvaldaskáld, a poet (as implied by his nickname, “Sigvaldi’s poet”) whose primary attested affiliations were with Þorkell inn hávi (“the Tall”).13 Sigvatr joined Óláfr’s retinue in advance of the latter’s campaign for dominance in Norway and commemorated it in Nesjavísur, which he composed as a participant. Norway was his base from then onwards and there is no evidence that he ever returned to Iceland.14
Consistent with his affiliation with Óláfr, both his own poetry and the prose narratives emphasize his solidarity with the missionary king’s Christianity. Tradition has it that he was instrumental in the naming of King Óláfr’s son as Magnús, reminiscent of Karolus Magnus (i.e., Charlemagne). Tradition also has it that in return, as testified to in his lausavísa 19, the king sponsored Sigvatr’s daughter Tófa at baptism.15 A pilgrimage to Rome (1029–1030) precluded, as he states in
his verses, his participation in the king’s final and fatal battle.16 According to the anecdote in which his lausavísa 11 is preserved, Sigvatr died on Selja, an island in north-western Norway traditionally associated with the earliest incursions of Christianity into Norway, and was buried at Kristskirkja (Kristkirken) in Niðarós, the same church to which Óláfr’s earthly remains were translated.17
Sigvatr is said to have held the high rank of stallari under Óláfr.18 Unfortunately, the functions of this office in early eleventh-century Norway remain obscure,19 but the evidence internal to Sigvatr’s own poetry suggests that at least in his case it incorporated a role as king’s agent and emissary. For the part he played in this capacity as an intermediary between Óláfr and Cnut, the poem Vestrfararvísur is our crucial source. This fragmentary and sparsely attested work narrates a diplomatic embassy made by the poet and a colleague on behalf of Óláfr to Cnut, probably in the mid-1020s, in the context of Cnut’s attempt to subvert followers of Óláfr and thus support Cnut’s nephew, the Norwegian earl Hákon Eiríksson.20 The authenticity of the title Vestrfararvísur, presupposing a journey to see Cnut in England rather than in Denmark, is assumed by all scholars. England is also the destination stated in Óláfs saga helga and Heimskringla, in a passage to be discussed presently. The specific location within England is not specified in the few stanzas extant, although the available evidence for Cnut’s English residences suggests London, Canterbury, or Winchester as the obvious possible locales for the visit.21 The embassy could also, however, have occurred elsewhere in England at one of Cnut’s manors, for instance Nassington in Northamptonshire, perhaps especially if discreet diplomacy was required.
Strangely, it seems the one place specified in Vestrfararvísur is not in England but in Normandy, namely Rouen:
Bergr, hǫfum minnzk, hvé, margan
morgun, Rúðu borgar
bǫrð létk í fǫr fyrða
fest við arm inn vestra.22
[Bergr, we have remembered many a morning how I caused the stem to be moored to the western rampart of Rouen’s fortifications in the company of men.]23
The reference here to Rouen is unmistakable, but before we can investigate its significance within a poem about an embassy to England, we have to take account of a difficulty in the interpretation of the lines quoted above. I have cited them as construed by Finnur Jónsson (an edition followed by a majority of other scholars). To this traditional interpretation Judith Jesch, in her recent edition for Skaldic Poetry, objects that it “leaves the conj[unction] hvé ‘how’ separated from the clause it introduces.”24 This syntactic feature is marked editorially in the text cited above by the commas on either side of the words “margan morgun.” Jesch removes the commas and interprets as follows: “Bergr, we have remembered how, many a morning, I caused the stem to be moored to the western rampart of Rouen’s fortifications in the company of men.”25 Jesch’s interpretation therefore presupposes that Sigvatr and Bergr have paid numerous visits to Rouen, evidently mooring their ship each time. There is otherwise no evidence, however, for multiple visits. It seems preferable to construe “hǫfum minnzk margan morgun” as a single verb phrase (verb plus adverbial phrase) despite the intercalation of the relative conjunction hvé, which in prose usage would be expected to stand at the head of the dependent clause “bǫrð létk fest.” Contrary to Jesch, there is nothing objectionable about this use of hvé. Although the separation of a conjunction from the clause it introduces might seem radical, it is not without parallel in Sigvatr’s work26 and more generally in the skaldic corpus.27
A second complication is that Óláfs saga helga and Heimskringla, within which the stanzas of the poem are preserved in an intercalated form, state that Sigvatr and Bergr had been in Rouen on a “kaupferð” (trading voyage) the previous summer.28 As Heimskringla has it, and Óláfs saga helga has essentially the same account, “Sigvatr skáld kom þat sumar til Englands vestan ór Rúðu af Vallandi ok sá maðr með honum, er Bergr hét. Þeir hǫfðu þangat farit kaupferð it fyrra sumar” (Sigvatr skald came west that summer from Rouen in France to England and that man with him, who was called Bergr. They had made a trading voyage there the preceding summer).29 This statement about the trading voyage is not corroborated by any other source. While it might be historically based, it might also be a purely ad hoc explanation of the verse on the part of the redactor, arising from the reputation of Rouen as a trading centre.30 This reputation, already considerable by the beginning of the eleventh century,31 had greatly increased by the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, when Heimskringla and its antecedent synoptic histories were being compiled.
My conclusion is that, despite the interpretations discussed above, Sigvatr and Bergr made just the one visit to Rouen, performed as part of the itinerary of their embassy to Cnut, and it proved memorable for them for some reason. The readiest inference from their landfall at Rouen being so memorable is that their visit was marked by some significant step or development in the diplomatic mission recorded in Vestrfararvísur. What could that have been?
We can start by considering the possible date of the mission. Vestrfararvísur is difficult to date, although the direct address to King Óláfr, who died in 1030, in verses 6 and 8 presupposes that the poem was delivered to him in his lifetime. Finnur Jónsson suggests 1025–1026,32 Jesch ca. 1027.33 Following the chronology implicit in Óláfs saga helga and Heimskringla, Jesch proposes that the visit itself occurred in about 1024.34 The verse singles out new defensive works on the river for mention, as if to signal the city’s strategic importance and status as a power base.35 Certainly from well before this time the city had become an accepted venue for diplomacy. In 990–991 a papal envoy on a mission to reconcile Æthelred II and Richard I, the third duke of Normandy, was escorted to Rouen by English officials on the last stage of his itinerary.36 In 1003, according to William of Jumièges, Sveinn tjúguskegg (“Forkbeard”) visited Richard I’s successor Richard II in Rouen to form a pact of mutual assistance.37 Part of the city’s importance came from its status as a seat of an archbishop. Report has it that the Norman founder Rollo was baptized there in 912.38 Richard I instigated an enlargement of the cathedral at the end of the tenth century, and his son Robert, brother of Richard II, reigned as Archbishop of Rouen from 989 to 1037; indeed, it is argued that the city’s transformation into a center of political, cultural, and religious significance around the turn of the first millennium was achieved during and as a direct result of Robert’s lengthy episcopate.39 In another noteworthy baptism, William of Jumièges states that Óláfr Haraldsson, along with a number of his following, underwent this culminating entrée into Christianity in Rouen, overseen by Archbishop Robert himself, just before the Norwegian leader’s return to claim the throne of Norway,40 although an alternative account places his baptism in England.41 Robert advised three generations of dukes – Richard I, Richard II, and the brothers Richard III and Robert the Magnificent.42 His authority was also recognized by Queen Emma, his sister and the wife of Cnut, as signalled by the gift she made him of an illuminated psalter of English origin.43
These considerations, put together, raise the possibility that the visit of Sigvatr and Bergr to Rouen was undertaken in order to secure diplomatic support at the highest level for their embassy to Cnut in England, relying on the influence exerted by Emma and her family. Embattled in Norway by Cnut’s agents and recalcitrant members of the elite, Óláfr Haraldsson would have needed all the backing of that kind that could be mustered.
The Lexical Impress on Sigvatr’s Poetic Corpus from Contacts outside Scandinavia
Another indication of Sigvatr’s role as an intermediary or bridge person lies in the marked incidence of foreign words in the Sigvatr corpus. Most of these lexical features have been canvassed in previous scholarship and can just be briefly noted here. A number of them, perhaps the majority by a small margin, are Anglo-Saxonisms.44 Nesjavísur verse 2 contains the earliest attestation of the institutional word “hirð” (war-band), derived from Old English hīred (household, band of retainers)45 and most probably brought to Norway by Óláfr.46 Sigvatr uses it again in his lausavísa 15. Similar in Nesjavísur verse 2 may be the case of “þjóðkonungs” (of the nation’s king); although this word occurs in purportedly earlier skaldic poetry, Sigvatr’s usage, seen also in Erfidrápa Óláfs helga (Memorial Eulogy for Óláfr inn helgi, “St. Óláfr”) verse 20, is likely to have been reinforced by Old English “þēodcyning.”47 Knútsdrápa contains several pointers to English influence. The circumlocution “Dana hlífskjǫldr” (protective shield of the Danes)48 is of a type that occurs frequently in Old English but not in Old Norse-Icelandic.49 The sense of “meta” (measure [one’s way]), as a variation on ordinary words equating to “go,”50 is characteristic of Old English poetry but does not otherwise occur in Old Norse-Icelandic.51 Old Norse-Icelandic “slá” in the sense “kill, slay”52 may reflect semantic influence from cognate Old English slēan.53 In lausavísa 16 the religious term “helvíti” (hell torment, or simply hell) is clearly influenced by Old English helle wīte, of the same meaning.54 In Erfidrápa Óláfs helga the verb “efsa” (cut, trim), attested for Old Norse-Icelandic only here, is evidently adapted from Old English efesian (clip, shear, cut).55 Finally, in the probably early Víkingarvísur Sigvatr’s apparent use of the rare adjective “baldr” (second element of the compound *ógnbaldr, “battle-bold”) in the still rarer affirmative sense “bold” signals influence from Old English, where an affirmative sense for beald (bold) is standard.56
The origins of two words in Víkingarvísur verse 8, namely “prúðum” and “portgreifar,” are less straightforward to determine.57 The adjective “prúðr” (proud) could come from Old English but might instead have been adopted directly from Old French;58 Sigvatr uses it again in Austrfararvísur59 and elsewhere. The compound “portgreifi” (town reeve) must represent an adaptation from the frequently attested Old English compound of the same meaning, port-gerēfa, but the lack of precise correspondence between the vowels ē and ei precludes direct transfer from Old English to Old West Norse, prompting suggestions of phonological influence from Middle Saxon.60 A more straightforward explanation, however, is to posit an Old East Norse intermediary *portgrēfa. Etymological ē and ei had already fallen together in Danish,61 opening the way for an Old West Norse speaker who had the word from East Norse speakers to make an incorrect sound-substitution. The apparent simplex, greifi, occurs in Bersǫglisvísur (Verses of Plain-Speaking) verse 14, this being its earliest attestation,62 but Sigvatr’s use of it to refer to the counts of King Magnús suggests that a medieval form of German Graf (count), perhaps Middle Low German grāve, has been conflated with the Anglo-Saxon term gerēfa (reeve).63
In the case of some other lexis, we can reckon with European origins. The compound word “járnstúkur” in Vestrfararvísur verse 2, denoting either chainmail or protective metal plates,64 contains the element stúka, which probably stems from Middle High German.65 Knútsdrápa verse 10 contains a virtuoso example in the shape of three adopted words collocated within a single couplet, where Cnut is praised as “kærr keisara / klúss Pétrúsi” (dear to the emperor, close to Peter). Of these, “kærr” (dear) is from a northern dialect of French; “keisari” (emperor), referring to Conrad II, is from Latin via Old English or German; and “klúss” (close) is probably also from Latin via Old English or German, while the fourth word, “Pétrús(i),” referring to Pope John XIX (1024–1032), is a biblical name in Latinate form.66 In this connection we recall the tradition that Sigvatr chose the Latinate name Magnús for the son of Óláfr. For all four words, this is their first recorded occurrence in skaldic verse.67 Bersǫglisvísur verse 18 additionally features the honorific “sinjórr” (seigneur, lord), an adaptation of Old French seignor of the same meaning that also occurs, in the form “synjórr,” in Erfidrápa Óláfs helga verse 8. Gade suggests that Sigvatr was personally responsible for introducing the term into Old Norse,68 which is conceivable, although in principle we might also contemplate the possible cultivation of a Europeanizing court lexis in King Óláfr’s circle.
I conclude this survey of lexis with a problematic instance, the form “melld” found in Vestrfararvísur verse 2. Jesch explains it as “locked,” following earlier editors, who have regarded the verb mella as having its etymology in Old French mail(l)er (to form a net). She construes the first half-stanza thus:
Útan varðk, áðr Jóta
andspilli fekk’k stillis,
– melld sák hús fyr hauldi –
húsdyrr fyrir spyrjask.
[I had to make enquiries from outside the main door before I got an audience with the ruler of the Jótar [DANISH KING = Cnut]; I saw a locked building in front of the man [me].]69
The gloss of “locked” proposed by Jesch on the basis of previous scholarship is hard to extrapolate from the idea of “net,” as she acknowledges. It also entails an emendation of the manuscript reading, from “her(r),” abbreviated in transcriptions of the lost Kringla manuscript (our best witness) and some other witnesses but still clearly representing “her(r),” to “hús” (building). On the other hand, an origin of “melld” in Old French is likely to be correct, given that no etymon in Old Norse-Icelandic supplies any contextually possible meaning. I therefore propose an alternative solution, where “melld” is traced back to Old French mailer (to hammer, knock [with a mallet]).70
Útan varðk, áðr Jóta
andspilli fekk’k stillis,
– melld sák hér fyr hauldi –
húsdyrr fyrir spyrjask.
[I had to make inquiries from outside the main door before I got an audience with the ruler of the Jótar; I saw [it] hammered [= knocked] here in front of the man [me].]
The adverb “hér” here is not an emendation, simply a different interpretation of the manuscript evidence.71 The past participle “meld” can be construed as used impersonally, with suppression of both object and agent. A loud and insistent door-knock, announcing the arrival of Sigvatr the stallari and king’s emissary, along with his colleague Bergr, would be a natural occurrence.
All the adaptations from French and German identified above, along with some of those from English, can be described as cultural adoptions from the courtly world, with its special officers, accoutrements and customs. Semiotically, they carry the same prestige as Sigvatr’s “hjalm inn valska” (Frankish helmet) and “peitneskum hjalmi” (helmet from Poitou), which are mentioned in Nesjavísur verses 5 and 15 respectively. This prestige inheres in both the poet himself and the broader following of Óláfr and is conferred in part by their openness to the new world of Christian Europe, to which Cnut had recently secured his own entrée.
Sigvatr’s Use of Sententiae
I now move from lexis to larger-scale indicators of Sigvatr’s role as intermediary and bridge-person in channeling key Christian precepts for a Norwegian audience reliant on the vernacular. Once again, some of my examples have been canvassed in previous publications and can be handled in summary form here. Sigvatr’s use of sententiae72 is of key significance. The surviving fragments of Vestrfararvísur are remarkable for their richness of sententiae, which far outdoes the norm in skaldic poetry in general and, for that matter, the rest of the Sigvatr corpus, with a few exceptions. I start with two key instances:
Knútr hefr okkr enn ítri
alldáðgǫfugr báðum
hendr, es hilmi fundum,
Húnn, skrautliga búnar.
Þér gaf hann mǫrk eða meira
margvitr ok hjǫr bitran
golls (ræðr gǫrva ǫllu
goð sjalfr), en mér halfa. (Vestrfararvísur 5)
[The glorious Cnut, all-noble in deeds, has adorned the arms of both of us finely, Bersi, when we met the king. Wise in many matters, he gave you a mark of gold or more and a sharp sword, and to me half [a mark]: God himself entirely determines all things.]73
The parenthetic sentence emphasized above is a sententia broadly similar in content and manner to various maxims in Beowulf that declare God’s omnipotence:
Wundor is to secganne
hu mihtig god manna cynne
þurh sidne sefan snyttru bryttað,
eard ond eorlscipe; he ah ealra geweald.
[It is marvellous to state how mighty God distributes wisdom, land, and nobility to mankind through his magnanimity; he has power over all.]74
The gist is similar in the lines, “Metod eallum weold / gumena cynnes, swa he nu git deð” (The Lord ruled all of mankind, as he still does now).75
A complementary sententia occurs in the same position in a further stanza from Vestrfararvísur:
Knútr spurði mik, mætra
mildr, ef hánum vildak
hendilangr sem, hringa,
hugreifum Áleifi.
Einn kvaðk senn, en sǫnnu
svara þóttumk ek, dróttinn
(gǫr eru gumna hverjum
gnóg dœmi) mér sœma. (Vestrfararvísur 7)76
[Cnut, generous with fine rings, asked me if I would be serviceable to him as to the gracious Óláfr. I said one lord at a time was fitting for me, and I felt that I made a truthful answer. To each of men sufficient examples are ready [to hand].]
Jesch suggests that Vestrfararvísur could be seen as Sigvatr’s self-justification for having served Cnut, and indeed Hákon, while still remaining essentially loyal to Óláfr Haraldsson, and certainly there is a self-serving tone about the poem.77 The reflections in these two stanzas may, however, not be simply personal but apply more broadly to Cnut’s initiative in offering chieftains and other influential Norwegians gold in return for their support against Óláfr.78 The thinking behind Sigvatr’s advocacy derives first and foremost from Matthew 6:24:79 “Nemo potest duobus dominis servire. Aut enim unum odio habebit et alterum diliget aut unum sustinebit et alterum contemnet. Non potestis Deo servire et mamonae” (No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon).80
The idea that follows in the verse concerning a sufficiency of examples (i.e., of people who faithfully follow one lord) can be compared with Ælfric’s general homily “Memory of the Saints” (Lives of the Saints, XVI), which explains the importance of Saints’ Lives in precisely those terms: “We magon niman gode bysne ærest be ðam halgum heahfæderum hu hi on heora life gode gecwemdon and eac æt þam halgum þe þam hælende folgodon” (We may take good examples, first from the holy patriarchs, how they pleased God in their lives, and also from the saints who followed the Savior).81 This notion of the provision of abundant good examples pervades Ælfric’s collection of Saints’ Lives.82 In his preface he likens God to a king of this world surrounded by his retainers and stewards, who serve him obediently.83
Sigvatr’s two sententiae in the two stanzas quoted above fit well with Paul Cavill’s observation that Old English maxims “tend to encapsulate what might be called the ‘trade rules’ of the retainer”;84 Cavill also observes that this principle is extended to other vocations in Ælfric’s Colloquy,85 as if their general usefulness towards social cohesion was compelling renewed attention at the turn of the eleventh century.
That Sigvatr was deploying sententiae like these quite deliberately and programmatically can be seen in a stanza from his Flokkr about Erlingr Skjálgsson, a Norwegian chieftain who was killed by King Óláfr’s forces around the year 1027:
Áslákr hefr aukit
(es vǫrðr drepinn Hǫrða)
(fáir skyldu svá) (foldar)
frændsekju (styr vekja).
Ættvígi má eigi
(á líti þeir) níta
– frændr skyli bræði bindask
bornir – (mál in fornu). (Flokkr about Erlingr Skjálgsson 7)
[Áslákr has increased crime against kindred; the guardian of the land of the Hǫrðar [= Hordaland > = Erlingr] has been killed; few should cause conflict in such a way. Kin-killing cannot be denied; those born as kinsmen should refrain from violence; let them look to the old sayings.]86
The immediate target of this volley of admonitions is Áslákr Fitjaskalli, who stands accused of the crime of kin-slaying, inasmuch as Áskell, his father, and Skjálgr, Erlingr’s father, were cousins. Sigvatr’s censure is couched in the form of “old sayings” about the evil of such deeds amongst kindred; he does not leave the cogency of such sayings implicit but instead issues an express injunction to his audience to heed them. This is the most explicit meta-sententia in his extant oeuvre, reinforcing the pair of more routine sententiae elsewhere in the stanza. With those we can compare a very similar expression in Beowulf:
Swa sceal mæg don,
nealles inwitnet oðrum bregdon
dyrnum cræfte, deað renian
hondgesteallan. Hygelace wæs,
niða heardum, nefa swyðe hold,
ond gehwæðer oðrum hroþra gemyndig.87
[Thus shall a kinsman act, in no way fashion a net of malice with furtive cunning, engineer death for his comrade. To Hygelac, stern in attacks, his nephew was most loyal, and each of them mindful of the other’s welfare.]
The Theme of Loyalty in Sigvatr
As we have already seen, Sigvatr’s material in these verses has comparabilia in Old English sources, not merely in terms of its sententiousness, but also in its emphasis upon loyalty – or in other words not merely rhetorically but also thematically. The thematic commonalities can be further illustrated with a verse that focuses on the alleged perjury or treachery of Óláfr’s rivals:
Né hœfilig, hreifa,
hykk dróttinsvik þóttu,
elds, þeims allvel heldu
orð sín, viðir, forðum.88
[Men (trees of the fire of the hand), I think that betrayal of the lord did not seem becoming to those who had in the past kept their word very well.]
In a further series of three verses that seems to have been composed for some specific occasion, Sigvatr literally demonizes those who use their wealth so as to buy away and subvert support for Óláfr:89
Fjandr ganga þar þengils,
þjóð býðr opt, með sjóða,
hǫfgan malm fyr hilmis
haus ófalan, lausa;
sitt veit hverr, ef harra
hollan selr við golli
(vert es slíks) í svǫrtu,
sinn, helvíti innan.90
[The enemies of the king go there with loose purses; people often offer heavy metal for the head of the leader, which is not for sale; each knows his [reward] inside in black hell-punishment, if he sells his faithful lord in exchange for gold. It is deserving of such.]
Kaup varð daprt, þars djúpan,
dróttinrœkð, of sóttu
þeir es, heim, á himnum,
hás elds, svikum beldu.91
[The reward in heaven was dismal, where they who ventured on betrayal of a lord with acts of treachery sought the deep home of high flame.]
Gerðisk hilmis Hǫrða
húskarlar þá jarli,
es við Áleifs fjǫrvi,
ofvægir, fé þægi.
Hirð esa hans at verða
háligt fyr því máli;
dælla es oss, ef allir
erum vír of svik skírir.92
[Then the household retinue of the leader of the Hǫrðar (King Óláfr) would prove over-weighted towards the earl (Hákon Eiríksson), when (= if) they accepted money in exchange for Óláfr’s life. It is not edifying for his court to come under this accusation. It is easier for us if we are all clean from deceit.]
These three verses are tentatively dated within the range 1020–1027 by Finnur Jónsson.93 The compositional process in all three exhibits a conflation of biblical texts.94 From the New Testament we have the allusion to Judas’s betrayal of Christ for thirty silver pennies.95 Ælfric comments on it thus in his Homily for Palm Sunday (second series): “Forwel fela manna onscuniað Iudan belæwinge, and swa-ðeah nellað forwandian þæt hi ne syllon soðfæstnysse wið sceattum. Se Hælend sylf is eal soðfæstnys, and se ðe soðfæstnysse beceapað wið feo, he bið Iudan gefera on fyrenum witum, seðe Crist belæwde for lyðrum sceatte” (Very many men shun the treachery of Judas, and yet fear not to betray [literally, “sell”] truth for money. Jesus himself is all truth, and he who sells truth for money will be the companion of Judas in fiery torments, who betrayed Christ for vile pelf).96 Ælfric’s use of the commercial terms sellan and (be)ceapian, in “syllon” and “beceapað,” corresponds exactly to Sigvatr’s “selr” and “kaup” respectively. Alongside this reference is one to Matthew 5:12: “gaudete et exultate quoniam merces vestra copiosa est in caelis” (be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven).97 The corresponding verse in Luke (6:23) reads: “gaudete in illa die et exultate ecce enim merces vestra multa in caelo” (be glad in that day and rejoice; for behold, your reward is great in heaven).98 Sigvatr’s adjective “daprt” (dismal) is evidently an irony based on the notion of “gaudete” or its Old English translation “gefagniað.”99 Complementarily, from the Old Testament and its apocrypha we have an allusion to the story of Lucifer’s rebellion.100
Possible English Influences on Sigvatr
The evidence presented above leads to the question whether Sigvatr might be channeling a contemporary English predilection for aphoristic statements and their ideological freight of values of duty and loyalty.101 Loyalty had long been a topic of homilies and scriptural poems in England. The rebellion of the angels, for instance, held an acknowledged place in the education and spiritual guidance of both clergy and laymen.102 Genesis B graphically depicts Satan’s disloyalty to God and its repercussions in words that correspond quite closely to those we have seen used by Sigvatr:
Forþon he sceolde grund gesecan
heardes hellewites, þæs þe he wann wið heofnes waldend.
Acwæð hine þa fram his hyldo and hine on helle wearp,
on þa deopan dala.103
[Therefore he had to seek the bottom of cruel hell-torment, because he contended against the ruler of Heaven. He [God] rejected him from his favor then and cast him into Hell, into those deep valleys.]
Ælfric’s sermon De initio creaturae describes Lucifer’s descent into “helle wite” after he rebels against God’s lordship; Ælfric goes on to complement it with a lengthy discussion of idolatry – as a betrayal of God – and a mention of the betrayal of Christ.104 Similarly, around the year 1000, Archbishop Wulfstan added topicality to Ælfric’s account of Old Testament history by fulminating that the people had brought estrangement from God, the invasion of a heathen army and ultimately the Babylonian captivity upon themselves through their sinfulness.105 Closest to Sigvatr’s time, Wulfstan, in his Sermo Lupi (1014; although possibly as early as 1009: see Keynes in this volume, p. 107), deplores what he identifies as pervasive failures of loyalty.106 In the peroration his call for a purification of conscience and for truth and loyalty is immediately followed by an evocation of the Last Judgment, much as we see in Sigvatr’s verses:
utan word and weorc rihtlice fadian, and ure ingeþanc clænsian georne, ond að ond wed wærlice healdan, and sume getrywða habban us betweonan butan uncræftan; ond utan gelome understandan þone miclan dom þe we ealle to sculon, and beorgan us georne wið þone weallendan bryne helle wites.107
[and let us order our words and deeds rightfully, and cleanse our inward thoughts earnestly, and faithfully keep to oath and pledge, and have some loyalty between us without deceit; and let us constantly bear in mind the great judgement that we must all come before, and save ourselves earnestly from the surging fire of hell-torment.]
Earlier in the homily, there is specific condemnation of “hlafordswice” (treachery/treason against one’s lord),108 again in terms, lexical and thematic, that we recognize from Sigvatr.
As to sententiousness, I have already noted analogues to the Sigvatr examples in Beowulf, a poem replete with sententiae.109 Its original date of composition notoriously resists definitive determination, but what matters in the present discussion is that the text is thought to have been copied into the one extant manuscript in the first quarter of the eleventh century.110 Presumably this copying came about in response to somebody’s sense of the poem’s topicality and congruence with certain shades of contemporary taste and opinion.111
Similarly in the case of the Durham Proverbs, the first half of the eleventh century marks an apparent focal point in their collection or compilation, with a bringing together of some individual sententiae that appear to date from much earlier.112 For instance, Cavill compares statements to the effect that “when the leader is brave the army is brave” in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle s.a. 1003 (E) and Durham Proverb 31 with the much earlier analogues in a letter by Alcuin and the Alfredian translation of the Regula Pastoralis.113 Thomas D. Hill suggests that apparent eleventh-century reworkings like these might have been prompted by contemporary politics and a national sense of crisis amid faltering leadership.114
The Battle of Maldon, a poem most plausibly from the late tenth century or early eleventh,115 contains what Cavill has termed “quite a high proportion of maxims for narrative verse.”116 Many of these maxims famously center on a follower’s duty to his lord: for example, “Ne mæg na wandian se þe wrecan þenceð / frean on folce, ne for feore murnan” (The man who intends to avenge his lord in the army can never flinch or care about his life).117
Sententiousness is very much in Wulfstan’s style. Most of Wulfstan’s sermons resist association with specific liturgical occasions and are rather to be regarded as “public discourses on religious topics.”118 Notable not merely in his sermons but perhaps more remarkably in his law codes is the pervasively exhortatory tone.119 The following passage in I Cnut 20 is characteristic:
utan beon á urum hlaforde holde ⁊ getrywe ⁊ æfre eallum mihtum his wurðscipe ræran ⁊ his willan gewyrcan. Forðam eal þæt we æfre for rihthlafordhelde doð, eall we hit doð us sylfum to mycelre þearfe; forþam byð witodlice God hold, þe byð his hlaforde rihtlice hold.120
[Let us be true to our lord and faithful and always with all our might exalt his worship and do his will. For all that we ever do out of rightful allegiance to the lord, we do all of it out of great need for ourselves; for assuredly God will be true to him who is rightfully true to his lord.]
The tone and expression of Sigvatr’s reflections on allegiance to one lord could easily bear the impress of the archbishop’s style as evinced in a passage like this. Equally, Sigvatr’s exhortatory use of the first-person plural and his focus on the topic of deceit in the admonition “dælla es oss, ef allir / erum vír of svik skírir” cited above fits well with Wulfstan: as an instance from a Wulfstan homily addressed to a mixed Anglo-Scandinavian audience, we can cite “uton we ealle don swa us þearf is, beorgan us georne wið Godes yrre” (let us all act as is needful for us, earnestly protect ourselves against God’s anger).121 With Sigvatr’s concept of cleanness or purity, we can compare Wulfstan’s “Ðonne is micel þearf … þæt gehwa his heortan geclænsige” (Then is great need … that each person cleanse his heart).122 In Cnut’s Letter to the English of 1019–1020, which M. K. Lawson has suggested represents “an oral message from the King, put into written form by an ecclesiastic for circulation to the shire courts, and then redrafted into its present state by Wulfstan,”123 passages such as the following exhibit a comparably exhortatory tone: “we sceolon eallan magene ⁊ eallon myhton þone ecan mildan God inlice secan, lufian ⁊ weorðian ⁊ ælc unriht ascunian”124 (we must with all our might and all our main inwardly seek the eternal merciful God, love and worship [him], and eschew all wrong). As to Cnut’s Letter of 1027, which postdates Wulfstan’s death by four years and comes closest in time to the probable date-range of the embassy associated with the composition of Vestrfararvísur, Lawson notes that the exhortations it embodies are strongly reminiscent of Wulfstan,125 who left his sentential impress upon the discourse.
From the above discussion it is clear that comparabilia exist between the Sigvatr corpus and some elements of roughly contemporary English discourse within the circle of Cnut. The most outstanding embodiment of this discourse was in the person of Archbishop Wulfstan, bishop of Worcester (1002–1016) and archbishop of York (1002–1023), a powerful political figure and national spokesman and commentator. Having managed to survive and even thrive as a member of the “witan” (counselors) during the turbulent transition between the reigns of Æthelred II and Cnut, Wulfstan became one of Cnut’s trusted advisors and legislators.126 Ryan Lavelle speaks in his chapter in this volume of “an ideological determination on the part of Archbishop Wulfstan and those about him who were heirs to the tenth-century religious reform movement to drive the political manifestation of the English identity forward in a polity that could be realized as a ‘kingdom of England’.”127 Such an imposing orator and homilist is likely to have been an ultimate influence upon Sigvatr, through a mode of discourse that is distinctively doctrine-based, admonitory, moralistic, and sententious.
At the same time, Wulfstan may not have been the proximate influence. The discussion by Zoya Metlitskaya in this volume is a reminder that many voices existed and therefore notions of a unitary linkage can be no more than an approximation.128 The complex conflations and interweavings of scriptural and doctrinal texts seen in some of Sigvatr’s verses can be better likened to the structure of Ælfric’s sermons than those of Wulfstan. The question that remains is the precise point of contact and influence upon Sigvatr.
One possible ambience to be taken into account, as posited by Matthew Townend, is a late Anglo-Norse courtly culture in England, at Winchester, or London, or conceivably Canterbury, that had room for skaldic recitation as well as English oration: “In such a society, in which two vernaculars were being spoken, and literary works in those two vernaculars being recited, one may reasonably postulate a variety of different audiences, correlating, in some degree, with different court-groupings.”129 The work of Townend and Frank has shown the significance of Cnut’s patronage of skaldic poets for a Norse-speaking audience.130 On the English side, it has been suggested that Wulfstan recited the law codes I and II Cnut at a Christmas court in Winchester.131 More than this, a close parallel between Sigvatr’s Knútsdrápa verse 2 and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 1017, pointed out by Dietrich Hofmann,132 suggests that identical stories were being told across the language divide, perhaps in a form of official record:
Ok senn sonu
sló, hvern ok þó,
Aðalráðs eða
út flæmði Knútr.133
[And Cnut soon defeated or drove out the sons of Æthelred – and each one [of them], though.]
⁊ Cnut cyning aflyde ut Eadwig æþeling ⁊ eft hine het ofslean.
[And King Cnut expelled Eadwig the prince and then ordered that he be killed.]134
Lavelle, however, introduces the important qualifier that the surviving Norse poetry in praise of Cnut coincides with a later period of his reign and may not reflect the cultural direction of his English court at the start of his reign.135 This being the case, it is more plausible to posit a mediation of English discourse that reached Sigvatr principally in his adopted homeland of Norway and some years prior to his Cnut-related compositions. Christianity in eleventh-century Norway appears to have emanated chiefly from England, albeit with some contribution from Hamburg-Bremen.136 The Norwegian missionary kings benefited in a variety of ways from English support in these proselytizing endeavours.137 Óláfr Tryggvason had Æthelred’s sponsorship at confirmation and possibly also benefited from the English king’s provision of English clergy.138 In the next phase, Óláfr Haraldsson, having assisted Æthelred’s return to England from exile, then himself returned to Norway accompanied by English missionary bishops, among them Grimkell and Rudolf (or Rodulf), the latter of whom ended his career as abbot at Abingdon.139 In 1030 Grimkell supported Óláfr’s second return to Norway after his brief exile. When this initiative ended in the king’s death at the battle of Stiklastaðir, Grimkell lost little time in certifying Óláfr’s sanctity.
Contemporary English styles of preaching and teaching would have been not unsuited to the needs of a newly Christianized Norway. For some decades, English preachers had devoted considerable attention to educating the laity at all levels of Anglo-Saxon society. Hagiography, revived by the Benedictine reformers, had become “part of a remarkable movement to provide sermons for the common people,”140 and if Ælfric’s hagiographical writings represent “a kind of managed popularization of the cult of saints,”141 similar comments could be made about his exegesis of Scripture and the liturgy. Old English homilies were remarkable for their “mixed and all-encompassing audience” and “democratic stamp.”142 In these efforts of outreach, the vernacular enjoyed an accepted place, as witness the West Saxon Gospels and other early translations of Scripture into English. Ælfric possessed an outstanding ability to use his native language in order to explain “issues in ways which his audience will most readily understand.”143 Additionally, he enjoyed “strong connections to court through his primary patrons Æthelmær and Æthelweard” and placed “increasing emphasis in his later works on using Biblical texts to provide political guidance for the king and his counselors.”144 Wulfstan, for his part, incorporated homiletic material into his political and legislative statements, with evident effectiveness.145 The missionary corps in Norway might have extended this policy by using the skills of Danish or Norse native speakers from England.146 Grimkell, with his Norse name, was possibly an instance.147 On this hypothesis, Sigvatr’s adoptions and adaptations of English discourse, discussed above, would reflect the manner and ideological objectives of Grimkell and his following, who in turn mediated Ælfric and Wulfstan.
Sigvatr’s Erfidrápa Óláfs helga may hint at kindred processes to those postulated here. As Anne Holtsmark points out, the Erfidrápa, which Jesch dates around 1035,148 late in the poet’s floruit, mentions a “messa” (feast day) as having been established for Óláfr. Holtsmark takes this as suggesting that the Erfidrápa existed in relation to a set of ecclesiastical texts, specifically an officium or “office” for the saint but probably also a vita and an account of his miracles.149 The officium would have supplied a communication of the saint’s merits in Latin, complemented by Sigvatr’s eulogy in the vernacular. This case provides a further indication that Sigvatr served as the vernacular spokesperson for key items of ideology espoused by the English-influenced ruling class and church in Norway. Although this Icelander was perhaps only a fleeting and even an uneasy visitor to Cnut’s court, ultimately his rhetoric can be seen as responsive to developments in the England of Cnut and his predecessor, King Æthelred II.
Notes
1
See North in this volume, “Behold the Front Page,” p. 280.
2
Jesch, “Some Viking Weapons,” 242.
3
Poole, “Sighvatr Þórðarson,” 580.
4
Víkingavísur “Verses about Viking Voyages,” Nesjavísur “Verses about [the Battle of] Nesjar ‘Headlands,’” and Erfidrápa Óláfs helga “Memorial Eulogy for Óláfr inn helgi ‘St. Óláfr’.”
5
Knútsdrápa “Eulogy on Knútr.”
6
Poem about Erlingr Skjálgsson, Flokkr [informal stanza sequence] about Erlingr Skjálgsson.
7
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Knútsdrápa,” ed. Townend, 650–51; see also Jesch, “Skaldic verse in Scandinavian England,” 318, and North in this volume, p. 291.
8
Bersǫglisvísur “Plain-Speaking Verses.”
9
Tryggvaflokkr “Flokkr about Tryggvi.”
10
Poem about Queen Ástríðr.
11
Jesch, “Sigvatr Þórðarson, Biography,” 532 and references there given.
12
Poole, “Sighvatr Þórðarson,” 580.
13
On Thorkell, see also Bolton in this volume, pp. 476–81.
14
Jesch, “Sigvatr Þórðarson, Biography,” 532.
15
Poole, “Sighvatr Þórðarson,” 580.
16
Poole, “Sighvatr Þórðarson,” 580.
17
Jesch, “Sigvatr Þórðarson, Biography,” 532.
18
Poole, “Sighvatr Þórðarson,” 580.
19
Poulsen, Vogt, and Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, Nordic Elites, 224.
20
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Vestrfararvísur,” ed. Jesch, 615–16.
21
Winchester seems less likely than London or Canterbury at this time: see Yorke in this volume, p. 217.
22
Skjaldedigtning, ed. Finnur Jónsson, B.I, 226; Heimskringla II, ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, 271 (chap. 146); Jón Skaptason, “Material for an Edition,” 104, 247.
23
My translation, modifying Jesch, in “Sigvatr Þórðarson: Vestrfararvísur,” ed. Jesch, 617. Subsequent translations will be my own, unless stated.
24
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Vestrfararvísur,” ed. Jesch, 617.
25
Text and translation are from “Sigvatr Þórðarson: Vestrfararvísur,” ed. Jesch, 617.
26
See also “Sigvatr Þórðarson: Lausavísur,” ed. Fulk, 722 (v. 18, line 1), to be cited below.
27
For a partial parallel see “Einarr skálaglamm Helgason: Vellekla,” ed. Marold, 292–93 (v. 8 line 1).
28
Heimskringla II, ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, 271 (chap. 146).
29
Heimskringla II, ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, 271 (chap. 146).
30
For comparable examples, see Fulk, “Sigvatr Þórðarson, Austrfararvísur.”
31
Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 540.
32
Skjaldedigtning, ed. Finnur Jónsson, B.I, 226.
33
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Vestrfararvísur,” ed. Jesch, 616.
34
Jesch, Ships and Men, 86.
35
Jesch, in Ships and Men and “Vikings on the European Continent,” discusses these works.
36
Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, 376.
37
Jesch, Ships and Men, 85.
38
Haskins, Normans in European History, 45.
39
Allen, “‘Praesul praecipue, atque venerande.’”
40
Johnsen, Olav Haraldssons ungdom, 20; see also Jesch, Ships and Men, 86.
41
Downham, Viking Kings, 133, n. 159.
42
Van Houts, The Normans in Europe, 57.
43
Van Houts, “Normandy’s View of the Anglo-Saxon Past,” 129.
44
For discussion of these and other possible instances, see Frank, “Viking Atrocity and Skaldic Verse,” 339; Hofmann, Nordisch-englische Lehnbeziehungen, 93; Poole, “Skaldic Verse and Anglo-Saxon History,” 268; Poole, “Crossing the Language Divide,” 593, 596–97, 600–601.
45
De Vries, Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 228–29.
46
Hofmann, Nordisch-englische Lehnbeziehungen, 57, 83.
47
Hofmann, Nordisch-englische Lehnbeziehungen, 83. See also North in this volume, p. 287.
48
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Knútsdrápa,” ed. Townend, 660 (v. 9).
49
Hofmann, Nordisch-englische Lehnbeziehungen, 92. See also North in this volume, p. 291.
50
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Knútsdrápa,” ed. Townend, 663 (v. 11).
51
Hofmann, Nordisch-englische Lehnbeziehungen, 93.
52
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Knútsdrápa,” ed. Townend, 652–53 (v. 2).
53
Hofmann, Nordisch-englische Lehnbeziehungen, 88.
54
Halldór Halldórsson, “Determining the Lending Language”; see below for citation of this word in its verse context.
55
Kock, Notationes Norrœnæ, §658 (discussion of v. 4).
56
The element baldr here rests upon an emendation; see Poole, “Skaldic Verse and Anglo-Saxon History,” 268. Jesch, in “Sigvatr Þórðarson, Víkingarvísur,” 548, opts for ógnvaldr, without considering -baldr, but this choice does not adequately account for the paradosis, where the attested readings are -dvalþ̄(r), djarfr, djarfs, valdr, and valds.
57
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Víkingarvísur,” ed. Jesch, 546 (v. 8).
58
De Vries, Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 428, sv. prúðr.
59
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Austrfararvísur,” ed. Fulk, 600 (v. 12).
60
See also Jesch, in “Sigvatr Þórðarson: Víkingarvísur,” ed. Jesch, 546; Hofmann, Nordisch-englische Lehnbeziehungen, 82; De Vries, Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, 186, sv. greifi.
61
Brøndum-Nielsen, Gammeldansk Grammatik, I, 315–16.
62
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Bersǫglisvísur,” ed. Gade, 26.
63
See also de Vries, Altnordisches etymologisches Wörterbuch, sv. greifi, and “Sigvatr Þórðarson: Bersǫglisvísur,” ed. Gade, 26.
64
Jesch “Some Viking Weapons,” 355 and references there given.
65
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Vestrfararvísur,” ed. Jesch, 619.
66
Frank, “King Cnut in the Verse,” 118 and references there given.
67
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Knútsdrápa,” ed. Townend, 661 (v. 10).
68
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Bersǫglisvísur,” ed. Gade, 30.
69
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Vestrfararvísur,” ed. Jesch, 618–19.
70
Dictionnaire du Moyen Français (1330–1500), sv. mailler 1: http://www.atilf.fr/dmf/definition/mailler1. See also Anglo-Norman Dictionary, sv. mailler: http://www.anglo-norman.net/gate/; and Middle English Dictionary s. mal(le (n.): https://quod.lib.umich.edu/.
71
For this word carrying alliteration and metrical rise, see Sigvatr, Lausavísa 6/2, also in the context of a meeting at a hall, in “Sigvatr Þórðarson: Lausavísur,” ed. Fulk, 707.
72
The structure and incidence of the various sententiae (proverbs, gnomes, admonitions) are analysed more fully in my essay “The Sentential Turn in Sigvatr.”
73
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Vestrfararvísur,” ed. Jesch, 622. Emphasis mine.
74
Beowulf, ed. Mitchell and Robinson, 105 (lines 1724–27). Translations are my own except where stated otherwise.
75
Beowulf, ed. Mitchell and Robinson, 83 (lines 1057–58).
76
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Vestrfararvísur,” ed. Jesch, 625. Emphasis mine.
77
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Vestrfararvísur,” ed. Jesch, 619.
78
Fidjestøl, “Kongetruskap og gullets makt,” 4.
79
Poole, “Cyningas sigefæste mid gode,” 277.
80
The Holy Bible: The Douay-Rheims Version.
81
Ælfric’s Lives of Saints, ed. Skeat, I, 336–37.
82
Ælfric’s Prefaces, ed. Wilcox, 46.
83
Ælfric’s Prefaces, ed. Wilcox, 121.
84
Cavill, Maxims, 14.
85
Cavill, Maxims, 14–16.
86
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Flokkr about Erlingr Skjálgsson,” ed. Jesch, 639. Emphases mine.
87
Beowulf, ed. Mitchell and Robinson, 122 (lines 2166–71).
88
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Nesjavísur,” ed. Poole, 575 (v. 13).
89
Fidjestøl, “Kongetruskap og gullets makt,” 6.
90
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Lausavísur,” ed. Fulk, 715–16 (v. 13).
91
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Lausavísur,” ed. Fulk, 716–17 (v. 14).
92
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Lausavísur,” ed. Fulk, 718–19 (v. 15). Emphasis mine. For the identification of vír “we” as a Danish form, and its significance, see my forthcoming essay “The Danish Tongue on Skaldic Lips.”
93
Skjaldedigtning, ed. Finnur Jónsson, A.1, 270.
94
Bedingfield, “Reinventing the Gospel,” 14–15, 23–24; Remley, Old English Biblical Verse, 33, 49–50, 59–61.
95
Fidjestøl, “Kongetruskap og gullets makt,” 9.
96
Homilies, ed. Thorpe, II, 244–45. The translation is Thorpe’s.
97
Old English Version of the Gospels, ed. Liuzza, I, 9: “Geblissiað and gefægniað forþam þe eower med ys mycel on heofonum” (West Saxon Gospels).
98
Old English Version of the Gospels, ed. Liuzza, I, 111: “Geblissiað and gefagniað on þam dagum, nu eower med is mycel on heofonum” (West Saxon Gospels).
99
Fidjestøl, “Kongetruskap og gullets makt,” 7.
100
Heimskringla II, ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, 293 (n. to v. 105).
101
Poole, “Crossing the Language Divide,” 600–601.
102
Fox, “Ælfric on the Creation and Fall of Angels,” 199; see also Day, “The Influence of the Catechetical Narratio,” 59.
103
The Junius Manuscript, ed. Krapp, 12 (lines 302–5).
104
Fox, “Ælfric on the Creation and Fall of Angels,” 177.
105
Homilies of Wulfstan, ed. Bethurum, 149–50; Godden, “Biblical Literature,” 218.
106
Sermo Lupi, ed. Whitelock, 30, 31–32, 42; see also Robinson, “God, Death, and Loyalty.”
107
Sermo Lupi, ed. Whitelock, 42.
108
Sermo Lupi, ed. Whitelock, 31–32.
109
For a book-length study, see Deskis, Beowulf and the Medieval Proverb Tradition.
110
Ker, Catalogue of Manuscripts, 281.
111
See North, p. 278, and also Thomson, p. 252, in this volume.
112
Arngart, “The Durham Proverbs,” 289, 300; Arngart, “Durham Proverb 23”; Arngart, “Durham Proverbs 17, 30, and 42.”
113
Cavill, Maxims, 65.
114
Hill, “‘When the Leader Is Brave’,” 236. I am grateful to Professor Hill for sending me a copy of this article.
115
Cecily Clark, “On Dating The Battle of Maldon,” 22; see also George Clark, “The Battle of Maldon,” 54–56.
116
Cavill, Maxims, 117.
117
Cavill, Maxims, 124.
118
Gatch, Preaching and Theology in Anglo-Saxon England, 19.
119
Davis-Secord, “Rhetoric and Politics,” 75–76; Wormald, The Making of English Law, 345.
120
Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, 300.
121
Bethurum, Homilies, 244.
122
Bethurum, Homilies, 248.
123
Lawson, “Archbishop Wulfstan and the Homiletic Element,” 162.
124
Liebermann, Gesetze, 273.
125
Lawson, “Archbishop Wulfstan and the Homiletic Element,” 163.
126
Orchard, “Wulfstan as Reader,” 311; Davis-Secord, “Rhetoric and Politics,” 91.
127
Lavelle in this volume, p. 169.
128
Metlitskaya in this volume, p. 121.
129
Townend, “Contextualizing the Knútsdrápur,” 174–75; see also Poole, “Crossing the Language Divide,” 605–6.
130
Townend, “Contextualizing the Knútsdrápur”; Frank, “King Cnut in the Verse,” 108.
131
Lawson, “Archbishop Wulfstan and the Homiletic Element,” 161; Kennedy, “Cnut’s Law Code of 1018,” 74–75.
132
Hofmann, Nordisch-englische Lehnbeziehungen, 88–90.
133
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Knútsdrápa,” ed. Townend, 652–53 (v. 2).
134
ASC, ed. O’Brien O’Keeffe (C), 103 (s.a. 1017).
135
Lavelle, Cnut: North Sea King, 83–85.
136
Abrams, “Anglo-Saxons and Christianization”; Halldór Halldórsson, “Synd”; Halldór Halldórsson, “Some Old Saxon Loanwords”; Halldór Halldórsson, “Determining the Lending Language”; Hellberg, “Tysk eller Engelsk mission?”.
137
Abrams, “Anglo-Saxons and Christianization,” 221.
138
Andersson, “Viking Policy of Ethelred,” 1, 4.
139
Abrams, “Anglo-Saxons and Christianization,” 223; Graham, “A Runic Entry and Abbot Rodulf.”
140
Geoffrey Shepherd, “Scriptural Poetry,” 29; Magennis, “Warrior Saints,” 49.
141
Magennis, “Warrior Saints,” 50.
142
Ælfric’s Prefaces, ed. Wilcox, 21.
143
Ælfric’s Prefaces, ed. Wilcox, 20.
144
Klein, “Beauty and the Banquet,” 79–80.
145
Lawson, “Archbishop Wulfstan and the Homiletic Element,” 16, and references there given.
146
Abrams, “Anglo-Saxons and Christianization,” 216.
147
Hellberg, “Glælognskviða,” 44; Abrams, “Anglo-Saxons and Christianization,” 223.
148
“Sigvatr Þórðarson: Erfidrápa Óláfs helga,” ed. Jesch, 664–65.
149
Holtsmark, “Sankt Olavs liv og mirakler,” 122 (reprinted: 16).