Barbara E. Crawford
This chapter firms up the notion that St. Clement had a significant association with the Anglo-Danish dynasty of Cnut, by way of showing the relevance of St. Clement to the political, religious, and cultural circumstances of eleventh-century northern Europe,. I shall first focus on the development of St. Clement’s cult in the principality of Rus’, taking note of the authoritative standing of this prestigious papal martyr in Kyiv (Kiev) and of his relevance for the newly Christianized dynasty of Rus’, at the time it was looking for a protective patron.1 As we shall see, that example may have served as a model for the rulers of the Norwegian kingdom, some of whom knew Kyiv well. How, when, and why the cult of Clement then spread to Denmark and England are questions which will be considered towards the end of this chapter.
It is well known that St. Clement of Rome was a popular saint with the Danes.2 The spread of the cult of St. Clement in Denmark and Norway can be explained in part as a reflection of the need of polities and communities (which were new to Christianity) for a saintly figure who they hoped might help them realize their spiritual and political aspirations. In attempting to trace the growth of the cult in these countries and in England, primarily from the evidence of church dedications, my studies have examined the way in which several groups – namely political leaders, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the mercantile/trading classes, and fishing communities – looked to Clement as an apostolic patron with useful protective functions and impeccable credentials.3 The variable locations of churches dedicated to Clement suggest that this saint appealed to different populations for different reasons, so that, while the spread of the cult received an impetus from royal promotion, his appeal resonated more widely than could be explained had his cult simply been promulgated in royal circles (see Map 20.1).4
Map 20.1: Clement dedications in Northern Europe.
Nonetheless, Clement’s appeal to the royal dynasties of northern Europe is an important aspect of our understanding of the spread of his popularity, and Erik Cinthio has alerted historians and archaeologists to the special character of churches dedicated to Clement in Scandinavia and their possible link with Cnut the Great (1016–1035), king of England, Denmark, and Norway.5 To see how these dedications became coterminous with Cnut’s empire, let us begin with the cult in the principality of Rus’.
The Cult of St. Clement in Kyiv
First, we need to summarize the circumstances of the martyrdom of Pope Clement I (88–99), a successor to St. Peter, in order to understand why he might have appealed to the newly Christianized dynasties in Scandinavia.6 Clement was believed to have earned his martyr’s crown as a result of his death by drowning in the vicinity of Cherson in the Crimea, where he had been exiled during the Trajanic persecutions (100–117 CE) because of his success in converting some powerful members of the Roman administration. According to the later legends, he was forced to work in the marble quarries. However, he was so effective at converting his fellow quarry workers that he was condemned to death by drowning with an anchor round his neck.7 The anchor became the symbol of his martyrdom in localities where the saint was popular (see Figure 20.1).
Figure 20.1: Martyrdom of St. Clement by Bernardino Fungai (ca. 1500). © York Museums Trust (York Art Gallery).
The development of these traditions meant that Clement was considered to have protective powers for those whose lives exposed them to danger of drowning. Such protective powers were particularly relevant for rulers like the Norwegian and Danish kings, whose authority rested on domination of the northern waterways. Cnut was a “thalassocrat,” the historical “sea-king,” whose northern empire consisted of three joint kingdoms separated by wide stretches of turbulent sea: he had a fleet of sixty ships at his disposal, and a naval force of between two and three thousand. Clement, appropriately, could have been regarded as a suitable protector for him and his retinue and their ships when voyaging around the North Sea.
The martyred pope’s success in mission provided a further useful model for aspirational missionary kings, particularly Óláfr Tryggvason (r. ca. 995–1000) and Óláfr (later St. Óláfr) Haraldsson of Norway (ca. 1016–1030).8 Cnut’s aspirations to be ranked among the foremost leaders of Christian Europe also follow his program for Christianizing the Danes and establishing a Christian kingdom by building churches and appointing bishops. Clement’s reputation as a successful missionary has been seen to be reflected in the Homily written for the Feast of St. Clement by Abbot Ælfric of Eynsham (ca. 1000). This text has been interpreted by Joyce Hill as an attempt to strengthen Clement’s reputation as an “effective converter to the faith.”9 It affords good contemporary evidence that Clement was regarded as a model for those missionary kings who aimed to convert the pagans of their own day.
How the cult of St. Clement reached Europe and in what circumstances it was adopted are questions which have been discussed many times. The bringing of Clement’s relics to Rome in 867–868 by Constantine (later Cyril) and Methodius must have been an important causal factor in the growth and development of the cult in western Europe.10 As far as Scandinavia is concerned, however, the eastern route to the Black Sea and including Kyiv is likely to have been the route by which knowledge of the cult was transferred north. Because of the supposed location of Clement’s martyrdom in the Black Sea (or in the Sea of Azov), his cult became well established in the principality of Rus’. In 988, Prince Vladimir of Kyiv (r. 980–1015) was converted and received relics from the priests of Cherson, including the head of Clement. These helped in the mass baptism of the population of Kyiv, and they gave status to the young Christianized principality.11
Map 20.2: Route to Kyiv from Scandinavia via the Baltic.
There is a strong likelihood that the Norwegians Óláfr Tryggvason and Óláfr Haraldsson became very aware of the cult of this papal martyr when they visited Kyiv in the later tenth and early eleventh centuries, respectively. Kyiv was doubtless the source of their interest in the cult of Clement that each of them then took back north with him. The Óláfrs are two examples of the widely traveled Viking adventurers who sailed down the rivers of Russia to the Byzantine empire and stopped off at the Kyivan court, or so their sagas tell us.12 The first Óláfr was brought up at the court of Prince Vladimir from the age of nine, and he stayed there for nine years. According to Snorri Sturluson’s account in Heimskringla, Óláfr “hafði þar it mesta yfirlát” (had the best treatment there) from the king and “kærleik af dróttningu” (affection from the queen), while his role as chieftain of a well-equipped military force is also mentioned.13 The saga of Óláfr Tryggvason by Oddr Snorrason, written in a (now-lost) Latin original in the late twelfth century and translated into Icelandic in the thirteenth, says that Óláfr requested baptism in Greece, where he was then “prímsignaðr” (prime-signed).14 The composite Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta of ca. 1300 says of Óláfr that on returning to Norway from the British Isles in 997, “lét hann ok reisa Clemens kirk[iu]” (he had a church built for Clemens) at the royal residence in Trondheim, the main power base of the kingdom at this time (in Heimskringla his residence is named “Skipakrókr”).15 We do not know whether Óláfr took some relics of Clement back north with him from Kyiv, but he can hardly have failed to see the importance of the apostolic saint’s cult in the capital of Kyivan Rus’. Two generations later, the connection between the Norwegian kings and the court at Kyiv was continued when Óláfr Haraldsson sought refuge there after he was driven from Norway in 1028. This Óláfr is also credited with having founded a church in Trondheim which was dedicated to St. Clement.16 However, since this is said to have taken place immediately on his arrival in Norway to claim the kingdom there, from Normandy in 1016, perhaps he only refounded Óláfr Tryggvason’s church. Óláfr Haraldsson could have been influenced also by the veneration accorded to Clement in Rouen, where some accounts claim that he was baptized.17
The association of both these kings with the church dedicated to Clement in Trondheim, although it is found only in later saga accounts, suggests that each had a personal commitment to the saint as a powerful advocate of his own claim to power in Norway. The source of their belief in the effectiveness of Clement could have been the experience of the status of his cult: in the Kyivan principality, in the case of Óláfr Tryggvason; and in Normandy and England, in the case of Óláfr Haraldsson.18
The close association of the Norwegian dynasty with the Clement church in Trondheim is absolutely confirmed by its choice as the burial place of both Óláfr Haraldsson (d. 1030) and his son Magnús (d. 1047).19 In this respect it is important to note that Prince Vladimir and his wife were buried in 1015 in the Tithe Church in Kyiv, which Thietmar of Merseburg says was the church of Christ’s martyr, Pope Clement, where Clement’s head was enshrined. This head relic was an exceedingly important symbol of the Kyivan state’s independence from both Byzantium and Rome, and it was used later (in 1147) for the consecration of the metropolitan of Kyiv. On this occasion, with the head representing the required authority, Prince Izjaslav wanted the Kyivan bishops, rather than the patriarch of Constantinople, to officiate.20 Whether there were any relics in the church of St. Clement in Trondheim is unknown, but the parallel use of this saint’s church as a royal burial place is most probably modeled on the Kyivan example.
Map 20.3: Map of Kyiv (Kiev) in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries.
Furthermore, the sarcophagi of Vladimir and his wife were said by Thietmar to be “palam stantibus” (displayed openly) in the Tithe Church. It has been suggested that this situation can be compared with the 1031 translation of Óláfr Haraldsson in Trondheim after his death at the battle of Stiklestad in 1030: “Var þá líkami konungs borinn inn í Clemenskirkju ok veittr umbúnaðr yfir háaltari. Var kistan sveipð pelli ok tjaldat allt guðvefjum” (Then the king’s body was carried in into Clemenskirkja and set up before the high altar. The coffin was wrapped in precious cloth and all hung with velvet).21 The bodies of both rulers, Vladimir and St. Óláfr, were apparently made accessible and visible to visitors.22 The similar patterns of display for both revered, deceased rulers may suggest a connection, indicating some knowledge in Norway of the ritual observed in Kyiv. The church of St. Clement in this city was the burial place of Prince Vladimir and his wife, and the cult of St. Clement was a powerful adjunct to the prestige and status of their princely house. It is worth noting that Cnut’s half-English son Sveinn (for Swegen) was in authority in Norway at the time, and that both he and his mother, Ælfgifu (or Alfiva), were present at the translation ceremony of St. Óláfr’s remains to St. Clement’s Church in Trondheim.23
The St. Clement Churches in Trondheim and Oslo
The location of the churches dedicated to St. Clement in northern Europe is usually an important indicator of their significance. The location of such a church in a power centre, or close to the ruler’s residence, is a strong indication that it was founded by the ruler, who used the cult of the papal martyr as an adjunct to his own power.24 If the church is at the heart of the commercial quarter, we can assume that it was the church of sailors or merchant-traders. In many cases such locations are close to harbours or rivers, which were the main highways of the period.25
Map 20.4: Map of Trondheim, Norway, showing the location of St. Clement’s Church (KLEMENS KIRKE) close by the royal residence and warf (Kongs Gaard og Brygge) at the time of Olafr Haraldsson (1016–28). Based on Blom (1956), 228.
The former location of St. Clement’s, Trondheim, is therefore significant. Although the church no longer exists, the site is known to have been close to the royal estate which was established at the trading center founded on the banks of the River Nid. This river leads out into the seaways of the inner sailing route along the Norwegian coast.26 St. Clement’s was the very first church in Óláfr Tryggvason’s newly founded trading centre, and the saint’s protective powers for those sailing on the northern European seas certainly became an important basis of the cult. Protecting the royal dynasty, however, was probably the prime purpose behind the transmission of the cult and the founding of this church. Its location near the royal residence clearly indicates the importance of the cult to the ruling dynasty.
Another important early Clement church in Norway was in the medieval town of Oslo. This trading center in the south-eastern part of the country is believed to have been founded by Óláfr Haraldsson’s younger half-brother, King Haraldr harðráði (“harsh ruler”) Sigurðarson (r. 1046–1066), in ca. 1050. The surviving remains of the twelfth-century stone church are still very impressive, and also impressive is the archaeological evidence for a burial ground around St. Clements, which has been dated to the early eleventh century.27 These earliest burials are on a different alignment from those of the twelfth century and were perhaps associated with a timber church which predated the stone one. As finds, the burials and the traces of the timber church are very significant for the earliest urban settlement in the locality, and they are evidence for the earliest Christianization of the population in the district round Oslofjord, the fjord which connects southern Norway with Denmark. However, this Clement church is 150 m away from the royal residence at Kongsgården in Oslo, so its association with the political authority is not as clearly suggested by physical proximity as is the case in Trondheim. One suggestion is that the church might have been founded by King Haraldr Bluetooth of the neighboring Danish kingdom to the south.28 He had brought Viken under his control in the 970s and 980s and is also said to have imposed Christianity. This suggestion is not completely implausible, since Haraldr’s was the first generation of Danish rulers to be converted and to impose the new religion in the Danish kingdom. On the other hand, the revised dates established by carbon-14 analysis of skeletal material do not indicate that this was a church founded by Haraldr Bluetooth. Nor is it likely in any case that Haraldr Bluetooth would have dedicated his foundation church to St. Clement. As we will see, there is no evidence that any church dedicated to Clement was in existence in Denmark until the 1030s. The early Danish kings are unlikely to have been influenced by the cult in Kyiv, where they never ventured. It is more likely that the St. Clement’s church in Oslo was another early foundation by one of the Norwegian kings, albeit by one unknown, since the archaeological evidence indicates no more than an approximate date of its foundation in the very late tenth or early eleventh century.
Map 20.5: Site of St. Clements in Gamlebyen, Oslo, ca. 1300.
St. Clement’s Cult in Denmark
The Danish kingdom consisted of a cluster of islands on the eastern side of the North Sea and the peninsula of Skåne, controlling access to the Baltic. As the map shows, the concentration of churches dedicated to St. Clement in Denmark is quite dense (at least twenty-six churches, from Slesvig east to the province of Skåne in modern-day Sweden), whereas there are only five such churches, and one chapel, in Norway, and only one possible medieval example in Sweden. This list does not include the island of Gotland, which was an independent commonwealth until taken by the Danes in the twelfth century, which is probably when the Clement church in Visby was founded as a merchants’ church close to the harbour. The disparity between Denmark and rest of Scandinavia in numbers of St. Clement churches requires an explanation. It shows that the cult spread to Denmark (from Norway or England or both) and took firm root there in the early Danish urban settlements where Clement became a popular saint. Urban development was a marked feature of Denmark in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, whereas there was little in Norway apart from in Trondheim and Oslo, at least before Bergen was founded at the end of the eleventh century. Sweden came late in the history of Christianization in the north, and conversion proceeded slowly. By the time churches were being built there, the cult of Clement had passed the peak of its popularity and St. Nicholas of Myra was taking over the saintly role of the seamen’s protector.
Map 20.6: Early urban centres in Denmark with Clement churches.
Churches Dedicated to St. Clement in Denmark
The main problem in associating the churches dedicated to St. Clement with either a political or a mercantile initiative is that we can rarely establish the date at which these churches were founded. For our study of the cult of Clement in northern Europe, Denmark is very important, for the number of dedications is striking, as noted above. There is, fortunately, one church in Denmark for which the date of foundation can be established by evidence, and that is St. Jørgensbjerg church in Roskilde (on Sjælland or Zealand), originally dedicated to St. Clement. Its date indicates an association with the period of Cnut’s rule.
At this point, we should provide some political background to the relationship of the kingdoms of Denmark, Norway, and England in the early eleventh century, as the spread of the cult of Clement can perhaps be seen to be linked with the political situation of the time. The most notable feature of the period was the success of Cnut in conquering England in 1015–1016, followed some years later by his conquest of the kingdom of Norway in 1028. This made him the most powerful ruler of a North Sea “Empire,” and the fostering of the cult of Clement in his homeland was probably an adjunct to Cnut’s “imperial” authority. Denmark was a newly converted Christian kingdom, and the cults of the established saints of the Christian church may have been introduced by the clerical advisers whom the king brought with him from England, which he ruled as a model Christian king after his conquest in 1016. We certainly know that some other saints were introduced from England.29
It is likely that St. Clement was regarded as a desirable protector for the newly converted Danish dynasty. There are three aspects to his cult which help to provide an explanation for his popularity with Cnut. The first was the inestimable value of papal authority for a newly Christianized dynasty seeking to enhance its status in the wider world of Christian kings and princes. The transfer of Clement’s relics to Rome in the late ninth century brought his physical presence to western Europe, with the result that his cult was widely publicized. He was the only pontif, with Peter, who could be claimed as apostolic, with the added enhancement of martyrdom.
Second, we know that Cnut had imperial pretensions, particularly after his participation in the coronation of Emperor Conrad in Rome in 1027, when he also visited Pope John XIX. As a result, the northern king achieved a new, elevated status in the world of Christian rulers, stimulating his desire to adopt a prestigious saint as protector of his dynasty. Unfortunately, we do not know whether Cnut was given, or whether he acquired, any relics of Clement during this visit, although he does write in his letter to the English people that he was honored “donis pretiosis” (with precious gifts) from the pope and the emperor.30 It is fairly certain that the church of San Clemente, where the relics were enshrined, would have been one of the sacred places he visited. Once he had returned north, the adoption of this papal martyr as an especially prestigious patron would fit well with the enhanced conception of his authority which certain factors indicate he promoted.31
The third aspect of the cult is the element of competition that may have played a part in the adoption of Clement’s cult by the Danish dynasty as a result of the enmity between Kings Cnut and Óláfr Haraldsson of Norway. As we have seen, the cult had already been established, or reestablished, by this Óláfr after Óláfr Tryggvason’s initial foundation of the Clement church in Trondheim. It would be very difficult to reject the saga evidence for the founding of the church in Trondheim by these kings, just as there is no doubting the founding of churches dedicated to Clement in many more places in Denmark, one of which, at Roskilde, dates from the reign of Cnut. Yet the two dynasties were rivals, and Óláfr Haraldsson was defeated and killed at the battle of Stiklestad by Danish forces and disaffected Norwegians. Cnut presented himself successfully as a triumphant alternative to the Norwegian dynasty, and his son Sveinn (along with Ælfgifu, Sveinn’s English mother) was given power in Norway. So how did it happen that Clement, the favorite saint of the Norwegian kings (the two Óláfrs), was adopted as a saint by the rival Danes? The answer may lie in “contesting patronage,” the phenomenon of competing factions each striving to control a cult for its own purpose.32 It has been shown that the Anglo-Danish dynasty actually took up and promoted the cult of the martyred Óláfr Haraldsson, despite the fact that he was killed in battle against Cnut’s Danish forces in Norway in 1030.33 The same phenomenon may be at work in the adoption of the cult of the Norwegian kings’ protective saint by their enemies and conquerors.
This phenomenon could explain the apparently contradictory situation in which the dominant political power does not suppress the cult of a saint which had been promoted by its victim, but actually takes over as the promoter of that cult. Danish success in the contest with Óláfr Haraldsson may have been taken as an indication that Clement had transferred his support from the Norwegian to the Danish dynasty, so that he could justifiably be regarded as the protector saint of the Danes. The date of the founding of the church in Roskilde, 1030–1035, corresponds so closely with the date of Olaf’s defeat at Stiklestad, and with the Danish victory over the Norwegians, that it is tempting to propose a causal link between the victory in battle and the foundation of St. Clement’s church in Roskilde. This place was the seat of power of Danish kings, according to Adam of Bremen, who calls it “sedes regum Danorum” (seat of the kings of the Danes).34
Map 20.7: Map of Roskilde Showing Site of St. Clement’s Church.
Nonetheless, the location of the church in Roskilde at a distance from the royal estate (in contrast to the Clement church in Trondheim, which was close to the royal estate in that city) suggests that this church may have been founded primarily for the retinues of the Anglo-Danish king, and moreover, close to the harbor where the royal fleet would be berthed. There were many groups of professional warriors, minters, craftsmen, and ecclesiastical personnel, who were accustomed to accompanying their king to and fro across the North Sea in the period of combined rule of his three kingdoms, and who would need their own place of worship. Perhaps St. Clement’s in Roskilde was founded with their interests in mind. Certainly, the style of architecture and the stone construction of this church point to English influence.35 Whatever the purpose of the founding of this church, there are many reasons to see it as a royal foundation reflecting the political and military contacts across the North Sea, which were such an important part of Cnut’s maintenance of power at this time.
Figure 20.2: View of St. Clement’s from Roskilde Harbour, and North Doorway.
Maritime Links: Churches in England
The geographical situation of all these politically important Clement churches in Norway and Denmark both points to the maritime lifestyles of the powerful and indicates how important the sea routes were in the maintenance of power. All the urban churches in Scandinavia are located by harbours, with the exception of Lund, in Skåne, which, although an important power center in this period, is found in an inland location. Clement’s proximity to sea-routes raises the important issue of his association with seafarers, for whom his protective powers became the most enduring aspect of his cult in northern Europe. This may be one reason why his cult became so popular in Denmark, whose political and commercial life revolved around sea voyages. If we turn to England, it is notable that most of the urban churches dedicated to Clement in that country are also in locations close to sea routes and waterways.
Map 20.8: Urban churches dedicated to St. Clement in England.
There is no doubt that Clement’s cult was already well established in England by the eighth century, as his feast is included in the Martyrology of Bede (ca. 673–735), with details about his martyrdom and the discovery of his body in a stone coffin, with his anchor nearby, when the sea receded.36 The date of his feast is listed in late eighth- and ninth-century calendars, which mention miraculous legends associated with his burial place, and the miracle of the fountain of spring water which Clement caused to gush forth from a rock for the benefit of the workers in the Cherson marble quarries. The Old English Martyrology, of a late ninth-century date, gives an account of his martyrdom under the date of his feast day (November 23), as well as details of the miracle of the child who was trapped at the saint’s tomb when the sea flooded around the island, but who was restored alive to his mother the next year when the waters receded.37 A verse Menologium of ca. 1000 gives an explicit reference to Clement’s death by drowning, implying that he provided protection from drowning for those who prayed to him.38
It is noticeable that the preponderance of the Clement dedications in England, no fewer than thirty-four, were located north of the River Thames, and in close association with the area settled by the Danish immigrants in the ninth and tenth centuries. Unfortunately, it is very difficult indeed to pin down the date of the foundation of most of these churches. In some cases, notwithstanding, there is an explicit link with the Danes, such as the name “St. Clement Danes” (“ecclesia Dacorum”) in London, a term which can be traced back to the twelfth century. There is also a remarkable association with the major boroughs (or burhs, Anglo-Saxon urban foundations) in the Danelaw. Every one of the major Danelaw boroughs has a St. Clement church, which is often in close association with waterways, either harbours, rivers, or estuaries, and sometimes located close by a major bridge or river crossing. This association tells us that these churches were founded by, and for, those who voyaged overseas. Since these churches are all on the east-coast rivers, or on the east coast, it also tells us that those journeys would have been across the North Sea, above all to Denmark and Norway. On the one hand, it is not possible to define whether these churches date to the period of Danish settlement of the first Viking Age in the ninth and tenth centuries, or to the period of Cnut’s conquest of England and the creation of the Anglo-Danish North-Sea empire in the early eleventh century. Only excavation will prove the date of the foundation of these churches; so far there have been no excavations conducted at any of the English sites of Clement churches. On the other hand, the Scandinavian association with St. Clement is strong. It is likely not only that some of his churches at least date to the period before Cnut’s conquest, but also that his reign increased the popularity of this saint whose special property was the protection of seafarers from the danger of drowning.
One striking feature of the distribution of churches dedicated to Clement in the British Isles is that there are very few in Scotland, and none in Wales or Ireland, apart from one in Dublin. Other examples exist in the south and west of England, but of the overall number of his churches in England, which stands at fifty-two, as many as thirty-four were founded or dedicated north of the River Thames and predominantly in the southern Danelaw region. The absence of churches in the Celtic countries certainly suggests that Clement’s cult was not deeply embedded in these communities (although his name appears in some of the early Irish martyrologies).39 This disparity in the location of churches in the different parts of Britain is reflected in the Scandinavian distribution (already referred to), where the churches are predominantly located in Denmark (or former Danish territory), but sparse in Norway and almost absent from medieval Sweden. The link with the Danes on both sides of the North Sea is striking. In general terms, one can be sure that the cult existed in England before the Viking Age and was taken up with enthusiasm by the Danes once they had been converted. One can likewise be sure that this was the period when St. Clement’s cult spread among the urban communities of eastern England, because of the close contact with Denmark across the North Sea. As already discussed, the attraction of the cult of St. Clement to Cnut’s dynasty suggests that there was a political element in the choice of this papal martyr as a saint worth cultivating – and worth taking over from the defeated Norwegians.
In the eleventh century, when connections across the North Sea between the three kingdoms of England, Denmark, and Norway were constant, and the knowledge of Clement’s significance was transferred with the political regimes, it seems that this saint’s effectiveness extended to protection for those who voyaged across the seas. Eventually this became the most significant aspect of the cult for the populations who lived in coastal communities, whose circumstances exposed them to the danger of drowning. Exactly when and where this aspect of the cult developed is an issue which needs further exploration, for it does not appear to be a feature of Clement’s cult in the principality of Kyiv. Nonetheless, it is true of Scandinavia. Some of the Clement churches in Denmark were closely associated with royal estates and their significance was particularly political.40 Cinthio argued that if they were also near the harbours, this was because of the lifestyle of the politically important. Once the Anglo-Danish world of Cnut’s dynasty collapsed and England and Denmark went in separate political directions, the churches which had possibly been founded in strategic situations for the sea voyages of the rulers and their retinues became more closely associated with the merchant communities and seafarers in general. Clement’s popularity remained high among the coastal urban communities and spread into rural areas in both England and Denmark.
St. Clement Danes and Other Churches in England
In England, as already noted, it is very difficult to know when the Clement churches were founded, and particularly so to know whether they date from before the Norman Conquest or after it.41 However, with regard to the famous church of St. Clement Danes on the Strand in London, we have some evidence that it did indeed exist in the time of Anglo-Danish rule. Located west of the City of London on the main route to Westminster, the strategic position of this church may be an indication of its military significance. The early association with the Danish community is quite clear, as we have seen, from the name “ecclesia Dacorum” (church of the Danes) recorded in the twelfth century. There is also the interesting story that it became the burial place of Harold Harefoot, second son of Cnut by Ælfgifu, who took power in England on his father’s death in 1035. Harold reigned for only five years; after his death and burial at Westminster, according to John of Worcester, his half-brother Harthacnut had his body disinterred and thrown into the River Thames, from where it was recovered and taken for burial to the Danes’ cemetery.42 This record of the burial of Harold Harefoot, in what is presumed to be the burial ground of St. Clement’s on the Strand, is rather important for our understanding of the saint’s association with the Anglo-Danish dynasty.
The possible military or naval connection needs to be explored further when seeking to understand the significance of Clement’s association with the Danish dynasty. This raises the issue of “garrison churches” which, it has been postulated, were connected with the churches dedicated to Scandinavian saints in London, and particularly with churches dedicated to St. Olave or Óláfr Haraldsson.43 Of course, these churches must postdate 1030, when Óláfr died at the battle of Stiklastaðir (Stiklestad), after which his fame as a martyr spread quickly, resulting in the remarkable number of six churches dedicated to him in London. These churches are linked to strategic positions near the walls and gates, as well as the waterfront. In addition, Pamela Nightingale suggested that St. Clement Danes and St. Bride’s, on the road to Westminster and near the River Thames, may also have been associated with encampments of troops close to their ships, in the years after Cnut’s conquest when London was a city under military occupation. There is no doubt that London was used as an important naval base during the reign of Æthelred II, and also by the Danish kings who continued to use London as the chief base for their hired fleet of Scandinavian mercenaries, the liðsmenn (lithsmen) paid for by the heavy gelds which were exacted.44 It was a mobile, naval force, originating in the forty ships’ crews which Cnut retained in 1017 as a force for conquering the rest of England and securing his authority over his North Sea empire. Such a force would need its own base, and a band of liðsmenn was based in London; “þa liðsmen on Lunden” (the men of the fleet in London) are said to have supported Harold Harefoot to be Cnut’s successor in 1035.45 The association of these troops with St. Clement’s is evident from the report that Harald’s body, having been recovered from the Thames in 1040, was taken to the Danes and buried in their cemetery. These would have been Danes who had been his supporters in the succession crisis of 1035, and who can therefore be seen to have had St. Clement’s church as their religious centre. This is circumstantial evidence for St. Clement Danes having functioned as a “garrison church” for the period of the Danish rule, until the naval force was dismissed by Edward the Confessor in 1049–1050 and the heregeld (army-tax) abolished in 1051. For more than thirty years this naval force would have needed a riverine base in London for the security of its fleet, along with its own church. The location of St. Clement’s church on the Strand provided them with an anchoring place and a supply base, as well as access to the interior of England via the Thames, especially to Oxford, which was an important meeting-place for the regulation of the conquered country. There was also a St. Clement’s Church in Oxford, one located by the River Cherwell, which flows into the Thames. The important assemblies which were held in Oxford in 1015, 1018, and 1035 would have been attended by the liðsmenn, particularly in 1035 when the succession dispute was settled, and when Harold Harefoot was elected as “regent” by all the councilors and the liðsmenn of London. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that these liðsmenn also had their own “garrison church” as part of their naval base on the river in Oxford; if so, that church might be identified with St. Clement’s.46
There are many other St. Clement churches in England, located in important maritime or riverine locations suitably placed for naval establishments, such as the ports on the south coast, or in Kent, like Rochester and Sandwich. The latter port (the battle station for the Anglo-Saxon fleet) was where Edward the Confessor attended mass in St. Clement’s Church when reviewing the fleet in 1042.47 London, Oxford, and Sandwich are the most likely locations for “garrison churches” and the founding of a St. Clement church in all three ports points to the possible role of these churches in the military strategies of both the Anglo-Saxon and the Anglo-Danish regimes.48 There are other important strategic urban locations in East Anglia, like Norwich, where St. Olave and St. Clement churches coexist on the River Wensum. There were two St. Clement churches in Norwich, as also in Lincoln.
Cnut’s Church of St. Clement’s in Roskilde and “the Machinery of Control”
It has already been noted that St. Jørgensbjerg church in Roskilde, originally dedicated to St. Clement, was located by the harbor in a way that suggests its function as the church founded for the use of seafarers, or for members of the royal Anglo-Danish retinue. These would be constantly voyaging between Denmark and England from the period of Cnut’s invasion and conquest of England through the reigns of his sons, until the demise of the dynasty in 1042. There were also soldiers, craftsmen, and clergy, as we have seen, in whose interests St. Clement’s in Roskilde may have been founded: the style of architecture and the stone construction of St. Clement’s points to English influence, even if the church was not constructed by an Anglo-Saxon master builder and his masons.49 Its stone construction indicates “that it was prestigious, and had extremely wealthy patrons.”50 One could extrapolate from this assessment to make similar comments about the dedication to Clement. Whatever the purpose of the founding of this church, there are many reasons to see it as a royal foundation reflecting the political and military contacts across the North Sea which were such an important part of Cnut’s maintenance of his power at this time. Cnut’s ships’ crews formed a mobile fleet which could be deployed anywhere in his maritime empire, and they would have needed bases in both of his kingdoms. The church of St. Clement’s could have been founded in the Danish half of his empire with their interests in mind. Clement’s powers of protection for those engaged in frequently traversing the North Sea would be a very relevant consideration in the choice of patron saint for this church, located at the dynasty’s Danish power base.
Fortunately, we are able to pinpoint its foundation date closely, as a hoard of coins was discovered during excavations in the 1950s, located in the foundations of the tower. It was probably deposited as a foundation offering and can be assigned to the years 1030–1035.51 This date links the church’s foundation with the reign of Cnut the Great, king of Denmark, England, and Norway in those years. We can less confidently assign the term “garrison church” to this St. Clement’s foundation, considering that it was constructed close to the dynastic power base in Cnut’s home country. But we can probably regard it as one element of Cnut’s “machinery of control” which, it has been suggested, was put into operation by the Anglo-Danish king in western and central Denmark.52 This would be the date of the incorporation of Clement as a saintly protector of the dynasty and its naval storm-troopers following the defeat of Óláfr Haraldsson and the conquest of Norway in 1030. As has already been elaborated, it seems logical to see the adoption of Clement at Roskilde at this date as a result of contesting the patronage of this prestigious papal martyr with the defeated Norwegian royal dynasty which had imported the cult from Kyiv, and which had already built churches dedicated to him in their own urban power centres. Such a politically ambitious move may have been encouraged, if not initiated, by the English churchmen who were active in Cnut’s power structures. With regard to Roskilde, Gerbrand, consecrated bishop of Roskilde before 1022, was one of these powerful ecclesiastics who operated on both sides of the North Sea.53 The English churchmen would have been familiar with Clement’s role as protector of seamen, as his cult was long-established in England.
In conclusion, the evidence for Roskilde’s importance in Cnut’s political control of his own kingdom is undoubted, and the role of Clement as protector at the harbor church in this royal power center is surely significant. We can still see the situation as comparable in some way with that of St. Clement’s in the Strand in London.54 The latter church was, of course, in a country governed by an alien dynasty which needed to maintain its position with military and naval forces. The use of a somewhat anachronistic term like “garrison chapel” to define the role of these churches is unnecessary, and in the case of Roskilde probably inappropriate, but it does focus attention on their possible function in Cnut’s maritime empire and in his “machinery of control.” Disparate though the bits of evidence are, it cannot be denied that the evidence for the burial of Cnut’s son Harold Harefoot in St. Clement’s in the Strand provides support for the hypothesis that this Clement church was significant among the Anglo-Danish dynasty’s ritual locations. It suggests that St. Clement may have had a role as the skytshelgen, the “protective saint” of members of the dynasty and its entourages, military and administrative.
General Popularity of the Cult in the Twelfth Century
From this high point in the eleventh century, when the cult of St. Clement was patronized by the powerful elites in Norway, England, and Denmark, we move forward into an era when the saint became popular with the wider population, for his churches are found in rural areas in eastern and central England and throughout Denmark. In many cases it is apparent that his popularity spread out from a particular urban power center with a Clement church into the surrounding countryside. The continuing close link with waterways, fishing communities, and locations prone to flooding gives a strong impression that it was Clement’s protective powers where the danger of drowning was a concern that made him so popular. The symbol of his death by drowning – the anchor – which was the means by which he gained a martyr’s crown, is a well-established attribute in northern Europe. The anchor’s firm association with safety for mariners in danger of drowning tells us clearly that Clement was regarded as the patron saint of seafarers.55
Figure 20.3: Altar panel from Skjærvøy, Troms, Norway (after 1500), showing St. Clement with his papal tiara, holding papal cross and anchor (Oslo Universitets Oldsaksamling).
Another aspect of Clement’s cult associates his name with wells or springs. This reflects the story in the Acta about the miracle when he caused a fountain or spring to pour out of a rock to quench the thirst of his converts in the Crimea.56 Other associations developed in England do not seem to have a direct connection with any of the legends; these are with blacksmiths, wiremongers, and iron-founders, which have lasted up to recent times. It is possible that the association with ironworking may reflect the blacksmith’s craft and the production of the metal anchor which was Clement’s attribute. The company of ironfounders had Clement as their patron. Blacksmiths, in particular, held celebrations on St. Clement’s Day, when they “fired” their anvils with gunpowder, and it may be this practice which led to his being considered a protector from thunderstorms in Germany. In this way, the cult of St. Clement was many-sided, and we have to see him as a saint who met the need of different sectors of medieval society at different times. But he particularly supplied the aspiring newly-Christianized rulers of Norway and Denmark with valuable strength and support. Cnut and his sons were undoubtedly aware of this aspect of the cult.
Conclusion: Patron of an Empire
Can it be concluded that Clement was also the skytshelgen (protecting saint) of Cnut and his dynasty? In a general sense, probably yes, in that this apostolic martyr provided powerful support for dynasties engaged in power struggles, whose especial concern was for those involved in sea travel. Erik Cinthio’s study of the cult of Cnut shows that some of the Danish churches can be shown to date to the reign of Cnut, and that their specific location in the towns sometimes indicates an association with royal estate. Accepting Cinthio’s conclusion about the “political significance” of the cult does not mean, however, that we should downplay Clement’s effectiveness as a protector for all members of these societies who had maritime lifestyles exposing them to danger in their watery worlds.57
From being associated with the elites of the newly converted Scandinavian world in Norway and Denmark, Clement’s cult spread to a wider section of the population in Denmark and in England, but did not spread so far in Norway. The saint’s long-standing association with coastal communities and with seafarers meant that his churches became indelibly linked with seamen and fishermen, and their geographical location at harbours gave continuity to this association. This aspect is the one which is familiar today, while the earlier political significance of Clement’s cult is little known. He was rivaled in his role as the seafarer’s saint by Nicholas, whose cult rose to prominence in the twelfth century after his relics were brought to Bari in Southern Italy from Myra in 1079. Indeed, Clement was overtaken by Nicholas, who became very popular indeed – and whose cult was patronized by the kings and aristocratic members of Scandinavian society.58
Knowledge of Clement’s cult has suffered from the poorly documented situation regarding almost all his churches, and the lack of historical sources from the late tenth and early eleventh century. The far-reaching contacts of the Vikings and Varangians with the center of Clement’s cult in Kyiv and the links with Cherson are only dimly recorded in the sagas, and the sagas have suffered from too much skeptical criticism in the past century. It is time that we recognized the value of this information and listened to what the saga-writers are telling us.59 The maritime empire of Cnut’s dynasty did not last long and the important political role of Clement’s cult in that Anglo-Danish world was fleeting. The evidence that we have suggests that his cult was an important adjunct to the power of that dynasty, difficult though this is to prove. Further research – in particular, more archaeological research – will help to firm up our knowledge of the significant role of the cult of St. Clement in northern Europe in the early eleventh century.
Notes
1
This aspect was explored at a conference commemorating Clement’s martyrdom in Cherson (Sebastopol) in Crawford, “Cult of St. Clement in North Europe.”
2
The study of the cult of Clement in Scandinavia was initiated by Erik Cinthio’s seminal “The Churches of St. Clemens” (1968). His researches were broadened by my own project on the cult in Scandinavia and England, in Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England.
3
Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, Section 1.3.2.
4
Cinthio’s study of the Clement churches stresses their significance in relation to centers of political power, in “The Churches of St. Clemens,” 112, 113. See my summary of this aspect of his study, in Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, Introduction, 1.2.
5
Cinthio, “The Churches of St. Clemens.”
6
Clement was the fourth bishop of Rome, although sometimes regarded as the direct successor to Peter in the apostolic succession, as it was claimed he had been consecrated pope by Peter himself. See Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 29.
7
Traditions about his supposed martyrdom arose in the late fourth and fifth centuries and are recorded in the apocryphal “Clementine literature,” as well as the sixth-century Latin passio. For the sources, see Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 30.
8
Haki Antonsson, “Early Cult of Saints,” 21.
9
Hill, “Ælfric’s Homily,” 105.
10
Hofmann, Die Legende von Sankt Clemens, 144–49.
11
Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 35, citing Cinthio, “The Churches of St. Clemens,” 112; Hofmann, Die Legende von Sankt Clemens, 173; Shchapov, “The Assimilation,” 59.
12
There were other instances of close ties between the Norwegian royal dynasty and the princes of Kyivan Rus’ in the eleventh century. See Haki Antonsson, “The Cult of St. Olaf,” 150).
13
Heimskringla I, ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, 251. English translation from Heimskringla, trans. Finlay and Faulkes, I, 155.
14
Óláfs Saga eptir Odd Munk, ed. Ólafur Halldórsson, 164 (chap. 13).
15
Óláfs saga Tryggvasonar en mesta, ed. Ólafur Halldórsson, I, 369.
16
Heimskringla II: Óláfs Saga Helga, ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, 70 (chap. 53). Heimskringla: Óláfr Haraldsson, trans. Finlay and Faulkes, II, 43.
17
For evidence of the importance of St. Clement’s status at the ducal court, and for Óláfr’s close connections with the ducal power centre, and for his baptism in Rouen, see Crawford, “Churches to St. Clement in Norway,” 113–14, and Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 18, 193–95, 196.
18
See Garipzanov, “The Journey of St. Clement’s Cult,” 372: “it is possible that the dissemination of this cult in early Christian Scandinavia was influenced by different regions simultaneously.”
19
Heimskringla II: Óláfs Saga Helga, ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, 270 (chap. 244). Heimskringla III, ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, 107 (chap. 30).
20
Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 35.
21
Heimskringla II: Óláfs Saga Helga, ed. Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, 270 (chap. 244). Heimskringla: Óláfr Haraldsson, trans. Finlay and Faulkes, II, 270.
22
Garipzanov, “The Journey of St. Clements Cult,” 373.
23
Haki Antonsson, “The Cult of St. Olaf,” 143.
24
Cinthio called these “royal estate churches,” in “The Churches of St. Clemens,” 111.
25
This is a feature of the later development of the cult, according to the subjective choice of a protector-saint. See Cinthio, who follows German “patrozinien-research,” in “The Churches of St. Clemens,” 111.
26
Lunde, Trondheims Fortid, fig. 136. Recent excavations have uncovered the remains of four churches on the site, the earliest of which dates back to the late tenth or early eleventh century. See: www.niku.no/projeskter/Klemenskirken/.
27
Recent calibration of the skeletal material has given a more precise estimation of the burial dates to 995–1000/1028. See Nordeide and Gulliksen, “First Generation Christians,” 22–23.
28
Schia, Oslo innerst i Viken. Crawford, “Churches to St. Clement in Norway,” 109.
29
Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 15, 25, 57. See also Haug in this volume, pp. 383–92.
30
Gesetze der Angelsachsen, ed. Liebermann, I, 276 (Cn 1027, 5). EHD 1, no. 53.
31
Bolton, Empire of Cnut the Great, 296–303.
32
This explanation of the circumstances of the adoption of Clement’s cult in Denmark is explored in Crawford, “The Cult of Clement in Denmark,” 274, and Churches to St. Clement in Medieval England, 25–28.
33
Townend, in “Like Father, like Son?,” 476, also demonstrates how “one of Cnut’s strategies in the establishment of his rule in England was to patronize the cults of English saints.” In “Knútr and the Cult of St. Óláfr,” 264, he shows how competing factions each try to control a cult “for their own political purposes.”
34
Gesta Hammburgensis, ed. Schmeidler, 50 (I.l). See also North in this volume, p. 282.
35
Crawford, “The Cult of Clement in Denmark,” 249.
36
Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 38–39.
37
Old English Martyrology, ed. and trans. Rauer, 219.
38
Lapidge, “The Saintly Life,” 249.
39
Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 43–44.
40
Cinthio (“The Churches of St. Clemens”) examines the location of churches dedicated to St. Clement in Scandinavia and the political significance of their location close to royal power centres in many instances.
41
Clement was well known to the Normans, and a chapel in Rouen, close to the ducal Donjon, on the River Seine can be dated certainly no later than 1025 and possibly as early as 1006. See Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 194–95.
42
EHD 1, 317. The Danes’ burial ground was said by Ralph of Diceto in the late twelfth century to be “apud Sanctum Clementem” (by St. Clement’s). See Works of Ralph de Diceto, ed. Stubbs, I, 185 (Abbreviationes chronicorum, s.a. 1040).
43
Crawford, in Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 60–61, discusses Nightingale’s theories of garrison churches in London in the period of Danish rule, in Nightingale, “Origin of the Court of Husting,” 578. Recently the garrison theory has been reconsidered in connection with the churches and chapels dedicated to St. Clement and St. Olave in South Conesford, Norwich. See Shelley, “South Conesford, Norwich.” See also Reynolds in this volume, pp. 53–55, 61.
44
Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 64–65.
45
ASC (E), ed. Irvine, 76 (s.a. 1036 [for 1035]).
46
However, the earliest historical evidence for the existence of the St. Clement’s church in Oxford dates from the early twelfth century. Archaeological material recovered on an island in the river in the late nineteenth century, during dredging works on the River Cherwell, includes metal objects with cavalry connections which date from the late tenth or early eleventh century and hint at a military establishment in this location or possibly at a late pagan equestrian burial. See Blair and Crawford, “A Late-Viking Burial at Oxford?,” 135–42, and Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 88–89.
47
Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 72: Gatch, “Miracles in Architectural Settings,” 229. The recent study of Sandwich by Clarke, Sweetinburgh, and Jones (Sandwich, 25–29) discusses the significance of St. Clement’s Church in the early development of the port (late tenth or early eleventh century).
48
The possibility that Æthelred had been the founder of some of the St. Clement churches, as part of his naval strategy, is suggested in Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 74, 205.
49
Crawford, “The Cult of Clement in Denmark,” 249, citing Andersen and Nielsen, “En Stormannsgård”; Roesdahl, Viking Age Denmark; and Ulriksen, “Sct Jørgensbjerg Kirke.”
50
Bolton, Empire of Cnut the Great, 171.
51
For details and references, see Crawford, “The Cult of Clement in Denmark,” 248.
52
Bolton, Empire of Cnut the Great, chap. 7.
53
Bolton, Empire of Cnut the Great, 178.
54
Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 67.
55
Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 52–53.
56
Crawford, Churches dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England, 54–55.
57
Cinthio was seemingly unaware of the significance of the position of Clement churches in locations prone to flooding. Hofmann, Die Legende von Sankt Clemens, 171, mentions this geographically important aspect of Clement’s role as protector.
58
Crawford, Northern Earldoms, 212–13. A reference in the lai of Eliduc, dating from the mid- to late twelfth century, shows the equivalence of Clement and Nicholas at that time as protectors in stormy seas. They are both invoked during Eliduc’s sea voyage with his lady Guilliadun from Totnes to France, when the ship’s mast breaks and splits and the sail is completely torn. However, they reach harbor safely. See The Lais of Marie de France, trans. and ed. Burgess and Busby, 121.
59
See Bolton in the Epilogue.