Jakub Morawiec
The fact that an anonymous daughter of Duke Mieszko I (ca. 960–992) was the mother of Cnut the Great, as we have seen discussed in the previous chapter, raises questions about the nature and importance of political contacts in the Baltic zone during the tenth and eleventh centuries, and those especially between Poland and the Scandinavian kingdoms. It is important to investigate the circumstances that led to the Piast princess marrying into the Nordic royal families, first with Eiríkr inn sigrsæli (“the Victorious”), King of the Swedes, and then with Sveinn tjúguskegg (“Forkbeard”) Haraldsson, King of Denmark. However, it is even more intriguing to consider if these connections affected Cnut’s policy as king of both England and Denmark, and to explore what place the Baltic zone occupied in the king’s plans and his interactions with other countries. This chapter will analyse these issues, which have so far failed to attract significant scholarly attention.
Cnut’s Unnamed Mother
Reliable information about Cnut’s mother is limited. Several more or less contemporary sources provide us with scanty pieces of data. The Chronicon of Thietmar, Bishop of Merseburg, is the most important:
omitto et de geniminis viperarum, id est filiis Suenni persecutoris, pauca edissero. Hos peperit ei Miseconis filia ducis, soror Bolizlavi successoris ejus et nati; quae a viro suimet diu depulsa, non minimam cum caeteris perpessa est controversiam.1
[in only a few words I will refer now to this offspring of a lizard, namely the sons of this Sveinn the oppressor. They were born of the daughter of Duke Mieszko, and sister of Bolesław, his successor. Driven away by her husband for a long time, she suffered much, together with others. Her sons resembled their father in every respect.]
Other references to Cnut’s mother are found in Adam of Bremen’s Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum. In the main text, referring to Sveinn Forkbeard and his endeavours, Adam writes:
post mortem diu optatam Herici Suein ab exilio regressus optinuit regnum patrum suorum, anno depulsionis suae vel peregrinationis XIIII. Et accepit uxorem Herici relictam, matrem Olaph, quae peperit ei Chnut.
[after the long-wished-for death of Eiríkr, Sveinn returned from exile and regained the kingdom of his fathers in the fourteenth year of his deposition and wanderings. And he married Eiríkr’s widow, the mother of Óláfr, and she bore him Cnut.]2
Then, in one of the scholia attached to the main text, there is an additional account of Eiríkr, King of the Swedes:
Hericus, rex Sueonum, cum potentissimo rege Polanorum Bolizlao foedus iniit. Bolizlaus filiam vel sororem Herico dedit. Cuius gratia societatis Dani a Sclavis et Sueonibus iuxta impugnati sunt.
[Eiríkr, king of the Swedes, entered into alliance with Bolesław, the most powerful king of Poles. Bolesław gave his daughter or sister in marriage to Eiríkr. Because of this league the Danes were jointly attacked by the Slavs and the Swedes.]3
A further marginal note about Cnut’s mother is found in the Encomium Emmae Reginae. She is mentioned when the Encomiast describes the political situation in Denmark after Sveinn’s death, when his sons, Cnut and Haraldr, “pariter uero Sclauoniam adierunt, et matrem suam, quae illic morabatur, reduxerunt” (went to the land of the Slavs and brought back their mother who resided there).4 Due to the ambiguity in them, these accounts cannot fully satisfy historians nowadays. The case of Cnut’s mother and her marriages is not central to any of these texts. Rather, one can assume that both Thietmar and Adam felt obliged to refer to this matter in order to explain and elaborate on other, more important, aspects of Danish history. In the case of Thietmar it was the desire to draw as negative as possible a picture of Sveinn Forkbeard. In the case of Adam, the variability of political alliances in the North was at issue.5 Neither these authors nor the Encomiast even found it necessary to give Cnut’s mother a name, while the scope of the information to be found in their accounts also raises questions and doubts about the life and career of this Polish princess.
Scholars who have previously been interested in reconstructing the life of Cnut’s mother nearly all agree that these medieval writers were referring to the same person.6 Thus, it has been concluded that a Piast princess, hypothetically but wrongly called Świętosława (Santslaua), was married to the Swedish king, Eiríkr the Victorious, between 983 and 984. Eiríkr and his Polish wife are said to have had a son, Óláfr. This Swedish king died in 994 or 995, and his widow is then said to have become the wife of Sveinn Forkbeard, who managed to regain power in Denmark after Eiríkr’s death.7 They had five children together, including two sons, Cnut and Haraldr, and at least two daughters, Świętosława and Ástríðr. Following Thietmar’s account, scholars assume that sometime later, shortly before or after the year 1000, she was driven off by Sveinn, but the reason for this remains unknown. The Encomiast’s note leads us to believe that she found shelter in Poland and stayed at the court of her brother until 1014. In that year Cnut’s mother returned to Denmark, accompanied by her sons. Her subsequent fate is unknown.8 We do not know how long she lived, nor exactly when she died. Neither do we know if she spent the rest of her life in Denmark. Some years ago, Kazimierz Jasiński, studying Thietmar’s account, gave us good grounds to believe that she was still alive in 1016–1017.9
I have argued elsewhere that Liðsmannaflokkr, an anonymous skaldic poem composed around 1016–1017, may throw additional light on the fate of Cnut’s mother.10 In my opinion, one may identify her with the “Syn” or “Ilmr” (lady) whom the skald, referring to her great interest in Cnut’s achievements during the conquest, addresses in the second part of the poem.11 Such an identification supports Jasiński’s argument and points to her potential role not only as a witness to Cnut’s campaign in England in 1015–1016, but also as a crucial supporter or adviser of the young monarch during the initial stage of his reign.
Duke Mieszko I was particularly concerned with his relationship with the Ottonian Empire, Bohemia, and the Polabian Slavs (or the Elbe-Slavs); an alliance with the the Swedes, concluded by his daughter’s marriage to King Eiríkr, might therefore seem surprising. A laconic note on the alliance by Adam of Bremen, however, points clearly to the anti-Danish character of this union. There is no reason, in my opinion, to disregard Adam’s statement. Tensions between the rulers of Denmark and Sweden, reaching a zenith in Eiríkr’s attack on Denmark in 991/994, were serious enough to make the Swedish king look for new allies. Mieszko could have been considered an appropriate candidate, as he was also forced to face Danish ambitions in the Polabian Slavs’ territories, especially in the Oder estuary where both parties sought to control long-distance trade in Wolin. Although it is difficult today to estimate how effective this alliance was, the political turbulence in Denmark, along with rebellions against Haraldr, some Swedish attacks on Denmark, and Sveinn Forkbeard’s exile, all suggest that Mieszko and Eiríkr had many incentives to join forces against the Danes, now their common enemy.
Mieszko’s daughter’s second marriage, with Sveinn Forkbeard, was a part of the bigger political changes that took place in Scandinavia in 995. As Adam of Bremen’s account indicates, the death of Eiríkr the Victorious allowed Sveinn to return to Denmark and regain power there.12 Perhaps the marriage with Eiríkr’s widow was part of this process. Again, the circumstances remain unclear, but it is obvious from these sources that Sveinn quickly managed not only to consolidate his position at home but also to become the protector of his stepson, young Óláfr “sœnski” (the Swede).13 Undoubtedly, Sveinn’s betrothal to a new wife comprised a key element of this role. The princess’s second marriage resulted in numerous offspring.14 Inspite of all this, so we learn from Thietmar, Sveinn decided to drive her away.15 Although the reasons for the king’s decision remain unclear, one can speculate either that Sveinn felt strong enough not to need Eiríkr’s widow anymore, or that she was too ambitious to refrain from trying to influence her husband’s policy. In fact, these alternatives do not contradict each other, although the latter characterization is based mainly on a later source, the profile of Sigríðr “stórráða” (the haughty), which is the name provided for this woman by the sagas. Whatever the reason, Mieszko’s daughter was deprived of her status as royal wife and mother.
Significantly, Mieszko’s daughter did not return to Sweden after she was driven out of Denmark, but instead moved to “Sclavonia,” as the Encomiast implies with his note of her sons’ retrieval of her there; this term most probably denoted Poland.16 One can only wonder about the reaction of Duke Bolesław Chrobry (“the Brave”) to the dramatic breakdown of his sister’s marriage. Did he try to intervene on her behalf? Did he try to marry her off again? The answer to the first question is probably negative, for cases similar to that of Cnut’s mother were frequent during the period; Bolesław himself had driven out his first two spouses when his own political alliances shifted.17 He could have treated his sister’s situation in the same way, finding her a burden, but one with potential future benefits. This would accord with the second question. However, the sources we have at our disposal remain silent on this matter.
One can only regret that the author of the Encomium Emmae Reginae did not elaborate on the circumstances of Cnut’s mother in Denmark, nor on her role in the political decisions that were then reached concerning the future of her sons. It is possible to limit the discussion to the purely symbolic aspects connected with her status as the king’s widow and mother.18 It seems, however, that she could have been active in settling terms between the brothers and making decisions about the organization of the expedition to England in 1015. Perhaps, as mother to both of them, she also played a role in the agreement between Cnut and his half-brother, Óláfr the Swede, who, according to Adam of Bremen, supported Cnut with a contingent of warriors.19
The identification of the “lady” from Liðsmannaflokkr as the mother of Cnut points not only to the importance of the success of the English campaign from the point of view of the Danish political elite, but also to the young king’s personal abilities in leading such an enterprise, at least formally. Later sources such as the Knútsdrápur, a group of skaldic poems dedicated to Cnut and composed at his court,20 as well as the Encomium Emmae Reginae, suggest that the king himself paid great attention to the ways in which an appropriate vision of the Conquest was promoted, with Cnut portrayed as the sole leader and victor of the campaign.21 Liðsmannaflokkr, with its clear tendency to level the military achievements of Cnut and his fellow leader Earl “Þorkell inn hávi” (Thorkell the Tall), seems to reveal the especially high degree of risk encountered on this expedition. If one assumes that, at some point, Cnut’s mother joined her son in England, this was perhaps dictated by the need to counterbalance the influence of Earl Thorkell, whose potential and ambitions were certainly known to the king and his followers.22
However certain they may be, all pieces of information we have about the mother of Cnut point to a person who was distinguished, ambitious, and charismatic. The Polish princess seems to have been aware of her position as a royal widow and mother, especially during moments of political transition in 995 and 1014. This self-awareness is most likely to have resulted in a willingness to take an active part in decision-making processes, something that marked her life with both success and failure. Such a profile could have inspired saga authors to create Sigríðr the Haughty, one of the most exceptional women of Old Norse literature.23 Since Sigríðr follows the same political and matrimonial path, with Eiríkr the Victorious and then Sveinn Forkbeard becoming her husbands, one can only wonder if her literary character is also based on Cnut’s mother.
Cnut’s Policy in the Baltic
In this way it seems even more appropriate to investigate whether Cnut’s Baltic policy, and especially his dealings with the Western Slavs, were in any way affected by his kinship with the Piast dynasty. It is striking that the sources we have at our disposal record no contact of any kind between Cnut and his uncle, Bolesław the Brave. Nevertheless, the relationship between them might have been stimulated not only by the issue of the return of Cnut’s mother to Denmark, but also, initially, by their likely shared enmity towards Emperor Henry II ((1002–)1014–1025).24 Such contacts between Cnut and Bolesław would have become even more relevant when Cnut took control of Denmark in 1019. Unfortunately, our main informant, Thietmar, died in 1018, so the final years of King Bolesław, who died in 1025, remain almost totally unknown to historians. According to Adam of Bremen, Cnut was named “Lambert” at his baptism.25 This is perhaps the only remaining trace of contact between the dynasties. Fyodor Uspenskii has suggested that the name Lambert, which was popular within the Polish dynasty at the time and was given to a son of Mieszko and Oda, was chosen on the initiative of Cnut’s Polish mother.26 Lambert was also the baptismal name of Mieszko II (1025–1031), son of Bolesław the Brave (992–1025) and so Cnut’s first cousin. One cannot exclude the possibility of a more or less direct influence from the Polish court on the Danish royal dynasty via Cnut’s mother. However, it is also possible that we are dealing with the result of an independent influx of imperial and Saxon fashions.
Some scholars have suggested that Cnut and his cousin Mieszko II cooperated during the latter’s conflict with Emperor Conrad II (1027–1039).27 This Polish king, well educated and already experienced in international politics, was ambitious in trying to continue the policy of his father. Although Mieszko allied himself with Ernest of Swabia, who rebelled against Conrad, his raids in Saxony (1027–1028) did not bring the expected results,28 and the emperor was forced to act. Creating an alliance with Jaroslav (Jarizleifr) the Wise of Russia in support of Mieszko’s younger brothers, Conrad organized military expeditions against Poland in 1030 and 1031, which quickly resulted in the weakening of the Polish king’s position in his own country. Moreover, Emperor Conrad regained Saxon lands such as Lusatia and Meissen, which had previously been controlled by Bolesław the Brave. Finally, he took advantage of a conflict between Mieszko and his wife, Richeza of Lotharingia, who was a niece of Emperor Otto III (996–1002). Richeza found refuge in Saxony in 1031, bringing with her Mieszko’s crown. Mieszko, desolate and humiliated, was forced to seek reconciliation with Conrad. The conditions of the agreement reached in Merseburg in 1032 were hard on Mieszko, who had to resign his royal title and accept the division of his country.29 German and Anglo-Saxon sources are silent about Mieszko’s potential attempts to secure Cnut’s support during his encounters with Conrad. It seems likely that even if the Polish king did so, his case would have been hopeless, for it was in Cnut’s best interest to cooperate with Conrad. Imperial recognition, as demonstrated by Cnut’s visit to Rome and his participation in the emperor’s coronation in 1027,30 was more important to this young king of England and Denmark than any blood ties with a Polish ruler too weak to keep the position won by his father.
The lack of direct evidence for any contact between Cnut and Poland does not mean that he was uninterested in political encounters with the Western Slavs. Rather, one may assume that this was a vital element of his policy as the king of Denmark. It can be clearly seen in the conflict between Cnut and Earl Thorkell the Tall. In 1021 the king outlawed the earl.31 Presumably Thorkell returned to Denmark, because a year later his challenge to Cnut’s position forced the king to go there on a military expedition, albeit the destination of this is variously recorded: in 1022, according to the Abingdon (C) and Peterborough (E) Chronicles, “Cnut kyning for ut mid his scypum to Wiht”; according to the Worcester (D) Chronicle, this was “to Wihtlande.”32 Most sources treat “Wight” or “Wightland” as the Isle of Wight, although explaining why Cnut, on his way east to deal with Thorkell in Denmark, would have moved his fleet first here does raise some difficulties. The Chronicle’s statement is further developed and complicated by Henry of Huntingdon, according to whom Cnut, in the third year of his reign (thus in 1019), led an army consisting of Danes and Englishmen through Denmark to fight the “Wandali.”33 This statement would refer to King Cnut’s first expedition to Denmark in that year. Henry relates a story, however, in which Earl Godwine, leading Cnut’s English army, made a surprise night attack on the enemy’s camp and won a superb victory. The problem here is that Godwine’s presence in the king’s retinue dates from 1023, in the context of King Cnut’s second expedition to Denmark. Although one cannot exclude the possibility that Earl Godwine took part in the 1019 expedition, Henry of Huntingdon aligns his exploit with the following events, which took place in 1022 and 1023:
Hoc circa tempus Leving archiepiscopo defuncto, Athelnod successor ejus Romam petiit … Archiepiscopus vero Roma rediens, corpus S. Alfei a Londonia transtulit Cantuariam.
[At that time [1022] Æthelnoth, who came after archbishop Lyfing, came to Rome. … On his return [1023], the archbishop decided about the translation of St. Ælfheah’s body from London to Canterbury.]34
It seems likely, in this way, that Henry conflated information about two separate expeditions into his account of the first, and that Cnut’s campaign against the Wandali took place in the second expedition.35
There is no doubt that the Wandali mentioned by the chronicler, “Wends” as they have been named by historians, should be identified with the Slavs. Henry does not mention Thorkell’s rebellion, but if his account is to be treated as reliable, one must ask about possible connections between Cnut’s raid on the Slavs and his dealings with the outlawed Thorkell. For this reason, Johanes Steenstrup proposed identifying the Worcester Chronicle’s “Wihtland” not with the Isle of Wight, but with the Slavonic coast of the south-eastern Baltic. According to Steenstrup, Cnut would have made an expedition to the Baltic in 1022, aiming to take control of the territories of the Slavs and the Prussians.36 Responses to Steenstrup’s proposals have been varied. Niels Lund found the suggestion tempting, in contrast to Michael Lawson, who considered it unreliable.37 A view similar to Lawson’s prevails in Polish scholarship. Gerard Labuda and Adam Turasiewicz prefer to identify “Wiht” with the Isle of Wight.38 Such an identification seems to be confirmed by a record in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the year 998, in which “Wihtland” is unequivocally the name for the Isle of Wight.39 Moreover, Steenstrup’s theory points to territories, namely the marches of the Slavonic-Prussian border, that are barely represented in Cnut’s political agenda as we know it. Perhaps the most reasonable solution to this problem is to follow the sources as they are and to say that in 1022 Cnut moved his fleet to the Isle of Wight, even though the reason for such a move at this time is another knotty problem. Assumptions about Cnut’s undertaking an expedition to Normandy should be rejected, as there is nothing in the sources that could indicate the king’s military plans against Duke Richard II (996–1026).40 Nonetheless, it seems to me that the most probable explanation for this Wight-bound movement of the royal fleet is to see it as part of a defensive manoeuvre by Cnut to secure England from an attack by Thorkell directed from Denmark. I do, however, agree with Lawson that the area around Sandwich, not Wight, would have been a more probable destination in that case.41
The rejection of Steenstrup’s proposals does not mean we must discredit Henry of Huntingdon’s account. Rather, it is worth investigating the possibility of a link between Cnut’s expedition against the Wandali and the case of Thorkell. This also means rejecting older theories that date Cnut’s encounters with the Slavs to 1019 and see these as an attempt to conquer part of the Slavonic territories.42 By the same token, we must reject attempts to see these encounters as the result of a degree of cooperation between Cnut and Emperor Henry II or Bolesław the Brave.
If we look at the evidence in this way, Timothy Bolton is absolutely right: in 1022–1023 King Cnut’s main concern was the potential risk that Earl Thorkell’s army posed.43 The king’s encounters with Slavs should be treated as part of the same military political strategy that aimed to eliminate this threat. Some English accounts, such as the Vita Edwardi Regis and the Translatio Sancti Ælfegi, indicate that the outlawed Thorkell returned to Denmark and continued to plot against Cnut there.44 It seems probable that the earl also decided to look for support from the Slavs, and in particular the Obodrites, a confederation of Western Slavonic tribes that occupied the territories now Mecklenburg and Holstein in northern Germany. Of course, it is difficult either to confirm or discount an arrangement of this kind between Thorkell and the Slavs. However, the conflict between Magnús inn góði (“the Good”) and Sveinn Úlfsson in the 1040s provides us with a good analogy here. Earl Sveinn allied with the Slavs when he tried, unsuccessfully, to drive this Norwegian king out of Denmark.45 Perhaps a similar situation arose in 1023. Cnut’s campaign against the Slavs, as we see it in the account of Henry of Huntingdon, could have resulted from an alliance between them and Thorkell in his own bid for military power. Such a threat was most probably too serious to ignore and prompted Cnut to intervene. Direct clashes with the Slavs could have taken place in Denmark, and there is no need to argue, with Herwig Wolfram, that the king subdued the Obodrites, forcing them to pay tribute.46 Unfortunately, the course of these events remains unknown to us, except its conclusion, in which Cnut and Thorkell decided to reconcile. Their mutual exchange of sons was to guarantee this peace, even though afterwards it appears that the earl’s position was weaker. We do not know whether this reconciliation affected Cnut’s relations with the Slavs. It seems likely that he had priorities elsewhere and merely wished to eliminate an Obodritian threat in the interests of securing his Danish dominion.
In this way, despite being heavily engaged in English affairs, Cnut kept his eye on the Western Slavs and their lands, trying to maintain Danish influence there just as his father and grandfather had done before him. This may explain the presence of Slavonic noblemen at the king’s court, of whom two are named. The first of these, named “Wrytsleof” and titled dux, attested one of Cnut’s charters from 1026 (S 962).47 The form Wrytsleof is presumably an Anglo-Saxon variant of the Slavonic name Vartislav. Apart from the name, the dux in question remains unknown to us, just as the reason for his stay in England, or where this was, or for how long it lasted. The date of Wrytsleof’s attestation gives some clue, however, for it followed Cnut’s expedition to Denmark in 1023 and his likely military encounter with the Slavs, particularly the Obodrites. As I have already mentioned the possibility of the Slavs supporting the rebellious Earl Thorkell, one cannot exclude the possibility of Wrytsleof being a hostage to guarantee the loyalty of the Obodritian dynasty towards the Danish ruler. On the other hand, accounts of the turbulence that affected the Obodritian dynasty in the early 1020s could suggest that “Vartislav” was a refugee in England applying for Cnut’s protection. King Cnut could have found such a situation advantageous, for it would have given him a reason for intervening in Polabian affairs when necessary.48
A second Slav in Cnut’s court may be inferred from John of Worcester, who mentions a marriage between an anonymous daughter of Sveinn Forkbeard and “Wyrtgeorn,” called “rex Winidorum” (king of the Wends [i.e., Slavs]).49 Although John’s account lacks confirmation in other sources, scholarly opinion supports its reliability.50 The incident may refer to “Santslaua,” the sister of Cnut referenced in the Liber Vitae of the Winchester New Minster. On the other hand, the identification of the Slavonic king is more problematic. Perhaps John was referring to the same person who, as Wrytsleof, attested Cnut’s charter. These remain for the most part speculations; taken together, however, they suggest that the territories of the Polabian Slavs, and of the Obodrites in particular, remained important in Cnut’s plans to preserve Danish influence in this strategic region, following the policies of his predecessors.
Conclusion: Interests, not Friends
In conclusion, one must observe that Cnut’s kinship with the Piasts did not determine or even influence his Baltic and Western Slavonic policy, which was guided solely by his interests as king of Denmark. Cnut strictly followed his predecessors in this respect. One of his policy’s key elements – to maintain his influence among the Polabian Slavs, particularly the Obodrites – was dictated by the need both to secure the borders between the Danes, Saxons, and Slavs, and to withstand the ambitions of the Empire and other political partners, including Poland. This policy of Cnut’s explains the presence of Slavonic nobles such as Wrytsleof (Vartislav) at his court, who might already have proved useful to him in these areas. Despite Cnut’s blood ties with the rulers of Poland, it is hard to say anything specific about their mutual relations. Either they simply passed unnoticed in the record, or, as seems more likely, there was no particular reason to record them. This matter also concerns Polish relations with the Empire, in which one can see clearly the opposing interests of both sides. It is therefore not surprising that Mieszko II received no help from his cousin, King Cnut of England and Denmark, during his conflict with Emperor Conrad, even during the hardest times of failure, exile, and humiliation. For all his kinship with the kings of Poland, Cnut was his own man.
Notes
1
Chronicon, ed. Holtzmann, 446 (VII.xxxix). My translation.
2
Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 99 (II.xxxix). Adam of Bremen: History, trans. Tschan, 81.
3
Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 95 (II.xxxv, schol. 24 [25]). Adam of Bremen: History, trans. Tschan, 78.
4
Encomium, ed. Campbell, 18 (II.ii).
5
Both Thietmar and Adam of Bremen were motivated to provide negative images of Sveinn Forkbeard by the Danish king’s resistance to accepting the claims of the German church (and especially of the archdiocese of Hamburg-Bremen) for control over Denmark’s ecclesiastical institutions. See Sawyer, “Swein Forkbeard and the Historians,” 27–40.
6
For another view, see Gazzoli in the previous chapter, pp. 409–11.
7
This Polish princess’ Swedish marriage is dismissed as Adam’s invention in Lund, “Why did Cnut conquer England?,” 39.
8
Jasiński, Rodowód, 99; Duczko, “A. D. 1000,” 374–75; Waśko, “Świętosława-Sygryda,” 34–35; Uspenskii, “Dynastic Names,” 18.
9
Jasiński, Rodowód, 98.
10
“Liðsmannaflokkr,” ed. Poole, 1014–28; Morawiec, “Liðsmannaflokkr,” 93–115.
11
A contrary view is presented by Russell Poole, who identifies this “lady” with queen Emma in his Viking Poems, 113.
12
Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 99–100 (II.xxxix).
13
Duczko, “The Fateful Hundred Years,” 11–28.
14
Their two sons, Cnut and Haraldr, are mentioned by both the Encomiast and Adam of Bremen. The latter notes also Ástriðr, one of their daughters. A different set of sources records two other daughters: “Saintslaua” is mentioned only in the Liber Vitae of New Minster in Winchester, whereas Gyða is known only to authors of Icelandic kings’ sagas. See Morawiec, Knut Wielki, 88–89.
15
Chronicon, ed. Holtzmann, 446 (VII.xxxix).
16
Encomium, ed. Campbell, 18 (II.ii).
17
Chronicon, ed. Holtzmann, 225 (IV.lviii); Jasiński, Rodowód, 83–85.
18
See Enright, Lady with a Mead Cup, 1–68.
19
Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 113 (II.lii).
20
Townend, “Contextualising the Knútsdrápur,” 145–79.
21
Morawiec, Między poezją a polityką, 413–46.
22
Poole, Viking Poems, 99–103; Townend, “Contextualising the Knútsdrápur,” 151.
23
Sigríðr is mentioned in several Old Norse texts, mainly in connection with a plot against Óláfr Tryggvason that results in the defeat and death of the Norwegian king. Sigríðr feels dishonored by Óláfr, who has rejected marriage with her because of her pagan beliefs; this also motivates her new husband, Sveinn Forkbeard, to make war on Óláfr. See Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar eptir Odd munk, ed. Ólafur Halldórsson, 179–84; Fagrskinna, ed. Bjarni Einarsson, 115; Heimskringla II, ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, 343–49.
24
See Lawson, Cnut: England’s Viking King, 104, 118.
25
Gesta Hammaburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 112 (II.lii, schol. 37 [38]).
26
Uspenskii, “Dynastic Names,” 21.
27
Sochacki, Stosunki publicznoprawne, 68.
28
Mieszko’s raiding is recorded in several German accounts, for example in the Annales Hildesheimenses and Annales Magdeburgenses. On Mieszko’s conflict with Emperor Conrad II, see Labuda, Mieszko II, 56–59, 65–74; Wolfram, Conrad II, 213–20, 235–36.
29
Labuda, Mieszko II, 65–96; Sochacki, “Kontakty,” 373–90; Delimata, “Ucieczka z Polski,” 79–84.
30
See also Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 103, 181–82.
31
ASC (C), ed. O’Brien O’Keeffe, 104 (s.a. 1021); (D), ed. Cubbin, 63 (s.a. 1021); (E), ed. Irvine, 75 (s.a. 1021); trans. Swanton (D), 154 (s.a. 1021). For the synoptic view: ASC (CDE), ed. Plummer, I, 154–55.
32
ASC (C), ed. O’Brien O’Keeffe, 104 (s.a. 1022); (D), ed. Cubbin, 63 (s.a. 1022); (E), ed. Irvine, 75 (s.a. 1022); trans. Swanton, 154–55 (s.a. 1022): “to (the Isle of) Wight.”
33
Historia Anglorum, ed. Greenway, 362–63.
34
Historia Anglorum, ed. and trans. Greenway, 362–63.
35
See Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 213; Morawiec, Knut Wielki, 209. For the view that Cnut’s expedition against the Wandali took place in 1019, see Gazzoli in the previous chapter, pp. 411–13.
36
Steenstrup, Venderne og Danske, 66.
37
Lund, “Cnut’s Danish Kingdom,” 36; Lawson, Cnut: England’s Viking King, 94.
38
Labuda, Fragmenty, 139; Turasiewicz, Dzieje polityczne, 128.
39
ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 63 (s.a. 998).
40
Lawson, Cnut: England’s Viking King, 92–93.
41
Lawson, Cnut: England’s Viking King, 92.
42
Labuda, Fragmenty, 182–84; Turasiewicz, Dzieje polityczne, 125–28 (see further references there).
43
Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 213–15.
44
See further Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 213.
45
Morawiec, Vikings among the Slavs, 321–49.
46
Wolfram, Conrad II, 212.
47
Keynes, “Cnut’s Earls,” 64–65.
48
Morawiec, Knut Wielki, 213.
49
Chronicle of John of Worcester, ed. Darlington and McGurk, 511.
50
Bolton, Empire of Cnut, 215–16. See also Gazzoli in this volume, pp. 413–14.